Talk:Friendship

Cross Sex Friendship

The Cross Sex Friendship section is completely lacking references. There are even sociological claims put forth that would require serious research and statistics and yet no reference. I could easily just add that cross sex relationships cause cancer if support weren't required. Support, however, is required. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.37.241.213 (talk) 04:37, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Friendship 2.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Friendship 2.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:25, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Close friendships among children discouraged

I think this article merits some text in this article. Although an article on best friends should be created at some time. __meco (talk) 09:24, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello every one. Here is a little question……

Are you having lunch or having dinner, breakfast? Or you have already have lunch, breakfast, dinner. Please give me your answer, thanks!!!O(∩_∩)O~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.69.234.230 (talk) 10:57, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Uh....what? 24.181.94.46 (talk) 08:46, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Close relationships & Love table

The purpose of this section is to discuss the inclusion/exclusion of Template:Close relationships and Template:Love table in the article. While both may seem like useful additions to an article on friendship, in actuality their focus is much more on romantic/sexual/marital relationships. This is especially true of "love table", as it is meant for a series of articles, which the Friendship article is not a part of. Which is why I removed both templates from the article. Senator2029 (talk) 18:21, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

See also section

I have removed items from this section, as they were too broad and non-soecific.--Soulparadox (talk) 08:11, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Philosophy

(This is what happened. Apollinaire.kim added the book "Plutarch. How to know a flatterer from a friend." to the External links of this article, and to other articles. An editor reverted, I (Lova Falk) reverted in another article and left a message on Apollinaire.kim's talk page. Now I copy our discussion to this talk page, so more editors can comment.)

-> Do you think really "How to know a flatterer from a friend" of Plutarch does not appropriate for Friendship? That is Plutarchs' philosophical approach to the friendship like Aristotles' Nicomachean Ethics in the Further reading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apollinaire.kim (talk • contribs) 21:17, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Apollinaire.kim! Thank you for asking me. I just checked with the WP site on external links, and I copy here what it says about what can normally be linked:

1. Wikipedia articles about any organization, person, website, or other entity should link to the subject's official site, if any. See Official links below.
2. An article about a book, a musical score, or some other media should link to a site hosting a legally distributed copy of the work, so long as none of the Restrictions on linking and Links normally to be avoided criteria apply.
3. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons.

Now, your books are not number one, two or three. As you say, it is a philosophical approach to friendship, and as such, it is not neutral and accurate. Yet I can see the value of including the philosophical view on friendship. The best thing to do would be to write a section "Philosophy" in the article Friendship, and then the philosophy books can be used as references. For now, I'll put your books back in. I'll also copy this discussion to the talk page of Friendship. With friendly regards, Lova Falk talk 17:05, 5 November 2012 (UTC)