Talk:Love/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Unsectioned comments

One direction this article could go in is to quote the Jerry Reed song, "A Thing Called Love":

"You can't see it with your eyes; hold it in your hand; But like the wind that covers our land; Strong enough to rule the heart of any man, This thing called love. It can lift you up; never let you down; Take your world and turn it all around. Ever since time nothing's ever been found, That's stronger than love."

Or: "Love, love, love. Love, love, love. Love, love, love. All you need is Love. Love is all you need."

--The Beatles

---

Maybe it's because love is hard to define exactly (honestly, I look at the commitment/passion crap and think it's terrible, but I can't improved upon it), as with all emotions. It must be different for everyone. We all know what plastic is, where it comes from, how we use it, who invented it etc... etc..., but who the hell knows exactly what love is!? It's one of those mystic, cosmic, cool breeze on early fall day-dusk, Starry Night, Final Fantasy, "psychic, ESP...ESPN" things.

What is love and is not love? I mean, is there a threshold level of a factor, call it 'Caring about someone,' determining love? I mean, I care/think about this person X amount, but love is defined to be greater than or equal to Y amount, so if X>Y, you love, X<Y you don't love, and if X>>Y you love very much and if X=Y you love just a little? No! (or, at least I hope not). Amount care/thought available to be given out should be EEE, then a fraction certainly would be EEE. So, anyone you care enough to think you love recieves EEE amount of care/attention/though, while those you don't love recieves relatively less.

-tin shrimp huntin' in the sea'|12 Jul 2004

---

Yeah it really sucks considering that articles on more banal things like Plastic are 10 times longer. Come on, this something we've been familiar with since the creation of man, and maybe even earlier.

---

Definitions will go all out when you actually experience love....

---

I'm sorry teo be blunt, but this article really, really sucks at prsent. I mean, if you're going to write about love, then for chrissakes, do it right!  :-) --LMS

---

I'd prefer the current entry to say "Cognitive Scientists" rather than "Skeptics". We know who they are. And I'm sure it's just an evolutionary mechanism, too. *sigh* --MichaelTinkler

---

I, Juuitchan, want to know how a person who feels love can identify that it is, in fact, LOVE, and not just a combination of sexual attraction and a fulfillment of one's desire for companionship, or whatever.

I feel sexual attraction and a desire for companionship roughly every four or five minutes - but I am very rarely in love. - montréalais

To quote a recent UK telly comedy show: "is it mum love or rude love?"

---

I agree that the article sucks. I also agree that more deserves to be said about it, because, as a previous commenter said, it has existed since the beginning of time (or the beginning of human history at the very least). However, the last point is the problem: People have been trying to define love for ages, and nobody can, and nobody ever will for that matter, because love is such a multifaceted and ethereal thing, and is almost pure emotion/spirit at that. To make matters worse, every single person on Earth experiences love completely uniquely. Words can only describe traits of love, not love itself, and to try to find those traits that most people agree on is a daunting task, to put it mildly. Who is brave enough and thinks that he/she knows enough about love to put their definition in the public eye and subject it to scrutiny? It must be done sometime for the good of Wikipedia, but I'm not surprised at how little has been written about it so far.

---

I think I made the first comment on page, but I can't remember. It's been a while since I've visited this page to see how it has progressed.

I agree with the last comment that love is a multifaceted and ethereal thing, but I am not satisfied with the excuse that because the experience varies from person to person that we may not be able to draw underlying and common traits that hint to the nature of love.

I still think that this page deserves alot more attention than any other page out there. Love is threaded through the fabric of human existance. It is as essential and pervasive as water. It is in us and in everything we do. Our lives are carved by products of love and hate. And as impossible as it may seem to try and define it, the search for it's definition would reward us greatly towards our understanding of human nature.

Just to get to a more in depth discussion going I'm posting a list of questions that I have pondered. I'd encourage everyone to post their own.

Why is it so hard to attempt to define it?
Love is not what?
What might we mistake for love and why?
What do we need for love to exist?
What is love for?
Why do people want it?
Are we scared to understand it?

Love,
DaPonderer

P.S.
While I was writing this, I heard a female neighbor from across my backyard orgasm maybe three or four times. Correction: 4 or 5 times. The coincidence was very inspirational. :)

---

I made (Oord) into a wiki link to Thomas Jay Oord, even though such an article doesn't exist yet. As it was, this just seemed out of place and was confusing, and I had to browse through the history to discover what it meant.

62.45.69.209 21:23, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

5 greek meanings of love

I'm trying to find out the 5 meanings of love in greek mythology.  Anybody have any ideas ?  Or maybe some useful websites? Sara

---

I removed the following sentence: <<Some describe it as a chemical reaction in the human brain.>> For the following reasons: 1. "Some" - who? Poets, physiologists? 2. "describe" is wrong word: "chemical reaction" without further specifics describes nothing 3. Any emotion may be said to be "chemical reaction".

At best, this phrase may be cited as a witticism of a famous man; as such it could be taken "as is", without critique. But not as part of "real" description.

I am sorry that the page became even poorer, but IMO the affection page explains much. In particular the latter page page may clarify distinction between love and other affections.

mikkalai

---

I refrain from engaging in edit war about link to Biophilia, due to triviality of change. I'd like to however point out that if we want to put it here, we should also put: Bibliophilia, paedophilia and many others 'philias'. One should consider separate listing for such philias in this article. Personally, however, I oppose such listing due to it's incompatibilty with link list of this article -- those links are about inter-human love, and generally due to irrelevance to the article. Personally, I think, that User:Anthere is pushing her/his agenda by inserting link to Biophilia. (Even though Biophilia seems to be legitimate entry -- more than 5000 Google hits). Przepla 21:23, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I would not object to another see also listing if you feel it is best to separate human to human love, from human to something else love. Both types of love are mentionned in, and relevant to, the article. Please, rather refer to me as a woman. Anthère

@Anthere. Thank you. Sorry about too strong words in my previous statements. I shall follow you suggestion, then.

All is well Przepla :-) ant

I can see a problem here. The list of philias lists paraphilias and other things that are not kinds of love (maybe except for bibliophilia), whereas biophilia is more like love. Therefore I think it is not enough to link to that list. Instead we should list kinds of love here or in a separate article. Andres 05:33, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

This is true. One of the reasons that this article is so poor is that it mentions these peripheral items and yet says next to nothing about the core subject. If people want to improve this article they should write about the fundamentals, ie passion, intimacy and commitment and how differing mixtures and strengths of these can be seen as romantic love, infatuation, friendship, platonic love, love-at-first sight, parental love, etc. before moving on to less common forms. A description of Sternberg's theory would make a good, reasonably mainstream, starting point in describing a modern psychological theory of love. -- Derek Ross

---

Guys, I hope no one minds, but I'm deleting the section on the Unification Church's feelings about love. I really don't think a convicted felon, cult leader and newspaper owner's ideas are any more relevant to this than, say, Jessica Simpson's. Cool? Cool. -- Anonymous editor

Religious views of love are perfectly reasonable. If you object to the fact that only the UC views appear then add more on other religious views of love. Please don't just delete the UC info because you don't like the founder of the church. Founders of religions are often controversial figures and should be separated from their views which are often less so. -- Derek Ross

Virus

There is a redirect to this page from I love you - wasn't that the name of a computer virus? should be make that a diambig? Mark Richards 00:01, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Disambig is probably a good idea, Mark. Good catch. :-) Jwrosenzweig 00:18, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Picture

On another note, it occurs to me that this would be a lovely article to have a digital photo of a sign language phrase inserted. I don't think we should get too many of them (and yes, I know we could have a photo of a sign language phrase for many many articles), but in this case I think a shot of the "I love you" sign would be nice. I don't own a digital camera or I'd do it myself. Anyone agree/disagree/willing to take and upload such a picture? Jwrosenzweig 00:18, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I love you in various languages

I removed section about I love you phrase in various languages as it is duplicating already linked Wiktionary entry. Besides such list would unnecessary clutter the article. Please don't reinsert it. Przepla 01:26, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Quotes

Surely these quotes belong on wikiquote, not here? LUDRAMAN | T 03:53, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

True, nevertheless they are adding spice to the article ;-). I'll try to select a few for preservation here, and move the rest to the wikiquote. I suggest leaving: Ambrose Bierce, Apostle Paul and Shakespeare. Any other opinions? Przepla 13:16, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Trust, Mental health

I want to insert the following but I don't feel certain enough to do so. Could somebody please verify.

The famous psychiatrist Sigmund Freud stated that the abiltity to trust is a necessary condition for love. Some psychiatrists believe that to love is one of the characterics of mental health.

Which psychiatrists believe this? Thanks in advance. Andries 11:53, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Wasn't Freud a psychoanalyst?

Thorns among our leaves 17:24, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

He actually trained as a physiologist, started working on neuropathology and from there moved into psychology/psychiatry/psychoanalysis. While he made a big impact in an infant field, modern psychotherapists would agree that, as a psychoanalyst, he made a good physiologist. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:08, 2004 Nov 8 (UTC)

Introduction

Somebody needs to rewrite the introduction

Moon

why does this article mention this moon sectoid thing (in 'religious')?

Loving God and deities

I think God as an object of devotion should be mentioned. It differs from a deity , that is, that most, but not all, monotheist religions believe that God/Allah has and should have no form, in contrast to deities. Andries 20:22, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

You're just inventing your own definitions of deity and god there. — Chameleon 11:56, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

no, Chameleon, not an invention but I have to say that I was deeply and still am deeply influenced by several mainstream sects of Hinduism. And I know a lot of Christianity (raised as a Roman Catholic) and Islam too. Yes, Chameleon, you were right. I looked it up in the dictionary. Andries 12:02, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I concur. Whatever I (as an atheist) can think about it I believe that God-connection in love should be mentioned. Therefore I reverted removal by User:Chameleon. Przepla 20:26, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

A definition of love?

Love is the belief that something or someone believes or represents the same beliefs that you hold.

Are you saying that if I believe that 2+2=4 and I believe that Silvio Berlusconi believes that 2+2=4 then I love him?--Army1987 21:10, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Army1987, while I agree what you say makes the above statement sound ridiculous, if you truly believe that he believes that 2+2=4 then on some fundamental level you must feel that you share a commonality (i.e. a common connection, faith, trust, emotion, thought, call it what you will) with Silvio Berlusconi with regards to mathematics. The target of the above definition is believing that you share that connection.

Well, I do not believe that a randomly chosen Piraha native speaker believes that 2+2=4, but I don't see any reason to love Berluscony any more than that random Piraha speaker.--Army1987 21:07, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

External links

• Love

Sorry, I can't understand why this link was removed...

"Love is an emotion, an emotional state of the energy of consciousness."

This is scientific-oriented article whith interesting analysing. Really, the emotions is condition of soul (consciousness). The Love is energy of anahata chakra (spiritual heart).

See also: Cleansing of Chakras. Opening Up of Spiritual Heart

This knowledge is may be interesting for many people. Another links contained only view, but here we can find a METHODS.

Yours respectfully, Skywalker

Skywalker, I removed the link because articles tend to grow endless lists of links. Your religion-associated book link will be joined by a link that proves love through the theory of evolution, another anthropology one and some stuff about Baha'i, Buddhism and Maya views on love. If the book presents something truly novel, you can write about it in the text body and use the book as a reference.

Any Wikipedia user can also use Google, and there is some opposition to the use of Wikipedia as an advertising/attention seeking vehicle (see "What Wikipedia is not").

I hope this is clear. JFW | T@lk 13:32, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Monogamy

I have removed the following statement from the article because it bothers me.

Although humans are not sexually monogamous, we are usually emotionally monogamous and can only be in love with one person at a time.

It seems to me that we are not "usually emotionally monogamous". There are instances of people who maintain marriages and lovers simultaneously and who profess to love both their spouse and their lover. Likewise it appears to be quite common to love all of your children and to love your spouse simultaneously, albeit in slightly different ways. In societies which allow polygamous marriages, it appears quite common for the union to be happy. In fact the evidence appears to show that people are usually emotionally polygamous and that the statement would be nearer the truth if it said:

Although humans are not emotionally monogamous, we are usually sexually monogamous and can only make love with one person at a time.

although even that statement is by no means true. Therefore I am removing the statement until it can be reworked to match reality a little more closely. -- Derek Ross | Talk 20:22, 2004 Oct 1 (UTC)

---

Hopefully people are liking my changes :)

--Johnkarp 02:27, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Image

The image that is supposed to be at the top of the page does not work, at least not on my browser. Instead, it says [[Image:She loves me... she loves me not....jpg|200px|thumb|She loves me... she loves me not...] . I'm not sure how to fix this yet.

Works fine here (IE 6.0). JFW | T@lk 12:48, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sorry - should have said when I fixed it by adding the close bracket. [[User:Noisy|Noisy | Talk]] 14:21, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. I came across the image, and just liked it, so I uploaded the image. Hope it is useful for "Love". Please feel free to change the caption if you know a better one -- Chris 73 Talk 23:04, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

WUV

Does anybody know who started using the word "wuv"? I heard it first on Futurama. JimQ 08:18, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Wuv is baby talk for love. It was first used by mothers talking to their babies and has been used for a long, long time. -- Derek Ross | Talk

And lovers frequently use Baby Talk to each other.... =P

Japanese

In japanese, there is another word for love, "Koi". I am not sure, but I have heard that "Koi" is more physical and impure than "Ai".

It should be noted that "ai" and "aisuru", the verb "to love" are not very commonly used in Japanese. One more often uses the the word "suki", or in extreme cases "daisuki" to express affection. "Suki" means "to like" and "daisuki" means "to like very much." Husbands and wives typically say, in the literal sense, "I like my spouse." This is based on what I've seen in Japanese culture and through studying the language. ApocalypseCow 03:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Added. --Sarfa 07:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Hypersectionism

There are way too many sections. Can't we convert most of them to bullet lists, as the text is no more than 1-2 lines in most? JFW | T@lk 22:31, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

History of love

It is curious how impossible it seems to discursivise love. I would like to see, and possibly partisipate in making a project on the history of love (or histories of love).

containing:

• Chronological lists of great lovestories in different cultures from all over the world with dating, authorship and comments in regard of what concepts of love is elaborated in the stories.
• history of ritualized love: romantic marriage, dating (as in USA), courtly love in Aquitania.
• List of love in cosmologies (cosmogonic myths).
• Instead of one defintion there could be a list of definitions, and maybe of proverbs.
• Love and its etymology in different languages would also be nice.

User talk:Arntchristian

Love and Mysticism

This article is terrible. It's all over the place. The main thing I got from reading it was that "love" encompasses so many definitions and subjective states of being, that it means actually nothing. While it was interesting to read a long encyclopedia article about nothing, is it really a good idea to maintain a long and rambling all-inclusive definitional con-fusion of every idea under the sun that has anything whatsoever to do with social relations? This article reads more like a religious diatribe than an objectively informative piece.

What objectively true information can be discerned from this article? It's filled with weasel wording, likely because since there is no concrete definition of "love", there are no criteria for exclusion of data.

I think this article could be cut down by about 98% and still remain precisely as informative as it was before.

You are free to fix it, but face it - love is a versatile thing and has been linked to many other social, cultural and physical phenomena. I'm not sure it is a religious diatribe, but love also has strong religious connotations. JFW | T@lk 16:54, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

...and Sisyphus was free to roll the boulder up the mountain.

New Testament quotes

I don't really know what to do with this (from the Christianity section), because other sections don't have similar quotes, and because the site linked to doesn't seem very good (multiple ads, text hard to navigate). There must be a better free text, but that's not my specialty.

for more see the Christian New Testament

1 John 4:8 Whoever does not love does not know God, for God is love.

1 John 4:16 So we have known and believe the love that God has for us. God is love, and those who abide in love abide in God, and God abides in them.

Galaxiaad 23:16, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

The King James Version is free, and it is eloquent. And it is not that hard to read ... eritain 23:47, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

All references to emotional, biological, and psychological love herein miss the point and are confusing. They are mis-definitions of love. Love is a committed selfless expression (a verb) of caring and providing for the welfare of another. Lets apply logic. God is love. God, as we learn from scripture, is a constant, never changing being. While He experiences emotion - delights in His creation; expresses humor in myriad ways (not the least of which is this writer's vain attempt at expressing His will), was repentent of having created mankind, hence the flood of Noah; Jesus wept when his followers didn't see his ability and desire to raise his friend Lazarus from the dead; He was angry at the money changers in the temple demonstrating that emotions change; God (love embodied) is constant and never changing. His emotions change even as ours do, but he is always present, always faithful, always caring, always powerful, always graceful, always merciful, always in control, etc... Humans are created emotional beings, experiencing infatuation, attraction, and desire, (along with dissatisfaction, dissillusionment, and even despair) in relationships; but these are emotions, not love. Unique in human experience, only Jesus could demonstrate pure, unadulterated love. The rest of us can only aspire and practice toward the perfect love He demonstrates. His love is our hope. He, who knew no sin, relinquished His divine place in heaven to live among us in the squalor we'd made of this world, died for us in mercy in spite of His desire not to have to drink that cup - in spite of us mocking and killing Him (it was not nails, but love, that held Him on that cross), shedding the blood required for our sin, and rose again demonstrating His authority over even death to redeem us as brothers and sisters - co-heirs of the throne of grace, so that we could be free of our sin and the death it brings and know Him and celebrate His victory over evil and be with Him and live for eternity experiencing joy, peace, and perfect love. But I run on, and on... God is love.

Scientific Models

The triangle theory definitely belongs here. When I came to this article I was hoping to find it since it is one of the few things which generalizes love decently. -- Adrian, Oct 27, 2005

I think a link mentioning the theory would be good, so as not to duplicate the information. -- Kirils

Ihe triangle theory is a specific theory among many ideas of what love is. I think that it deserves a link- not incorporation into the main article. -- Oscar

Intro picture

It strikes me as a bit trite, and cold. I am minded to replace it with a photo of a Roman statue of the god Eros, from the Naples Archeological Museum. Any objections? Haiduc 11:53, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Strange paragraph

I have removed the following:

Love vs. Insanity?

Studies have shown that mental scans of those in love show a striking resemblance to those with a mental illness. Love creates activity in the same area of the brain that hunger, thirst, and drug cravings create activity in. New love, therefore, could possibly be more physical than emotional (though drawing a clear line between physical and emotional is difficult when discussing the brain).

Over time, this reaction to love mellows and different areas of the brain are activated, primarily ones involving long-term commitments.

Dr. Andrew Newberg, a neuroscientist, suggests that this reaction to love is so similar to that of drugs because without love, humanity would die out.

There are several problems that (in my view) should be solved before this can go back into the article. The "studies" mentioned have not been referenced. Some of the interpretations are completely speculative. Finally, Dr Newberg's notability is not established and he redlinks, suggesting that he may not be as much an authority as his website makes out he is. JFW | T@lk 19:13, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, there is an old saying "You can give without loving, but certainly you cannot love without giving" love makes truth palatable while truth makes love practical, truth without love could destroy a person by its brutality, while love without truth could destroy a person bu its insincerity. It is sentimentality, a feeling without resonsibility. Truth without love is powerless to change lives, while love without truht could change them in the wrong direction. RAC 21Dec2005

Spinozistic Definition of Love

<Commenting on this phrase in Love--Love has several different meanings in English, from something that gives a little pleasure ("I loved that meal") to something one would die for (patriotism, pairbonding).>

LOVE is belief that an external object will increase the probability of your Perpetuation and Peace-of-Mind. The intensity is proportional to the increase hoped for. Ethics:3P6.

All the forms of Love mentioned in the Article are of the same kind; they only vary in degree depending on the need.

Yesselman 16:48, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting that the love which Romeo felt for Juliet, the love which Newton felt for mathematics and the love which Chauvin felt for France differ only in degree?

YES, please see There is no altruism. This is not pejorative; see Ayn Rand and Nathanel Branden's "Virtue of Selfishness."

Note also that many long-time addicts love their drug of choice while in no way believing that it "will increase the probability of their Perpetuation and Peace-of-Mind".

See Hebrew Etymology of the word Sin.

The intensity of their love is much more closely related to the short-term reward than to any hoped-for increase in Perpetuation or Peace-of-Mind. -- Derek Ross | Talk 22:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Hebrew Definition of Love

<Commenting on this phrase in Jewish Love.--Judaism employs a wide definition of love, both between people and between man and the Deity.>

The Hebrew word translated as 'love' is a-hav-aw', Gesenius' Strong's Concordance:160—to love, delight. The root is a-hav' , Gesenius' Strong:157—to desire, to breath after, to long for. Implied in this etemology is that love is panting after something you need.

All the forms of Love mentioned in the Article are of the same kind; they only vary in degree, depending on the need.

Yesselman 22:28, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Irrelevant Information?

Sternberg is currently married to his third wife.

I personally don't find the above statement to be relevant to "Consummate love". This information belongs in an article about Sternberg, not Love. I'm going to remove it. Neutronium 19:34, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

It's a good ole case of WP:POINT. JFW | T@lk 14:07, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Neutronium is right. The statement just shows that Sternberg (like most of us) has fallen in and out of love. He may well have achieved consummate love with each of his three wives for a short time, who knows. But the fact that consummate love is a transient state should come as no surprise to anyone. In fact it forms a part of Sternberg's theory. -- Derek Ross | Talk 22:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I wanna know what love is!

I want Wikipedia to show me!

What I came up with

A few years ago I was trying to figure out what I was really saying when I said that I loved my wife. I am a christian. I looked at what I would do if I really did what I thought it was about. What I would 'really' want a person to do who 'really' loved me. What I came up with 'worked', passed the 'nose test' and what I still use to this day. If anyone out there comes up with something better, I would like to hear it. What I came up with is this:

       Love is about Acceptance of another person, even to
       the extent that we allow their value system to affect
       the quality of our life.

In short then...Love is about Acceptance and that is all. I cannot control another person, but I can accept them. I currently believe that hatred is about non-acceptance.

In the practical world I have arrived at this. I love my wife. I am willing to accept her and her value system even to the extent that I am willing to allow it to affect the quality of my life. I have locked this in by having stipulated that she can do no wrong. This does not mean that she is perfect. It does mean that I do not consider anything that she does to be wrong. As to how this relates to my understanding of the Bible teaching. God says that He accepts me, even to the extent that He allows my value system to affect the quality of His life, and He invites me to accept Him, even to the extent that I let His value system to affect the quality of my life. Ken 04:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Including God

'Including god'? Is this really necessary to state? Doesnt 'everyone' infer 'god'? -Oscar

Scientific Love - Sternberg’s triangular theory of love

I like how "Love's Trinity" by Alfred Austin speaks of the trinity of love. In this case it is soul, heart, & body. In Sternberg’s triangular theory of love, he speaks of intimacy, passion, and commitment. In my mind the words are interchangeable: soul = intimacy; heart = commitment; and body = passion.

"Love's Trinity" by Alfred Austin Soul, heart, and body, we thus singly name, Are not in love divisible and distinct, But each with each inseparably link'd. One is not honour, and the other shame, But burn as closely fused as fuel, heat, and flame.

They do not love who give the body and keep The heart ungiven; nor they who yield the soul, And guard the body. Love doth give the whole; Its range being high as heaven, as ocean deep, Wide as the realms of air or planet's curving sweep.

Locking the Article?

What do people think about requesting to have this article locked? It seems to me that people's "vandalism" and inane comments need to be reverted on a pretty much daily basis. It sure would save lots of people lots of work... --Sarfa 22:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it should only be locked for the period around Valentine's day, as that is probably an annual peak of vanadlaism for this article. 194.109.21.4 19:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Who are it means Nina Guzzo and Nathaniel Ginsburg?

This seems like compeletely irrelevant and confusing information. I don't say Mmmpfh when I love someone personally.

To me, love is a deep, if not the deepest of all human experiences. I am one for science, however though there may be hormonal changes, psychological disfunctions etc. that go on when was claims to be experiencing "love", I am inclined to believe that there is something more. For lack of a better term, I would call it the "mysterious more," which it has been called before. When Victor Frankl shared his soup with a fellow inmate at Dachau, when Nietzsche embraced the beaten horse at the end of his sane life, the connections we feel with eachother, these are examples of real love to me. I believe that there is both a scientific, and-again for lack of a better phrase-deeply human aspect of love. With regards to the definition of it being abstract, I would beg to differ. When something is abstract, or when we as people abstract things, we don't really acknowledge their reality or pure existential value. Which dehumanizes it. To use an extreme example, Hitler abstracted everything, that's how a person can kill millions and still walk home like it was a busy day at work and eat vegetarian schnitzel (or whatever.) Even to define it as metaphysical is pushing it. Love is so real, I am therefore I think. I think therefore I love. Sorry if this is drawn out a bit, it is late. Feedback is so much more than welcomed.

Not censored

Wikipedia is not censored, and I think that sexual act image would complete the article's coverage. So that's why I added the template in my past edit to this talkpage. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 23:57, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Qwertyxp2000, WP:Not censored does not mean that we unnecessarily add sexual images. There is no need whatsoever for a sexual act image to be in this article, especially for the lead. Read WP:GRATUITOUS. The absence of a sexual act image does not at all decrease readers' understanding of the topic of love. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:23, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

As for this and this image currently in the article, their inclusion is fine, in my opinion. But are they needed? I would say no. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:39, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

I would seriously agree with the statement that the sex image isn't at all necessary. I suppose that they aren't even necessary to make it complete so I reckon it should be removed altogether. Not that I'm saying that it should be "obscene" to put in sexual acts in the article, but I suppose it just isn't vital nor necessary to complete the article. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 21:23, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Strangely, I noticed the Indian section of the article, but it seems that it does illustrate a "love" in terms of sexual love, but I deem it unnecessary for the completeness of the article. I even think this article can still be complete if the image weren't even included. What do you reckon about the inclusion of the image? Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 21:26, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Wait... So you said their inclusion is fine but not needed. And WP:NOTCENSORED also means not add unnecessary sexual images. I don't see a necessity of applying this image if it isn't even the subject of the article. In my opinion, I think these images should be removed from this article and perhaps be put into a different more appropriate place, such as the sexual love article. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 21:29, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Qwertyxp2000, I was simply letting you know that sexual images do not automatically get protection from exclusion. The Human sexual activity article (what you call the Sexual love article) already has enough sexual images. Furthermore, since love can also be sexual love, the "sexual love" term should redirect to this article or to the Intimate relationship article, or even to the Romance (love) article. The India section states, in part, "Kama in Indian literature means 'desire, wish or longing'. In contemporary literature, kama refers usually to sexual desire. However, the term also refers to any sensory enjoyment, emotional attraction and aesthetic pleasure such as from arts, dance, music, painting, sculpture and nature." So that seems why that image was added. The image is not off-topic in that sense. I don't care if either image stays or goes. I made my initial above comment before looking at the two images. I was under the impression that you felt that people can just come in and add sexual images to the article and that those images get to stay because of WP:NOTCENSORED. So my initial commentary was to clear that up. As for this, there is no need to ping me to this page since this article/talk page is on my watchlist. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:25, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Loev (film) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 05:02, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 November 2018

haseeb nazar Haseeb Nazar (talk) 12:32, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. --Bsherr (talk) 12:46, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Love is not always "positive" and can be very painful, negative and a source of depression.

62.174.139.196 (talk) 09:08, 14 July 2019 (UTC) CoultonBerkinshaw (talk) 09:52, 15 July 2019 (UTC)CoultonBerkinshaw

The opening sentence "Love encompasses a range of strong and positive emotional and mental states..." should read "Love encompasses a range of strong emotional and mental states..."— Preceding unsigned comment added by CoultonBerkinshaw (talk • contribs) 09:52, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Could you provide some references/citations for this? The opening sentence is a ulitmate encompassing summary of the article. Love being painful, negative or source of depression is not mentioned anywhere in the article.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 23:40, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Request of Help

I was looking for some small help. I created an article Valentine's Day in Pakistan. While article subject orientation is related to Romance relationships and festival, but in some parts of the world it touches serious issues like violations of women's rights & Human rights At this stage looking for help in better chronological order within article, and continued copy edit help in times to come.

Thanks in advance.

Bookku (talk) 04:59, 28 January 2020 (UTC)