Talk:Love

Storge

I'm not sure where to put this, but I know that a form of "storge" was used in the New Testament - 2 Timothy 3:3 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.42.205.38 (talk) 04:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Storge is under the Ancient Greek section. However, I want to raise the issue of how it is described. I always understood storge to be material love (I love chocolate) and to be generally be detached from values (i.e. excluding family ties c.f. illustration). The section has no references, and then again for the whole section on ancient Greek love. I will come back when i have done a little digging (that is if I find anything interesting). Wuku (talk) 09:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC) And it seems i was incorrect. The general consensus is that it is familial love especially the love of an animal for its young. However, the breadth i referred to was implied in a few articles (but not elaborated) [in wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storge, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Four_Loves and externally: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Storge]. I will leave this to be picked up by someone else who has a more extensive knowledge. Whether my claim is completely unfounded, or not, i feel the definition still needs a little elaboration. Wuku (talk) 09:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

See this section below. Croman mac Nise / Crommán mac Nessa / Cromán mac Neasa (talk) 14:00, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Just answering the above. Note that I am not much of a book worm, so I have no refence to offer you. Also, I am not English native, so thank you for correcting my grammar, however I will do my best.

Storge is a form of love that cannot be broken either by good or evil. Like a mother will love her children not matter what, even if, sometimes, a mother may disaprove or even hate the action of her child, it will not change the deep attachment she have for him and, in the important moment (like saving him from death or simply feeding him), she will always be there. Storge can be found outside family, in strong and particular friendship. In that case, the persons sharing that bond will feel like brother and sister, but it would be a cultural way of expressing a rare form of storge.

Apart from the family, Storge can be found every where there is life, like an underground feeling that can be barely express, unlike agape, eros or philia, and even more rarely seen. But, since storge is a "no matter what happen" form of love, it is the most durable even if it is the most invisible. Storge is not about giving or sharing with others, it is about being there at the most essential and important moment, no matter the cost: self sacrifice is the vertue of storge, even more in front of adversity. Where there is life, storge can be spontaniously seen (but rarely noticed), even if nobody though it could be there, it is a bond that unite life with life.

I hope it will answer some question, please delete this if you find it inacurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.195.109.170 (talk) 07:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Top section

The following sentence does not make sense: "Love may be understood a part of the survival instinct, a function keep human beings together against menaces and to facilitate the continuation of the species." Please put the word "to" inbetween "function" and "keep." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.124.74.73 (talk) 02:27, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Having sex does not need to happen in order to love. Can we find a more culturally philosophically neutral text for the top section? What is love? There are millions who believe very firmly that it is incorrect to say that love is an emotion, or a feeling. There's much good stuff in this article but it's undermined, I think, by the top section. My own opinion is, the shorter the better. Something as mysterious, and as fundamental to the human condition as love needs a much more open and unbiased treatment, especially in the top section. Any suggestions? Oliver Low (talk) 00:26, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the above sentiment. Love had no objective definition, and any suggestion of one in the top section will be inevitably limiting and foolish. The top section should be limited to a statement that love means many things to many people, in many contexts. Even you suggestion of love as "fundamental to the human condition" says too much, since it already assumes a human condition. I know you don't intend to put that in the article, but it provides a good example of just how hard it is to say anything concrete about love.98.216.96.113 (talk) 14:46, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

After a little mulling, I think perhaps the best top section is going to be something very little, almost nothing, e.g: "Love is..." and leave it at that, going straight on to the contents and then the definitions section, which is quite good. Oliver Low (talk) 00:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I very strongly agree with the above sentiment. Saying "Love is an emotion of a strong affection and personal attachment.[1]" is loading an vast unacknowledged set of assumptions into love that undermines the rest of the article. For me love is primarily a relationship, not a feeling or even less an object. Saying love is an emotion moves quickly towards an extremely narrow realm of neuroscience -- which I notice wikipedia tends to be biased towards, e.g "the science of emotion." This is extremely problematic for me. That wikipedia defines love as an emotion reflects very poorly on the quality of thought behind wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiltonhall (talk • contribs) 22:20, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

New Suggestions

Just a small suggestion: In the [Cultural Views->Ancient Roman (Latin)] section, second paragraph, "Diligere often has the notion "to be affectionate for," "to esteem," and rarely if ever is used for romantic love. This word would be appropriate to describe the friendship of two men." seems to infer that "homosexual love" does not exist. Would it be inappropriate to use this term for a friendship between heterosexual women? Perhaps changing it to "Diligere often has the notion "to be affectionate for," "to esteem," and rarely if ever is used for romantic love. For example, this word would be appropriate to describe the friendship between two heterosexual men." or further clarification is needed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.41.0.39 (talk) 06:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

sufism should not be included in the islam and arab section because it simply doesn't percisely reflect islam's beleifs

addition of the text urdu/hindustani uses the word asik in the same meaning , however ishq (eee-sh-k) a word derived from the turkish word is used widely. there is hindi movie by name ishq, Its also a very widely used word in indian cinema to decribe love.

I'd like to see in the Christian section the point made that God's love for the true believers is the originator of their love for Him, 1 John 4:19 "19 We love him, because he first loved us." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.39.123.250 (talk) 00:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}}

Comment I am cancelling this edit-semi request for now, and taking discussion to the users talk page, re. referencing, WP:OR, and other issues.  Chzz  ►  22:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

We think the page can be improved by clarifying the status of romantic love as either a part of human nature or a cultural artifact. We suggest the following additions:

In place of "Some historians date modern conceptions of romantic love to courtly Europe during or after the Middle Ages, although the prior existence of romantic attachments is attested by ancient love poetry.[5]", we suggest the following:

Some historians trace modern conceptions of romantic love to the conquest of the Arabs in Spain, from whence it was carried on by the troubadours from France and Spain to the rest of courtly Europe during the Middle Ages. However, other historians claim that love is universal, appearing across time. For example, ancient Greek poets such as Catullus wrote many poems expressing romantic love. According to this view, romantic love isn’t the product of Western Culture as the other historians claim; rather, every culture in the world has some form of romantic love. This is also supported by recent anthropological studies, which claim that love didn’t start from one particular culture, and it is instead a part of human nature. Love must be natural, one study found, because it is possible to find some types of romantic love in all cultures studied by anthropologists.

The citation for this claim is here: Goleman, Daniel. "After Kinship and Marriage, Anthropology Discovers Love." Science New York Times. November 24, 1992. March 9th, 2010. http://www.nytimes.com/1992/11/24/science/after-kinship-and-marriage-anthropology-discovers-love.html?pagewanted=1

That can also be used as the citation for the following addition, which would serve as an introduction to the section "cultural views."

Most anthropologists agree that love is a natural event; something that can be found all cultures around the world. The definition of love, however, depends on the culture; in every culture there are different traditions, laws, and norms surrounding love. Love can have different meanings that are more or less powerful depending on the language used by that culture. Also, the value of love and the role of love changes depending on the culture. Marriage, for example, happens for different reasons in various cultures: in some cultures, it is the norm for people to marry out of love, and in others, it is more regular for people to marry for economic support or even political alliance. So, even though love can be found everywhere throughout time and throughout the world, it is viewed, experienced, and valued differently everywhere.

We felt that the subject of homosexual love could also be added to several of the individual cultures involved. Here are our additions to the various cultures:

Homosexual love also appears in ancient Greek history through its mythology. In one story, Zeus had an affair with a young mortal boy named Ganymede. That Zeus, the most powerful and important God, commits the act of homosexuality, can be interpreted as representing general acceptance towards homosexual relationships in Greek society. (Mia Gibson. "Ganymede" Encyclopedia Mythica. 13 March 1997. 8 March 2010 accessed (http://www.pantheon.org/articles/g/ganymede.html)

Many interpretations agree that committing the act of homosexual love is an egregious sin in the Christian religion. Which is very true if you read the bible. One story often cited is that of Sodom and Gomorrah, two cities God had sent angels to examine. When they discovered that the people there wanted to engage in homosexual intercourse, God destroyed the cities.

In the Hindu tradition, there are ancient texts which tell of certain circumstances in which homosexual love was allowed. Its practice may take the form of Auparishtaka, or oral sex, which is possible to perform as a hetero- or a homo-sexual. In modern times, however, this practice is more often shunned. (http://www.religionfacts.com/homosexuality/hinduism.htm)

Finally, we thought that the section on chemical and evolutionary perspectives should be expanded and clarified.

After the first paragraph in the "chemical basis" section, we would suggest this addition: "This three-stage concept probably evolved because it was advantageous to develop initial attraction, an intense period of mating, and then a reason to stay together for long enough to rear the child beyond infancy."

In order to clarify the importance of dopamine in love, we think the following should be added after the discussion of the chemicals involved: "When in the attraction stage, a person can be infatuated, or “addicted” to their love. This is due to the release of dopamine, which is the major neurotransmitter involved in addiction in drugs such as cocaine. Since the presence of dopamine brings feelings of reward and happiness, the lover subconsciously craves more dopamine and pursues more and more of his or her lover. This infatuation is often depicted in literature as an addiction or a sickness; for example, Shakespeare often portrayed love in this manner." (for citation, see Sonnet 147: "my love as a fever longing still") (for the addiction point, see Nature Reviews Neuroscience 7, 86 (February 2006))

We thought the relationship of oxytocin should be clarified as well, when it is mentioned, with the following addition: "...which is related to feelings of safety and comfort." (citation at http://articles.latimes.com/2007/jul/30/health/he-attraction30)

We think that some of these should be adapted, even if not all of them are deemed appropriate.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecole1910 (talk • contribs) 10:53, 15 March 2010

May I ask, who is "we"? User accounts should not represent a group or organization, and should only be used by one person. Regarding the changes, I'll let someone who understands these things better to make them ;)  fetchcomms☛ 15:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, I am not convinced that the reference(s) provided assert the facts; for example, the article in NY Times does not mention (on any of the 3 pages) either Arabs, Spain, Franceor Catullus; therefore, some of this seems like original research.  Chzz  ►  22:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 171.66.83.132, 21 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

The sentence "Studies have shown that brain scans of those infatuated by love display a resemblance to those with a mental illness." should be made

Studies have shown that brain scans of those infatuated by love display a resemblance to those with a mental illness, thus supporting to the notion "I'm mad about you".

171.66.83.132 (talk) 22:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Cute, but I fail to see how it's really encyclopedic.

 Not done ^Avicenna_sis @ 02:57, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 82.12.218.166, 17 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

The Rules of Love - Richard Templer http://www.foyles.co.uk/display.asp?ISB=9780273720256&

What about them? —fetch·comms 22:44, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Change of Ref 12 (NGF and Romantic Love) to actual Ref tag PMID 16289361

{{editsemiprotected}} Reference 12 ("Raised plasma nerve growth factor levels associated with early-stage romantic love." Emanuele E. et al.)

should change from the current reference on biopsychiatry.com (arguably a secondary source as an "aggregator - and not what I'd call an totally unbiased one), to

<reference tag> <journal citation tag> |author=Emanuele, E |coauthor=Polliti, P.; Bianchi, M.; Minoretti, P.; Bertona, M.; & Geroldi, D |title=Raised plasma nerve growth factor levels associated with early-stage romantic love. |journal=Psychoneuroendocrinology. |volume=31 |issue=3 |month=April |year=2006 |pages=65288–294 |doi=10.1016/j.psyneuen.2005.09.002 |PMID=16289361}}

No, I have no idea how WP's markup works.. CODE doesn't suppress interpretation of the markup, as I'd expect (instead of only changing the font)

Love: Under-estimated and Used Poorly

To tell the truth, there is no specific definition for love. The many definitions used include: "a strong feeling or emotion for someone and attachment"... but some people may not think of love as a feeling or emotion nor attachment. Then there is: "liking someone strongly and having a feeling never felt before for anyone else"... which is clearly different. It actually all depends. Sexual relationships may vary. If someone was homosexual, their definition of love may be VERY different to someone who is straight. And someone who is polyamorous may think differently than someone who feels love for items and not humans or other living organisms. Love could just be a creative word we use poorly! EX: "I love him so much".. "how long have you been dating?".. "two days".. "I love her so much. When we kiss, I feel a spark. When I see her, I get butterflies. And when we hug...I only see her." "I LOVE YOU, DRAKE! YOU'RE THE BEST STAR IN THE WORLD! YOU'RE SUPER CUTE! I LOVE YOU SOOOO MUCH!" As you can see ^^ There is no specific... and this whole POST is entirely wrong. In conclusion, love has NO SPECIFIC DEFINITION. It varies on the eye of the beholder! I would have to strongly disagree with anyone who thinks love can be written in definition... Possibly, love might not even be a thing. 69.138.69.0 (talk) 21:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC)JazzyD.

Experienced by..

To the lede sentence ("love is the emotion of strong affection and personal attachment") Rickproser added "experienced by certain animals, most notably humans." I had tagged it for a citation, and asked Rick to come up with a source, but have since decided to remove it altogether. I would be in support of some language which did not pretend to be too definitive, or too scientific about the idea, something like:

"It is debated whether humans alone can experience love, or whether love can also be experienced by certain higher animals."

But in reality the issue of human love is too broad, and as such it becomes necessary to use language in form:

"While it is known that higher animals may experience bonding and even what may be called "affection," in human context the word "love" means far more than what animals can experience or are known to experience."

-Stevertigo (w | t | e) 22:49, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it makes sense to address, briefly, animals somewhere in the article. (It mentions that humans can love animals, but not whether animals experience love.) It might be something along the lines of: humans often observe behavior in animals that they ascribe as love, but that it's not known (perhaps never can be known) whether or not animals experience love in the same way as humans. But I don't know if that's the best way to describe it, and I don't have citations. M-1 (talk) 00:34, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

About the Islam section

1) Why is it so small? 2) The beginning line, "In a sense" seems to sound somewhat cynical, as if Islam doesn't promote love at all. Also the section takes no mention of the verses that speak of helping one another, or any of the muslim poets who more or less wrote exclusively about love. If Islam was such a heartless religion, don't you think the Sharia-based countries those poets lived in at the time would've had them killed?

All in all I feel like it's a little biased. I doubt anyone will agree/care, but I just thought i'd put it out there. The Christianity section is massive, and really that's no surprise because the majority of people who use Wikipedia come from Christian countries. I'm not trying to sound whiny, I'm just saying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.183.232.161 (talk) 22:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed... then do it yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.215.230.136 (talk) 07:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Christianity

"The Christian understanding is that love comes from God. The love of man and woman — eros in Greek— and the unselfish love of others (agape), are often contrasted as "ascending" and "descending" love, respectively, but are ultimately the same thing.[19]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love#Christianity

That is not true. Agape and eros are not the same things. They have absolutely nothing to do with with each other, despite that love between a man and a woman can include both at the same time.

Eros has nothing to do with agape in the Bible. We can all read from the Bible that agape is platonic love and unselfish attitude towards all other people. That is love which Jesus spoke about. It's illogical, against the Bible - it is insane - to argue that Jesus would have been said that you have to fall in love (eros) or a such. Jesus said that you have to be unselfish etc. towards others (agape).

The New Testement doesn't speak anything about eros. Eros is love which includes feelings and sexual interest (erotic). For example, Jesus and Paul wasn't even married. Jesus and Paul didn't say that you have to been in love, you have to feel something or you have to have sex (eros). They spoke about unselfish attitude towards other people (agape).

Agape has nothing to do with eros - absolutely nothing, not a single thing. Love between a man and a woman can include agape, but then there is both: eros and agape. This means they are different things. Usually or often love between a man and a woman doesn't include agape. And the other way aroud, agape love doesn't need eros. You can have both, agape and eros, towards other person, or you can have only eros or you can have only agape. When you have only agape love towards other person, you don't have any erotic thoughts towards this other person.

From some reason, which I don't know, I can't correct the paragraph in the text. I ask you to correct the text. You can't say agape and eros are the same thing because one can logically argue based on the Bible that they are two seperated things.

You can not even say that according the Pope Benedict XVI agape and eros are ultimately the same thing because this is based on the following text of Pope Benedict XVI and the interpretation is very questionable:

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20051225_deus-caritas-est_en.html

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sadetune (talk • contribs) 16:14, 18 October 2010 (UTC) 

While Agapê and Erôs are not identical, claiming that they have nothing to do with one another in such absolute terms is, I'm afraid, quite mistaken. See this section below. Croman mac Nise / Crommán mac Nessa / Cromán mac Neasa (talk) 14:04, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Stalwart?

The following sentence, from the Persian section, "The Persian word for love is eshgh, derived from the Arabic ishq, however is considered by most to be too stalwart a term for interpersonal love", makes absolutely no sense. Since I am not familiar with Persian, can someone replace the word "stalwart", which I believe is being incorrectly used here, with a more appropriate one, or perhaps re-clarify the sentence? There is another correction need to be done in this sentence. The origin of the word ishq comes from Avestan word ishka which means (strong desire). It is an Indo-European word derives from the same root as the word ask in English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.38.213.226 (talk) 11:16, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 71.172.50.35, 15 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Love is not easily anger Love is kind it does envy it does not delight in evil but rejoice in the truth Love is patient Love your enemy and Neighbor

71.172.50.35 (talk) 23:17, 15 November 2010 (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. Please see the similar request below--it's already in the article, so what is it you want to see changed? Qwyrxian (talk) 05:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 123456789blueman, 16 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Love is thinking about others before you think about yourself Love is selfless not selfish. Love is God and God is love. Love is when you lay down your life for another Whether for your brother, your mother, your father or your sister Its even laying down your life for your enemies, Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast It is not proud. Love is not rude, it is not self-seeking It is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs You see love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.

123456789blueman (talk) 00:27, 16 November 2010 (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. The second half of that Biblical quote is already in the article in the section on Christianity. We generally don't want to overquote primary sources, so what specifically was it that you wanted to see changed in the article? Qwyrxian (talk) 05:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request

{{Edit semi-protected}} Can we please change "I love my wife" to a more neutral "I love my partner" ? Oberto22 (talk) 09:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)Oberto

 Done. Seems reasonable to me. Dpmuk (talk) 13:33, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Love

Its pretty much described by a man named Dustin and a beautiful lady named Julie... If you know them, you know love!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.127.94.7 (talk) 14:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Love is Also a Verb (Love can also be described n terms of actions towards self or others)

Love is not just a feeling. It's also what you do.

Telemachus.forward (talk) 20:46, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, love is also a verb; Love is also action. Love the noun develops out of love the verb. --Lijojames (talk) 15:37, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Love in religion

You can't go and use a Catholic source for something being the case throughout religion. What is to be done with this part of the introduction? It certainly shouldn't stay the way it is. Munci (talk) 11:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I concur. I made a small change to specify that this is a Roman Catholic belief. I still don't think that fully addresses the problem; it would be much better if the lead could give some general statement on religion from some sort of comparative religion book, but I don't know where to find such a thing. Any suggestions? Qwyrxian (talk) 11:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Why does the Christian section focus so much on Roman Catholicism? They aren't the only Christians, and they are probably the group that is most often called "non-Christian" by other forms of Christianity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.72.162.172 (talk) 17:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Apparently the Pope of Rome has decided to redefine "eros". I guess they think that they can change everything.--72.72.162.51 (talk) 02:04, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Love reaction

This is not a question. Or a comment. This is praise. On a business trip to Helsinki, after a heavy meal and after exchanging thoughts with my sister about the challenges of her new born son and with a friend about the difficulties of being sacked from her job, I decided to look up the word "love". And got a lucid, inspired and pungent deliberation with such a universal scope as to take my breath away. Thank you for that. It is truly great to enlighten the world thus! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.189.59.65 (talk) 20:17, 28 January 2011 (UTC) {LOVE U GUYS :)♥(:LOVING THE LIFE IM LIVING MUAAAAHHHH:) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.116.208.178 (talk) 03:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated claim

"New love, therefore, could possibly be more physical than emotional."

The very idea that emotion is not a physical process is not a sensible Scientific conclusion or very helpful in understanding what might be meant. Such a conclusion may be original research, which apparently is not something Wikipedia is for. 84.13.1.187 (talk) 04:28, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the whole paragraph--without citations, I'm uncomfortable saying that "love resembles a mental illness." Qwyrxian (talk) 05:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

The inclusion of capitalism

A) It seems pretty biased to mention capitalism specifically. Why not communism? Hell, why not mention hunter-gatherer and market economies, and how love may or may not be expressed? I find it very interesting and notable what greater minds than I have expounded on the topic, but I fail to see how this benefits the article. B) Furthermore, there is definitely a bias within the bias. There isn't enough Ayn Rand in there to offset anything that leaves in my mind: "capitalism is a loveless socio-economic construct". I'm fiscally conservative, but I happen to have a vast love for society that I fulfill internally, as well as externally, without having some existential crisis, stemming from my beliefs.

I would love to hear some of you out, I think I might be seeing this from a limited scope. Enlighten me :) Dissonase 07:34, 20 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by The dissonase (talk • contribs)

Well... let me tell you, what's the difference between the philosophy of communism (understood as an ideal communism, not the real one, which tends at times to dictatorship because of selfishness of some people) and Jesus Christ's? Not the present Catholic Church, bond to capitalism, and highly ranked, but the original Christianism. I could include communism there, together with buddhism and Jesus Christ, but I think you wouldn't be pleased either (maybe you'd even want to crucify me, in a metaphorical sense). You said you have a vast love for society. In that case, please let me know, are you in favour of a universal public heath? Are you in favour of increasing taxes for rich people (who won't live much worse than they do now) and use that money for people who don't even have a home (who will live a lot much better)? If not, then I'll tell you, regardless your "vast love for society", you are selfish. If you agree with me, then, let me tell you again, you are not capitalist. Now, what's love for you? --Dalton2 (talk) 17:23, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I just made this account because my old one is no longer valid for some reason, and as such I do not have edit privileges. Would some one who does please remove all of Dalton2's edits? They are obviously non-NPOV, and his/her above comments only make that more clear. They are also incredibly out of place in the article, and not adequately sourced. Saberus (talk) 20:33, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Just a moment, are you suggesting that my *own* opinion makes referenced information unvalid? Argumentum ad hominem, maybe? --Dalton2 (talk) 22:09, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

This is the Talk page for discussing improvements to the article. Please use it only for that, and leave personal politics out of it. Thanks, MartinPoulter (talk) 23:14, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Recent edits

Please could we discuss this edit. You accuse me of Argumentum ad Hominem. Where do you say I have done this? Please can we build consensus for or against the inclusion of contested material in the article. MartinPoulter (talk) 13:20, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

A general comment: The lede is not the place for what Martin has reverted. His revert is fine. Also, there clearly is no ad hominem argument.

A specific comment on the part about Deleuze and Guattari: I think it would be fine to include their opinion on the subject as they might have put it forward in their book "Anti-Oedipus. Capitalism and Schizophrenia I". However, what they are claimed to have argued is not what they argue in that book. Also, there is no reference given to any particular passages, and the reference is to the Spanish translation. Effectively, the passage about Deleuze and Guattari which Martin has reverted should stay reverted.

Morton Shumway—talk 20:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC).

I changed the reference to the original English source. Regardless the accuracy of the idea extracted from the book, I think that its implications on the concept of love are so vast that it should be in the lede. Please, let's wait for other opinions. This article is extensively visited (+10,000 visits a day), so just 2 people claiming against it are not enough, in my opinion. Please let's wait for some time to have several opinions. --Dalton2 (talk) 22:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC) P.S: Also, we should have opinions from outside the United States and Spain, from India, China, Russia, South America, etc. Mr. Shumway, It'd be interesting to know your interpretation of the book with respect to love.

A reference must indicate particular passages of the text which say what you claim they do.Take a look at WP:SOURCE. What you are saying is this: even if your idea of what the book says is wrong, it should go in since the book is important. Please take a look at WP:NPOV and, again, inform yourself about WP:VERIFY. Also, take a look at how an article lede should be structured and what it should contain: WP:MOSINTRO. Of course will we wait for others to comment. However, the amount of clicks to that page is irrelevant. Also irrelevant is my geographic position. Please don't insinuate. Finally, I don't think that my understanding of AO is of much importance at this point. It is up to you to provide evidence in form of concrete references for what you put into an article. Morton Shumway—talk 14:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC).

We've already had other opinions. I've objected to your irrelevant edits, so has Morton, and CRGreathouse has reverted you. See WP:BRD and the policies that Morton refers you to above. Once your edits are reverted, you're not supposed to put them straight back but to discuss and build consensus for the change you want to make. That means seriously discussing the changes to the article, not using ad Hominem attacks against other editors. As for "two people claiming against is being not enough", it works the other way round: you, a minority of one, are not enough to say that specific changes are needed to the article if you're opposed by other editors and existing policy. If you continue the way you're going, at some point an admin will step in and restrict your ability to edit. Do you want to work with us or not? The content you've put in the lede about Deleuze doesn't explain to the reader what love is or its context: it just uses "Love" as a verb to describe something else. It needs to go. MartinPoulter (talk) 19:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

By the way, the second sentence is also vague, so it should be out too (what's exactly "all of human kindness, compassion and affection"?). But you won't delete it, I guess. The third sentence, is also vague (what's exactly "the base for all being"?). And so does the fourth sentence. I think that it's not fair. You don't have a real reason to revert my edits and keep those. For the moment, I prefer to edit my Wikipedia. Sorry, but there is no possible way to reason with your attitude. You make me be afraid, and that's something I really don't like. I'll give up editing in your Wikipedia because you're making me fear to do it. Paradoxical in a discussion about an article called "love". Have a nice day, doctor Poulter. --Dalton2 (talk) 00:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there are other problems with the article, and the "base of all being" phrase needs spelling out. The material I removed misrepresented a source: it gave the impression that the initial definition applies to love "in the Western World", when the source didn't say that. If either one of us wants their own Wikipedia, we can download MediaWiki and do it. Right now, we are in not Martin's Wikipedia or Dalton's Wikipedia but this one. This one has policies and consensus decided on by its community, that you and I both have to obey. You're not expected to magically know about these right from the start, but you've been provided with some helpful links above to help you with that. It is possible to have a reasonable discussion, and that's what we've been trying to do here, but assuming that your point of view automatically outweighs other people's isn't the way. MartinPoulter (talk) 12:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I will put a sympathetic word in about these edits. Although the contributor has gone about them in all the wrong ways, the intention was clear – to discuss some distortions or perversions of love that have been identified by important thinkers, including humanists and other philosophers (the American philosopher Michael Hardt has done similar work, and Deleuze and Guattari are not at all "fringe" in Europe, or in the critical theory tradition in general). As for the focus on commodity capitalism, it is easily the most "notable" context in today's world, since it is the dominant ideology and economic system.

What Ayn Rand had to say about self-love is also notable, but so is the fact that she confounded that idea with selfishness, which she thought to be the only and ultimate virtue. It is also notable that her model human "spirit", who inspired the novel Atlas Shrugged, was a serial killer.

It is also well-documented that advertisers and others have used all kinds of methods to manipulate the emotions of, and to manufacture desires in, consumers. And this has a lot to do with the lack of love in the world today, since advertising is such a pervasive, and rather powerful, form of communication. This deserves some more careful attention in my opinion.

Walkinxyz (talk) 01:06, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that I left in a wrong way, but it was just a reaction to impotence. I hope that Mr. Poulter, who is a psychologist, as I can read in his personal page, will understand me and won't take that into account. And I also hope that it won't be taken into account in Wikipedia as a "bad reputation" for me, since this is practically my first contact with this Wikipedia (which I admire for its richness) and lost control. I consider that the "oficial" definition in this article is not accurate yet. For example, it states that love is related to attachment, but in Buddhism it's just the opposite: attachment is a negative emotion which feeds ego and decreases the capacity for compassionate love, which is the only true love for that religion. Also, Christianity considers altruism as the only true love ("love your neighbor as yourself"), not just as a philosophical concept, but in practice, and those definitions are not present in the lede, when I firmly believe that they should be. That is the reason why I changed the original definition to "affinity", which indeed is vague, but, in fact, I used a vague term deliberately, since the different definitions of love in the world are contradictory and even choking. The only point in common for all of them is affinity, even in religious love between a god and a mortal. I can see that Mr. Poulter is also a philosopher, so he surely knows all this even much better than me. I hope that somebody will continue the negotiations with him and take profit from this, for both parts. I'm confident that, among intelligent people as we are, there will be a positive solution for everybody, out of prejudice. Good luck. --Dalton2 (talk) 04:43, 23 February 2011 (UTC) P.S: Sorry for my English; as you know, I'm Spanish, and I seldom practice it.

"If you love something, let it go." Yes, it's true that love is a sometimes contradictory emotion, and that "attachment" is not always identical to love. Far from it. However, the notion of "compassion" or caring in Buddhism, is not purely detached or disengaged. Buddhists talk about "breathing in suffering, and breathing out compassion." But in order to "breathe in suffering," you must be connected to that suffering, and the more that you care about something, the more likely you are to be affected by it if comes to harm, because it is a part of you. This is a cyclical process of deepening one's connection to things, even inanimate things, of caring for things and of taking care, not severing all connection. This is a different sense of "attachment," and it is in some ways a question of degrees or quality of attachment, and our response to that attachment (so for example, Jesus also said "forgive us as we forgive others," i.e. that we deserve the forgiveness that we grant others). If you see yourself as a "part of all things" is this not also a philosophy of a certain kind of attachment, or belonging, as well as detachment?

(It is also arguable that "true" love must have a particular quality, intensity, constancy, etc. or that it has to be reciprocal, or unconditional, or total, or have a sense of humour about itself, etc. Nobody said that this concept was coherent. But I think the word "attachment" is justified as a generalization in English, as it carries several senses, even if the translation of "love" from the languages in which Buddhism developed isn't perfectly rendered as "attachment". "Affinity" does not nearly capture the peculiar qualities of love in any of these understandings. It even comically understates it, e.g., the love that a mother has for a child.) Walkinxyz (talk) 06:39, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

For Buddhism, attachment is always present as long as we live, the same as suffering. That's samsara, the wheel of reincarnations, and it has nothing to do with what Buddhism understands as love. I don't agree with you in what you say about "being part of everything" as a sort of attachment. Do you feel attachment for your eyes? Or for your stomach? It's the same thing. You don't even think of them, and that's what an enlightened person does. Thinking is to be attached to the past and to the future, since you can't think without remembering or projecting. For Buddhism, attachment feeds ego, and ego is just an accumulation of suffering. As you lose ego, you lose suffering, and you are closer to the buddha state. Of course buddhists talk about "breathing in suffering," and "breathing out compassion", but suffering doesn't feed ego for them. Suffering passes through them; they see emotions come and go, but emotions don't stay. It's when you catch emotions, when you make them yours, that ego is fed, and you are detached from reality, or, as some buddhists say, "from the way things are like". I hope you understand my explanation. --Dalton2 (talk) 06:53, 23 February 2011 (UTC) Also, according to the 14th century Zen master Gasan Jōseki, the sayings of Jesus in the Gospels were written by "somebody not far from buddhahood". You can see it in 101 Zen Stories, #16. Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th Dalai Lama, said that it's probable that Jesus was a Bodhisattva or an enlightened person. You can see it here. --Dalton2 (talk) 07:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

A mother will never say that she has only an "affinity" for the child she carries in her during pregnancy. She is attached – psychologically, physically and emotionally – to the child. This is arguably the very first experience any of us has of love, and the notion of "attachment" here is absolutely relevant – it is arguably where it derives ultimately. It is certainly not a self-centred or "ego-feeding" phenomenon. Many mothers would sacrifice their lives to save their child without hesitating to think beforehand. In order to care for something, to have concern for it, one must be somewhat attached to it, there must be an affective component, or our efforts to care would be marked by inconstancy and neglect. The past and future, moreover, are constitutive of our experience, whether that experience is ego-centred or not. In the words of Aristotle, we are "finite, erotic beings" – we are born longingly into the world, and education, or "Enlightenment" is a process of coming to understand and transform our longing for connection, not severing it. All our concepts are things that we live with in practice as you say, and not just in theory. If love is to mean anything other than to the purely enlightened, it must also be liveable. My arm is attached to my body and if someone were to cut it off, I would certainly suffer. Am I, ego-wise, "attached" to it in any particular way? No. But on the other hand, if I reflect on it, I would be traumatized without it. Similarly, it is a feature of our experience that we are "attached" to things that we love, whether before, during, or after we learn what "true" love is, and whether or not that is ideal or "true to love" from a Buddhist perspective. The recognition of one's "incorporation" in the wider universe is also conceptually dependent on one's independence of those things (and not in terms of any particular "self-centred" or "ego-feeding" understanding of self). If you are suggesting that love is not an emotion, you will never get a consensus on that – whatever else it is, it is an emotion, and the Christian concept of love also appeals to the emotional content of that concept, even though "good works" are central to many conceptions.

I'm afraid that Wikipedia is global, pluralist and secular, rather than theological in nature. So while I personally believe that these debates about particular views are interesting, they probably don't belong in the lead itself, which is a general introduction to the subject of love. The concepts you have described in Buddhism and Christianity are, of course, covered in this sentence:

In some religious contexts, love is not just a virtue, but the basis for all being, as in the Christian phrase, "God is love" or Agape in the Canonical gospels. Love may also be described as actions towards others (or oneself) based on compassion.

If that was your contribution, then I commend you for it.

Walkinxyz (talk) 08:57, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that you are trying to reason a Buddhist concept from your Western perspective, an also to compare Buddhist love to other philosophical concepts of love. Am I right? I don't think that should be the way to go. I believe that, specially in issues like religion, we should show what the sources say, not trying to interpret what they say. The best way to approach the knowledge about what the Buddhist concept of love is, is to live as a Buddhist, and the only way to really know it, is to be a Buddha. I tried to explain what you should feel when you are in the oneness of elightenment, and you took my example with all its consequences. Let me give you a Buddhist example, much better than mine: "when you reach elightenment, gold and sh*t mean the same for you". How can you explain what you feel when you love somebody? You can say a hundred thousand words, you can even start a philosophical discussion during months, you can even use the narcissistic freudian concept of love, and yet you won't be able to explain what it really is. You know why? Because it is irrational. You say that Wikipedia is secular. If it were, then it should be in the policies. I'll tell you that I am not a religious person, but nonetheless I want religious information in Wikipedia, and also in the lead section. And I'd also like to see the word altruism more than once preferably in the lead section. And regarding motherly love, yes, it's attachment, but Buddhist love is not: they say it's not, period. We could simply say: "they claim that love is not attachment, and the author X thinks that it's not possible", but never to interpret their words and make our own conclusions, like, for example, "they must feel some attachment according to our philosophical knowledge". That's WP:OR. The only thing in common between Buddhist love and motherly love is affinity. You can write that it's attachment, and delight in it, but there will be millions of people in the world who won't think the same. I'd appeal to your altruism, but I think it's not the way. I'll just say: let's wait, and they will come to claim. Or maybe not: Buddhist people don't care. Have a nice day. --Dalton2 (talk) 10:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

From the message in the page header "This is not a forum for general discussion of Love. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article." I agree with the need to include "distortions or perversions of love that have been identified by important thinkers" but on the other hand we need to avoid 1) unreferenced personal opinion, 2) paragraphs that are referenced to a source but are personal opinion in disguise, and 3) material that, even if well-sourced, is not helpful to the reader in helping them understand love. MartinPoulter (talk) 12:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, Mr. Poulter. I'm glad you agree with Walkinxyz that we need to include distortions or perversions of love. I agree with you regarding unreferenced material. But paragraphs that are referenced but "are personal opinion in disguise", are a subjective matter. If you analyze what you say, your own sentence could be a "personal opinion in disguise". That's why we rely on relevant authors, and not on users' personal opinions. Once a relevant author publishes something, Wikipedia must accept it. That's indiscutible. Regarding your third point, I repeat my second argument, it could be your "personal opinion in disguise". So we must rely again on relevant authors. Relevant authors are determined by the number and quality of sources which reference them. Deleuze is considered to be, according to many authors, one of the most important and influential philosophers in the twentieth century (please see here). Jesus Christ and Buddha are also relevant authors, if we attend to objective criteria: the number of times they are used in references. Gottfried Leibnitz is considered to be a "universal genius", the last one in history (please see here). This makes me wonder about how many relevant authors describe love as "an emotion of strong affection and personal attachment", appart from the Oxford Illustrated American Dictionary. We should analyze sources, and then determine the order and redaction of text in the lead section, but, undoubtedly, the four authors above need a relevant position in the article about "love", if we want to be neutral and realistic. Wikipedia portrayes reality, it doesn't interpret it. And the only way to do that is to rely on relevant sources. Any other opinion is just that, an opinion. Thank you. --Dalton2 (talk) 15:39, 23 February 2011 (UTC) P.S: Please forgive my possible redaction mistakes: note that I'm Spanish, and that I have never been living in an English speaking country. Let me tell you that I also forgive people who can't speak Spanish.

As to what should go in the article, and what not, please (really) take a look at WP:NOTE. Also, inform yourself about what an encyclopedia is, and how one should write articles for one. Example: significant coverage - AO is not a book about love. There is not much explicit coverage of the topic in D&G/D's work. You yourself have failed to provide references to substantial theses on love in AO. D/D&G's works might contain much about the topic, passim that is, and extracting it would be constitute original research. You could write a paper about it, but for WP it's a bit problematic. Also, there has not been much secondary coverage (e.g. "Love in Deleuze and Guattari" or "Deleuze and love" as Deleuzians like to name their books) etc. I like Deleuze a lot, have attended conferences, held groups on them, read a big part of his/their writing, etc., yet this does not play much of a role here. This really is not about status, titles, or how good someones English is, just about writing good articles. You can take a couple of different encyclopedias from different fields (say, philosophy, cultural studies, psychology, cognitive neuroscience, comparative theology ...) and read the respective articles on love to get an idea and a feel for how this could be done.

Of course you can put something in that is POV even though you give references. E.g., someone put a paragraph on god as the basis for perception in the article lede (of the article "perception"), this is POV even though one could give loads of references for that idea. Also, you can reline POV with undifferenciated references to, say, complete books.

I think that actually studying WP consensus is preferable over loads of rhetorics and ignorant reverts. Wikipedia's acceptance of references is not indisputable, it was discussed, there is consensus, and it keeps getting re-discussed. An author is not relevant for something just because they are relevant in general. You wont very likely find "the" one sentence that is perfect for this article in one particular author, why complain that the sentence in the lede is not found in, say, Hegel. The "relevant sources" you have referred Martin to is really a section on reliability which is still another thing. At least read the rules that you invoke. Morton Shumway—talk 17:33, 23 February 2011 (UTC).

It's okay to call me "Martin": that's my name. I hope your comment above means you're going to stop putting unreferenced personal opinion into articles. Morton is right: you haven't made any argument for the relevance of these authors to the topic of love. MartinPoulter (talk) 18:20, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

On the other hand, there is interesting work on "love" in critical theory, which in general is concerned with the transformation of modern capitalist society. See Herbert Marcuse's Eros and Civilization, and Michael Hardt's work which has itself built on D&G's work, although perhaps not specifically their work on love. See this lecture on love as a political concept. Walkinxyz (talk) 19:39, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I would also suggest that all the recent work on affect theory, including D&G's work on affect, is relevant to the discussion, and there would probably be some notable thinking there.

Walkinxyz (talk) 19:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I find it interesting to add more points of view. As I can see, I am not good enough to add information to this article. Nobody tells me not, so I deduce they agree with Mr. Poulter. Also, Mr. Poulter seems to know a lot about love. Maybe he'd like to add the missing points of view. And maybe he could illustrate us about why the Oxford Illustrated American Dictionary obeys WP:NO better than any other source. I just tried to be polite apologizing for my possible redaction faults, so I don't understand what you said about "how good someones English is". Mr. Poulter, not Martin, please. Have a nice day. --Dalton2 (talk) 22:49, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Please note that it was I who wrote most of the paragraphs you seem to refer to. The remark you don't understand only means that it's not a big problem if someone's English is not perfect. Morton Shumway—talk 23:50, 23 February 2011 (UTC).

But that wasn't my experience. Another example. As you can see, I had my reasons. --Dalton2 (talk) 02:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC) P.S: I don't think it's relevant the fact that you added that information.

Is Buddhism good for your health? Article on The New York Times Magazine about some experiments on the brain activity of Matthieu Ricard. Also here's a video. --Dalton2 (talk) 00:48, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

With regard to the attribution of the statement "God is love" to "the Canonical Gospels," praised above in this section, this attribution is incorrect. See this section below for the correct source (still within the "canonical" Christian scriptures, but not in the Gospels). Croman mac Nise / Crommán mac Nessa / Cromán mac Neasa (talk) 14:12, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Homosexual theme

It seems to me that this article tends to emphasize a homosexual POV. While ok to me to mention in passing, it seems that the article is very (as in, VERY) unbalanced.--74.107.74.39 (talk) 00:54, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Can you give some examples of specifically where you feel it's unbalanced? I'm not seeing this. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 09:56, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, please give more detail. What is a "homosexual POV" and how specifically is it present in the article? MartinPoulter (talk) 18:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Can you describe where it is unbalanced? I cant really see any unbalance.209.121.127.164 (talk) 18:53, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Advancing 'Love'

Dear Admins,

I would like to advance the item of 'Love' by inserting a high quality translation of a part of the Hungarian item of 'Love', you can see this here: http://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Szeretet#2010

As I know it is applied by teachers in schools and psychologists even in prisons.

But the item of 'Love' is blocked. Could you please insert the following work into the item in a new section to publish it also in English? For example under the following header: "Contemporary phylosophical" or something similar.

https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1DANAQyXd7_EHY6JpskUChJaS366s-cbmV15f9dpcadc

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vendrel (talk • contribs) 17:15, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I need to make a decision! I know what to do, but I don't know what I'm doing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.142.147 (talk) 13:57, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Ancient Greek terms, Religion and Love, Erôs and Agapê, Incorrect Attribution, etc.

The Classical Greek (Attikê) and Hellenistic (or "New Testament") Greek (Koinê) words which can be rendered as "love" in English are basically five in number: agapê (generally understood as love between humans and the divine, although assorted passages in the New Testament include commands that Christians love one another with this sort of love, commands to men to love their wives with this sort of love, etc.; vide, e.g., John XIII, 34, Eph. V, 25, I John IV, 21, et al.), storgê (family affection), philanthrôpia (humanitarian compassion), philê or philia (friendship), and erôs (intimate love). These are all nouns as I have presented them here, but each of them also has a verbal form (agapaô, phileô, etc), except, perhaps, philanthrôpia (at least, I do not recall having ever seen a verbal form of this word). Occasionally, some clergy attempt to simplify these by naming only three (agapê, philê, and erôs), since storgê is not used in the New Testament --- though erôs is also not found in the NT, while philanthrôpia is used in the New Testament. Occasional attempts have been made to claim that agapê is an exclusively Christian ideal; those attempts have been based on lack of knowledge, however, because pre-Christian Greek religious language does indeed make use of the ideal of agapê. For some references to these words and their meanings, origins, and uses in various places, see Madeleine S. Miller & J. Lane Miller, Harper's Bible Dictionary, Harper & Brothers, New York, NY (1952 & 1954); Gerhard Kittel & Gerhard Friedrich (editors), Geoffrey W. Bromiley & Ronald Pitkin (translators), Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (10 volumes, unabridged), Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, MI (1964); Carl A.P. Ruck, Ancient Greek: A New Approach (Second Edition), the MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, and London, England (1979); Joseph Henry Thayer, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI (1885, 1889). Note that Ruck renders erôs as simply "love." Thayer confirms the use of philanthrôpia in the NT (as will Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, if you prefer that or don't have access to Thayer). Kittel will supply evidence of pre-Christian uses of agapê.

At times, due to ignorance about Ancient Greek and/or tendencies toward dualism and/or asceticism (and/or perhaps even erotophobia, as during the Victorian period), some laypersons within the Christian tradition have reduced these to only two, and attempt to represent them as somehow opposed to one another: agapê and erôs. This latter effort to depict the two as in opposition is due to the typical rendering of erôs as "sexual love," when in fact, (as noted accurately in the Wiki article on the Pagan Greek God Eros and the Wiki article on Eros (concept)) it means "intimate love" (which certainly can, and often does, include sexual love, but which should not be restricted to that idea alone). In fact, however, love between humans and the divine has been described in erotic terms since the earliest records of religious devotion, even in the Hebrew and Aramaic texts of the Tanakh (or "Old Testament"). The Tanakh is replete with examples of this, describing Israel as the beloved of YHVH, as the wife of YHVH, referring to "infidelity" of humans toward YHVH as "whoring after other gods," a yearning expressed by YHVH for a time when Israel will no longer refer to YHVH as "my lord" ("ba'ali" = my Ba'al, my lord) and will instead refer to YHVH as "my husband" ("ishi" = my husband) as recorded in Hos. II, 16, more or less explicit sexual language in the Song of Songs (which has been interpreted as referring to the relationship between the Divine and the faithful), etc.. Many of these motifs recur in the New Testament, e.g., references to the Church as "the bride of Christ." I could supply references for these, but I hope most of those concerned will have at least sufficient familiarity with their sacred texts to be aware of these passages; if not, consult Strong's (which is available online for those who don't have a hardcopy).

Nor do these erotic representations of Mystical Union between humans and the Divine end with the final book of the NT. Teresa of Ávila, among other Christian Mystics in later times, expresses her mystical experiences in thinly-veiled sexual metaphor, writing of having been "pierced" by Jesus, discussing the devotion of ecstasy or rapture, etc.

Furthermore, erotic language used to refer to religious devotion is not restricted to the Judaeo-Christian tradition (nor even only to the Abrahamic tradition). Witness Bhakti Yoga in Vedantic Hinduism, for one example, in which the Divine is frequently depicted as "the Lover," "the Beloved," "the Divine Lover," or "the Divine Beloved."

Finally, I'm a bit dismayed by this statement in the first section of the article: Love is central to many religions, as in the Christian phrase, "God is love" or Agape in the Canonical gospels.

Certainly the first part is correct. My dismay is concerning the attribution of this expression to "the Canonical Gospels," because:

• there is really little need to qualify "Gospels" by "Canonical" in this statement; I doubt most people who read this passage are going to go looking through the Proteuangelion/Protevangelium, the Gospel of Truth, or any other "non-Canonical" Gospel trying to source it.
• the passage is actually found in its most explicit statement in the First Epistle of John (IV, 8 and again in IV, 16), not in any of the Gospels (canonical or otherwise), although it is certainly implied in some Gospel passages (particularly in the Gospel of John).

Perhaps, then, the statement should be edited to read: Love is central to many religions, as in the Christian phrase, "God is love" (Agape) in the New Testament.

I will add a link to this section to some of the preceding sections on this Talk page where some of these issues have been raised. Croman mac Nise / Crommán mac Nessa / Cromán mac Neasa (talk) 13:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Linguistic analysis of love

How do you fall in love when your society has no word for it?. I just find the semantic aspect of love interesting and perhaps it's a good idea to expand the semantics of love in this article. Komitsuki (talk) 11:56, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Working on some references citation

I am going to do some work -specially adding references and citation. I'll mention the works in Talk Page's this section. --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 01:46, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

• Religious influence, last line, adding a reference and removing citation needed template. --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 01:49, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Islam Section Direct External Link

I think in Islam influence section, direct external links should not be added in the main article. I suggest yo add them in reference section --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 01:51, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Etymology Of The Word Love

I suggest to add some information on etymology of the word Love. Like here --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 01:58, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Citation heavily needed

"In philosophical context, love is a virtue representing all of human kindness, compassion, and affection."

There is so much wrong with this sentence from a technical standpoint. It sounds more like pseudo-romantic praise than anything philosophical or encyclopedic. I propose it be scraped, or at least that citation needed or a by whom tag be added. No philosopher would claim this. Even if they had the specific philosopher should be named. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Distortion0 (talk • contribs) 03:50, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 18 October 2011

Please change "Eric Fromm" to "Erich Fromm". Eric is the name of a tennis player, the name of the psychologist ist Erich. Thank you. 80.146.231.42 (talk) 14:36, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for catching that. --Onorem♠Dil 14:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request

Please revise the image — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.35.235.19 (talk)

Which image? What do you suggest it is revised to? For what reason? --Onorem♠Dil 16:10, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request

Hello. Can you add this under "Islam" on the "Love" page. I feel this quote from the Quran sheds light on how love is viewed in Islam in relation to the Muslim concept of God. Thank you.

Muslims are told in the Quran that by doing good deeds they can gain the love of God. "Be quick in the race for forgiveness from your Lord, and for a Garden (paradise) whose width is that of the heavens and of the earth, prepared for the righteous - Those who spend (freely), whether in prosperity or in adversity, who restrain (their) anger and pardon (all) men - for God loves those who do good." [Quran. Chapter 3, Verses 133-134] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heartbeats4Allah (talk • contribs)

Any chance you could cite some academic source which discusses this quote in the context you're mentioning? – Luna Santin (talk) 21:44, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Marking this request as answered; feel free to restore it if and when sources can be provided. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:38, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Love is the magical world

LOVE..................... ......magic wand that weaves dreams ......magic emotion that sends poets into rapture ......magic drink that heals the sick ......magic harmony that inspires music ......magic glue that binds strangers together ......magic power that keeps the world alive ......magic power that makes the world a place worth live in Love is j2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.227.229.185 (talk) 08:30, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion

"Love may be understood a part of the survival instinct" should be changed to "Love may be understood as part of the survival instinct." Small change but didn't make porn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oscarfury (talk • contribs) 04:16, 13 November 2011 (UTC) Done thanks for catching that Sazza21 (talk) 18:55, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 February 2012

Indian culture strongly believes in love.But it is very diverse and it is completely based on religion,caste and independent views. Devaatchennai (talk) 15:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

 Not done: Please express your request in a 'please change X to Y' degree of detail and provide reliable sources for any factual change. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 15:32, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

limerence, limerent

Is it not time that the psychological terms "limerence" or "limerent" appear in this article given the reference made to Terrov?

See limerence and our links in this article. I would urge that "scientific" basis be considered to replace the division between "biological" and "psychological" - or must we wait on genetics, neurophysiology and neuroanatomy to drop this very artificial division which reflects, in the sociology of science, far more the division of academic departments, publication histories and funding practices than established facts and well-supported theories? Should divisions, headings, in wikipedia articles be on the side of research and facts or out-dated social conventions and entrenched academic bias?

G. Robert Shiplett 16:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 February 2012

Love is a thing that not every one gets to have. It is something that only some get to have. Also it is like a ghost, everyone talks about it but only some have really seen it!

Lovely little times 05:26, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

 Not done: Not an edit request. — Abhishek  ^Talk 06:35, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Personality disorders and page numbers

I have changed the wording from "developmental disorders" to " personality disorders". I have cided page numbers. I accidently typed 24 instead of 74 page number which I corrected too. Pass a Method talk 13:29, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for doing both those things (particularly the change from developmental to personality). I still can't see any of the page numbers you cite because apparently they are not included in the Google online versions. However, I accept that you must have the books. As to whether this material belongs in the article at all, I'll leave that issue to others more knowledgeable about the subject and the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:39, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "can't see the page numbers". I have provided verifiable page numbers for four books: page 74, page 89, page 263, and page 243. They all have online links attached Pass a Method talk 13:50, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

You must've changed the links or I just screwed up. I now can see the ones for pages 74, 89, and 243. Page 263, however, points to page 257. As to the three I can see, the first two (74 and 89) say the same thing and seem to be more a criticism of the term "hysterical" than anything else. In passing, it says "incapable of loving deeply", but I'm not sure how well that passing comment supports the assertion in the article. As for page 243, it clearly says that people with narcissistic personality disorder are "incapable of caring or loving for others". Not a real surprise, actually.

If we are going to keep this material at all, I suggest that we be very specific as to what personality disorders we are talking about. At the moment, even with the phrase "certain personality disorders", it's overbroad and misleading.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:18, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I have made it more specific at your request. Holler :) Pass a Method talk 16:16, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Again, thanks. I think it's as good as it's going to be, and so the only question is whether it belongs. There's something about it that makes me uncomfortable. Other than the comments about the narcissistic disorder, which, as I said earlier, are quite clear, I feel like we are misinterpreting the sources, not with any evil intent, but that the discussions in the sources are more complex, and we are reducing that complexity to a simple statement that isn't necessarily accurate. I'll let others comment.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:23, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Not sure how to reply to that, but bipolar, narcissists and personality disorders are covered in more soures, but i think these are sufficient. Pass a Method talk 17:11, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 1 May 2012

Ishq, or divine love, is the emphasis of Sufism in the Islamic tradition. Practitioners of Sufism believe that love is a projection of the essence of God to the universe. God desires to recognize beauty, and as if one looks at a mirror to see oneself, God "looks" at himself within the dynamics of nature. Since everything is a reflection of God, the school of Sufism practices to see the beauty inside the apparently ugly. Sufism is often referred to as the religion of love.{{Citation

41.235.168.207 (talk) 11:02, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

 Changed it to that. Rcsprinter (chat) 19:42, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 11 July 2012

The line "People with histrionic personality disorder, narcissism and bipolar disorder may have a limited or minimal capability of experiencing love" appears in the introduction section Interpersonal love. One reference given for Bipolar refers to a passage on PSTD in a book with bi polar in the title, the other directs to a page referring to psychoanalytic writers. I would like bipolar removed from this list as "limited or minimal capability of experiencing love" does not accurately describe people with bipolar, and I find it offensive.

Predjudice?

"People with histrionic personality disorder and narcissism may have a limited or minimal capability for experiencing love" I have checked the references for the following sentence. With regard to "histrionic personality disorder" they talk about previous views representing male attitudes, and do not support this statement. The references relating to Narcissism relate to borderline personality disorder, specific types of schizoprenia and other dsm classifications. While it might be possible to properly list psychiatric diagnoses that can affect the ability to love, I am not convinced that it is appropriate.93.96.148.42 (talk) 01:21, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Go ahead and remove anything like this from related articles. It is flatly social propaganda. These statements may belong in (or related to) Narcissistic personality disorder or Psychopathy or Aspergers syndrome or the like but to use "Narcissism" (as such) in here is false. And agreed "histrionic" is even more absurd. Feel free to boldly remove these sort of statements where you find them. Obotlig ☣ ^interrogate 06:38, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Unfortunately the page is semi protected, so I can't!93.96.148.42 (talk) 17:22, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 July 2012

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Delete ""People with histrionic personality disorder and narcissism may have a limited or minimal capability for experiencing love" as per discussion above.

Not done for now: I'm not sure if it should be removed. There are about 4 sources (at last check) after that sentence. I'll leave this open to input from others. Andie ▶(Candy)◀ 14:47, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Please check the sources - they do not support the statement.93.96.148.42 (talk) 00:36, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I've checked the sources and three explicitly support the statement; the other I was unable to access. Danger! ^{High voltage!} 01:15, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I have just checked them again, and I am afraid that I do not understand what you mean. Firstly, none of the sources deals with love as a general subject, or at any length so their use in this context would seem to constitute WP:OR. Secondly the sources discussing histrionic personality disorder do not say that people with this diagnosis "may have a limited or minimal capability for experiencing love". As you have taken the trouble to check the sources, I would be most grateful if you would post relevant extracts here, as I can't see anything in them supporting this claim. If you look at [[1]] above, you will find that others have had the same problem.93.96.148.42 (talk) 03:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I set the edit protected to answered. This may need RfC or other consensus to decide. I am just trying to clear the backlog.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

RFC

"People with histrionic personality disorder and narcissism may have a limited or minimal capability for experiencing love" should be deleted. It is wp:undue, and the sources given do not support its inclusion. RFC as per discussion above.87.194.46.83 (talk) 05:55, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - the sources need to be much more explicit for such a general statement on an abstract and ambiguous topic. Paum89 (talk) 00:35, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
• Delete as per 87.194.46.83. The statement is surely unjustified and as such, does not fit in with the general tone of the article TheOriginalSoni (talk) 16:40, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
• Delete -The sources do say that people with such disorders have emotional and sometimes sexual problems, but they don't specifically say anything about patients having "limited or minimal capability for experiencing love" -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:26, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
• Delete I don't like demanding deletions, but if you want this text or any direct replacement to stand, you have some serious editing and citations to get right first. As it stands it amounts to sententious handwaving. JonRichfield (talk) 15:24, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
• Delete based on discussion above. I have to side with WP:undue and I feel it's just plain unneccesary (sp). gwickwire | Leave a message 04:17, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Is love a scienticially meaningful idea? 75.145.77.185 (talk) 18:23, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Moved from article to here given the above dicussion:

"People with histrionic personality disorder and narcissism may have a limited or minimal capability for experiencing love. [Personality Disorders: Recognition and Clinical Management retrieved 9 February 2012, Jonathan H. Dowson, Adrian T. Grounds, page 74;Women and borderline personality disorder: symptoms and stories page 89, retrieved 10 February 2012;Psychodynamic Psychotherapy for Personality Disorders: A Clinical Handbook Narcissistic personality disorder, page 263;Introduction to Psychology Ann L. Weber, Joseph Johnson, page 243"] -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:31, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The intrinsic value of love

The philosophy section is too bare-bones, and the split article has virtually no content of its own. (what was the point of splitting it in the first place?) The main article focuses rather exclusively on biological processes with some cultural commentary. That's swell, but are there any philosophy experts out there who could offer something a bit more existential?

Here's a position to consider, and that I would like for another editor to address: If romantic relationships are largely based on superficial attractions, then what intrinsic value does love possess? (not applicable to familial or religious love) Humans tend to establish intimate relationships and mating pairs through rigid judgments, systematically excluding other humans who don't possess key physical or emotional qualities. Knowing that one's love is based on such conditions, can that love be considered pure in any sense?

Sure, it's nice for the receptive end; but let's not forget how many people are harmed as a result of rejection, jealousy, etc. during the course of the typical search and selection process that leads up to a successful relationship. What's more, there are some people who seem to have practically no success with dating at all. Where do people with significant physical deformities find love? What about people who suffer from serious mental disease or defect? There's a multitude of subjectively unattractive people who very much experience the biological need for love, and are denied it. With this in mind, how is any love morally and philosophically justifiable? 98.86.99.5 (talk) 05:05, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Link to other article suggestion

The reference to "vulnerability and care theory of love" in this article should be linked to the Wikipedia article of the same name, especially since the reference says "cf". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weatherlove (talk • contribs) 07:11, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 31 August 2012

The qay the article starts is all wrong. It proposes a definiteness in its very first sentence, 'love is', reducing the essence of our transparency, dissolution, evolution and understanding as individuals to regurgitation and mental physics. Nothing more than cultural bias - the bias of culture itself. love cannot be known within a culture, nor is it strong attachment or affection - the latter of which always leads to inner and outer violence when the object of attachment is not constantly present (like a drug). What this person has written about love is completely the opposite of what it is. It is the transformation and dissolution of human into the universal, not the self fulfilling, self propagating, selfishness that is talked about here. There is nothing of passion in seeking or understanding and no personal experience here in this wikipedia article. Why does this person choose to write this when he has no idea what he is talking about and no obvious passion to understand but to simply regurgitate? 184.48.13.147 (talk) 19:14, 31 August 2012 (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. Also, provide reliable sources for the change you want. RudolfRed (talk) 19:53, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

In section 5.1.1 the following is stated: "Christians believe that to Love God with all your heart, mind, and strength and Love your neighbor as yourself are the two most important things in life (the greatest commandment of the Jewish Torah, according to Jesus; cf. Gospel of Mark chapter 12, verses 28–34)." According to Jesus, it is the greatest commandment of the Jewish Torah. Is it just me, or does that not seem right? Thanks! Tbeasley0504 (talk) 03:10, 30 December 2012 (UTC)