Talk:Love

Biology of love

The first and greatest commandment is this: "And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength. And the second commandment, like it is this: You shall love your neighbor as your self. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.76.137 (talk) 00:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Loving someone is stepping out of your own box, and into their poo poo doo doo

Love from the center of who you are, don't fake it. Make friends with nobodies; don't be the great somebody.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.76.137 (talk) 00:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I definitely think somewhere in there it should mention pheromones, the smell given off that like makes people feel attracted.
I would put it in myself but for some reason I can't because the "edit" button just doesnt show up for me. ??Hating someone is love not the other way around!!!

I think something about pheromones should be mentioned. There has got to be some research on this topic. The question is: Where do we find it? (Patricia Op 21:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC))

If love is such a contraversial issue, how in the world can there be a "...leading expert in the topic of love..." ??? I think that should be changed to something like, "an anylist specializing in love" or something wierd like that68.98.201.19 04:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)Aaron.

I believe love is magical and when you find that person who can fill that whole in you then you know that he/she is the one! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rilez-Risso (talk • contribs) 08:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, love evolved from our need to proceate, our intelligence molded our need into love. When someone willingly talks to the opposite sex, they, in at least some very small way, even one they may not be aware of, is looking for proceation. The dates, gifts, etc., are to encourage companionship, but ultimately proceation.24.118.227.213 07:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, love is not an emotion at all, and did not evolve. Sexual desire did arise through evolution, and impels adults of many species to procreate, but that ain't love. It is not the case that men who talk to women (or vice versa) invariably have some sexual desire, even small and unnoticed, as a motive. It is often there, indeed, and should be watched for. (In the logical sense) is a sufficient but not a necessary condition. IMHO, love is actually a driving force of evolution, and a concept lying deep at the heart of the mechanisms of creation and order. Oliver Low 17:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

It is true that love is not really an emotion, but rather the combination of several emotions that conflict as well as concentrate together to form what we call love. It is difficult, (sometimes impossible) to describe an emotion to someone that has not experienced it themselves. I also realize the desire to proceate is a part of love, and in many cases is a starting point to a relationship that ultimately becomes love. The desires of companionship, family etc. also contribute to this effect. I suppose that love can be a driving force for evolution unto itself, but I also believe that evolution had a hand in creating love; this, of course, creates a cycle of sorts.24.118.227.213 07:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Lovelessness?

Is there any definition for "loveless" people or unability to "fall in love"? And what to do about people who don't know how is it to "fall in love"?

Loveless people are people who have never experiences God's love. you can't be loveless if you've felt His prescence! :)

^^^That's way too subjective to take into account. And it's just not true - There are obviously some people out there who may be very pious and god-loving, who still feel lonely due to a lack of physical companionship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.235.121.189 (talk) 04:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

First Line

Love is a constellation? How about range or variety, or something else so long as it's not constellation. Unusual Cheese 14:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Give us a few more ideas. (Patricia Op 23:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC))

>>>Love is when you feel surrounded by that person all the time, even if they're not anywhere near you. You notice that the smallest things, such as a song or ring, remind you of your 'love' with that person. It's NOT some wordly, one-night stand sort of thing that people now claim is 'love.' Love is pure, Godly, and wonderful. It's not something to be destroyed.<<< **StEf**

"Love is a constellation of emotions and experiences related to a sense of strong affection or profound oneness"? I thought this was vandalism and I was about to revert it. A.Z. 04:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I like constellation, it makes sense as a metaphor for the meaning of love, there experiences are like stars that create only together create. I can perfectly understand that someone does not agree with this, what I would not understand is a definition of love without at least some basic use of universal poetry.Elmedio 05:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

But... we're not a poem, we're an encyclopedia. What is universal poetry? A.Z. 01:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely. Unless someone can give a good reason to keep it as it is, which may or may not be appropriate, I'll change it to something that everyone can understand. The problem with using constellation is that we want to keep Wikipedia as accessible to everyone as is possible, and using the words constellation may confuse any non-English readers, who may or may not appreciate the metaphor. Also, I think that using the word constellation falls into WP:POV.----JamesSugrono^U|C 00:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Surrendered Wives

Perhaps this "see also" was deleted too hastily by Icarus3. I looked it up and it looked legitimate to me. Taquito1 01:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Opening Paragraph

Hey Guys: I am a relatively new user to Wikipedia, I was going through this article which opens with such a beautiful line. Based upon what I understand of karma, I could not make sense of the use of this term in the following sentence which is in first paragraph: "Though often linked to personal relations, love is often given a broader signification, a love of humanity, of nature, with life itself, or a oneness with the Universe, a universal love or karma." Does anyone has any idea? I think "or karma" should be taken out of this sentence.

After reading up the entire article, I never knew there were so many types of love :). My understanding of this word has been changing or evolving as well. I would like to put those here if its ok, but perhaps at a different time, as its way too late now. Duty2love 05:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

"Love" is overworked and needs help

“Love” Is Overworked And Needs Help

English, with more words than any other language, is a treasure beyond measure but the word “love” is used for concepts that are seemingly related but can be very different. This shortcoming leads many to confuse what some consider the loftiest of concepts, with some of our most mundane feeling and actions. “Love” is used to express both pleasurable feelings and conscious, thoughtful rational decision-based acceptance.

It is a truism to say that we are never, as humans, without feeling some emotion and equally true that we seldom function with out the use of our intellect. This “Love” word can express our mood when we are have a passion for a person, cause or thing, or when we are charmed, amused or simply enjoying. However this type of “Love” is far from consciously thinking about, deciding and adopting a personal policy or worldview that we understand, appreciate, laud and honor. “Love” of God, country, a philosophy, a worldview, or of beauty, order, science or art, can, and I think should, be based on rational thought.

Compare the kind of love felt for a potential spouse during courtship and the kind of love one feels after fifty years of marriage. I suspect that in most cases the former is highly emotionally charged and the latter devotion is more likely to be based on appreciation and commitment. Another example might be the found in the recently published personal papers of Mother Teresa where she described her lifetime relationship with God. She tells of her passion when first becoming a bride of Christ and then how she felt abandoned by God during her lifetime of doing charitable works. The point is she kept on doing what she was committed to do despite the loss of emotional joy. Both are based on “love” but one is more emotion and the other more a decision of the will.

Other languages may have different words for our different uses of “Love.” I don’t know. I do know that the ancient Greeks made a distinction between Eros (sexual desires and passion), Philia (friendship) and Agape (general attraction). Early Christian writers used agape to mean self sacrificing, Christ-like love. I suppose if we all used “I like” and “I love” to make the distinction in question, it might solve the problem of the overworked “love” word. However, considering the widespread practice of using “I love” for everything from a new hairstyle to an acceptance of a religious or political creed makes this a hard sell. My suggestion would be to continue using ”love” for positive emotion induced views and adopt a new word such as “crace” (an anagram representing conscious, rational, acceptance, commitment and ethics, that flow from the viewpoint) for one’s religion, philosophy, belief system, or ideology.

What is your opinion on this matter? If you agree that we need a new word, what do you suggest?

Dantagliere 20:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)Dan Tagliere September 24, 2007 dantagliere@aol.com

Was all of this necessary? I will tackle each of your issues, one by one, if at all possible. Upon closer inspection, I don't beleive I will. But I don't believe that the word love is overworked - the meaning can be inferred from the context in which it is used. When someone says that they love my new hair, I realise that its either sarcastic, or simply a compliment. I don't think that anyone would confuse it with actual passion for my hair. And also, in response to your indication of those Greek terms, do we not have words for "friendship", "attraction", and "sexual desires"? To reiterate - we have words for different types of love, and the verb 'love' must always be taken within the context in which it is said. By the way, Wikipedia, is not a soapbox! This extends to talk pages.----JamesSugrono^U|C 02:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

"trimming" see also

I think we have some trimming on autopilot. I may agree with some of the deletions from the list as less relevant. However, only very few of them. I notice reverence makes it, but romanticism doesn't. So I think we need to re-evaluate here! It's only the "see also" section so it's not very important to do trimming there. It is understood that these articles may be relevant enough to be of interest, but not enough to be mentioned in the article. However, some of these "see also" deletions are perfectly suitable for future inclusion in the article if good context can be drafted. Greg Bard 07:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Opening Para (contd.)

I saw no response on this question about removing the words "or karma". I assuming no one has any objection taking it out. I will give a day or two and then take it out. Duty2love 00:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Talkheader

Please do not remove the {{talkheader}} template from the top of the page. This article talk page has the potential to, and has in the past, veered off-topic, or into non-contributing rants about how people feel about love. I accept that people will have strong feelings about this topic, however, this is not the place to talk about them. This is a talk page for discussing improvements to the article, not general talk about the article's subject. This talkheader template is the first step to improving this high-importance article.----JamesSugrono^U|C 07:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

"Lovebot"

Somebody needs to make a bot that scans just this article for revisions that add text of the format "<surname> loves <surname>," and then automatically reverts it. Seriously, I think it might actually work! Now if only I knew anything about writing Wiki bots... --21:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

But doing that is so cute (if it is meant as a declaration of love, I mean). a.z. 04:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Semi-Protection

I'd recently requested protection - apparently, it had been un-protected on the 2nd, by Royalguard11 (apparently, this protection needs to stay), so it was really re-protection. This was granted, as on the request for protection, because in the few days following, over 50 vandalism-related edits were made, which really is unacceptable. I would very much like it, therefore, that any discussion related to unprotection be started here first. This is not for my personal satisfaction, but rather to centralise any discussion. In addition, it would be best for people actually editing the article to reach a consensus on any unprotection action that would be taken. I probably wouldn't support unprotection, just from the heavy vandalism that occurred in the brief unprotected period of time. But if circumstances change, we can discuss unprotection. It's completely fine if you don't wish to discuss it here first, you can go straight to the requests for page protection if you want to. Thank you in advance.James Sugrono_{Contributions} 11:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

societyoflove

I agree that semi-protection should remain indefinitely. This is perhaps one of the most important articles in relation to it's potential effect on people's lives and thought. Precisley because love is such a central matter to pretty much all religions, this article is not the place for soap-box preaching. It's of great importance that the article present the various understandings of 'love' from various religious and philosophical traditions in as clear and scholarly manner as possible. Oliver Low 17:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I ask that all requests made by practitioners of these religions have the love and universal principle are rediredionados to enhance the society of love. Largest religions or belief systems by number of adherents This listing[a] includes both organized religions, which have unified belief codes and religious hierarchies, and informal religions, such as Chinese folk religions. For completeness, it also contains a category for the non-religious, although their views would not ordinarily be considered a religion. 1. Christianity: 2.1 billion (Began: ca. 27 AD/CE), with major branches as follows: • See also the List of Christian denominations by number of members and List of Christian denominations pages (Non-denominational statistics are not shown.) 2. Roman Catholic Church: 1.05 billion 3. Eastern Orthodox Church: 240 million 4. African Initiated Church: 110 million 5. Pentecostalism: 105 million 6. Reformed/Presbyterian/Congregational/United: 75 million 7. Anglicanism/Episcopal Church: 73 million 8. Baptist: 70 million 9. Methodism: 70 million 10. Lutheran: 64 million 11. Jehovah's Witnesses: 14.8 million 12. Latter-day Saints: 13.5 million 13. Adventists: 12 million 14. Apostolic/New Apostolic: 10 million 15. Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement: 5.4 million 16. New Thought (Unity, Christian Science, etc.): 1.5 million 17. Brethren (incl. Plymouth): 1.5 million 18. Mennonite: 1.25 million 19. Friends/Quakers: 300,000 20. Islam: 1.5 billion (Began: ca. 610 AD/CE), with major branches as follows:[d] • Sunni: 940 million 21. Shia: 120 million 22. Ahmadi: 10 million 23. Druze: 450,000 24. Secular/irreligious/agnostic/atheist/antitheistic/antireligious: 1.1 billion (Began: Prehistory) • Category includes a wide range of beliefs, without specifically adhering to a religion or sometimes specifically against dogmatic religions. The category includes humanism, deism, pantheism, rationalism, freethought, agnosticism, and atheism. Broadly labeled humanism, this group of non religious people are third largest in the world. For more information, see the Adherents.com discussion of this category and the note below. [c] 25. Hinduism: 900 million (Began: approximately 1500 BC/BCE or 15th century BC/BCE however some aspects of it trace its history to 2600 BC/BCE or 26th century BC/BCE), with major branches as follows: • Vaishnavism: 580 million 26. Shaivism: 220 million 27. Neo-Hindus and Reform Hindus: 22 million 28. Veerashaivas/Lingayats: 10 million 29. Chinese folk religion: 394 million • Not a single organized religion, includes elements of Taoism, Confucianism, Buddhism and traditional nonscriptural religious observance (also called "Chinese traditional religion"). 30. Buddhism: 376 million (Began: 6th century BC/BCE), with major branches as follows: • Mahayana: 185 million 31. Theravada: 124 million 32. Vajrayana/Tibetan: 20 million 33. Primal indigenous (tribal religions): 300 million • Not a single organized religion, includes a wide range of traditional or tribal religions, including animism, shamanism and paganism. Since African traditional and diasporic religions are counted separately in this list, most of the remaining people counted in this group are in Asia. 34. African traditional and diasporic: 100 million • Not a single organized religion, this includes several traditional African beliefs and philosophies such as those of the Yoruba, Ewe (vodun) and the Bakongo. These three religious traditions (especially that of the Yoruba) have been very influential to the diasporic beliefs of the Americas such as condomble, santeria and voodoo. The religious capital of the Yoruba religion is at Ile Ife. 35. Sikhism: 23 million (Began: 1500s AD/CE) 36. Spiritism: 15 million (Began: mid-19th century AD/CE) • Not a single organized religion, includes a variety of beliefs including some forms of Umbanda. 37. Judaism: 14 million (Began: 13th century BC/BCE), with major branches as follows: • Conservative: 4.5 million 38. Unaffiliated and Secular: 4.5 million 39. Reform: 3.75 million 40. Orthodox: 2 million 41. Reconstructionist: 150,000 42. Bahá'í Faith: 7 million (Began: 19th century AD/CE) 43. Jainism: 4.2 million (Began: 6th century BC/BCE), with major branches as follows: • Svetambara: 4 million 44. Sthanakvasi: 750,000 45. Digambar: 155,000 46. Shinto: 4 million (Began: 300 BC/BCE) • This number states the number of actual self-identifying practising primary followers of Shinto; if everyone were included who is considered Shinto by some people due to ethnic or historical categorizations, the number would be considerably higher — as high as 100 million (according to the adherents.com source used for the statistics in this section). 47. Cao Dai: 4 million (Began: 1926 AD/CE) 48. Falun Gong: official post-crackdown figure as stated by Chinese Communist Party: 2.1 million; Chinese government pre-crackdown figure as reported by New York Times: 70-100 million; practitioners and founder of Falun Gong, Li Hongzhi, often refer to 100 million[b] (Founded: 1992 AD/CE) • Not necessarily considered a religion by adherents or outside observers. No membership or rosters, thus the actual figure of practitioners is impossible to confirm. 49. Tenrikyo: 2 million (Began: 1838 AD/CE) 50. Neopaganism: 1 million (Began: 20th century AD/CE) • A blanket term for several religions like Wicca, Asatru, Neo-druidism, and polytheistic reconstructionist religions 51. Unitarian Universalism: 800,000 (Began: 1961 AD/CE, however, prior to the merger the separate doctrines of Unitarianism and Universalism trace their roots to the 16th and 1st centuries AD/CE respectively) 52. Rastafari: 600,000 (Began: early 1930s AD/CE) 53. Scientology: 500,000 (Began: 1952 AD/CE) 54. Zoroastrianism: "at most 200,000"[9][10][e] with major communities as follows: • In India (the Parsis): est. 65,000 (2001 India Census: 69,601); Estimate of Zoroastrians of Indian origin: 100,000-110,000. 55. In Iran: est. 20,000 (1974 Iran Census: 21,400) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.25.92.88 (talk) 19:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree with need for permanent semi-protection of this page, as Wikipedia is known the world over by children and what better place to leave a 'cute expression of your love' for the world to see, vastly better than carving <surname> loves <surname> on your school desk in that more people will see it. I also second creation (if possible) of a bot for this page in addition to permanent semi-protection, that reverts edits along the lines of <surname> loves <surname>, <surname> hearts <surname>, and other variations of such to further discourage vandalism of that sort. 76.95.151.5 (talk) 02:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

excision of Religious Love section near the top

I excised this:

Whether religious love can be expressed in similar terms to interpersonal love is a matter for philosophical debate. Religious 'love' may be considered a euphemistic term, more closely describing feelings of deference or acquiescence. Most religions use the term love to express the devotion the follower has to their deity, who may be a living guru or religious teacher. This love can be expressed by prayer, service, good deeds, and personal sacrifice. Reciprocally, the followers may believe that the deity loves the followers and all of creation. Some traditions encourage the development of passionate love in the believer for the deity.

The reason is because I thought it liable to give the wrong impression to the student.

"Whether religious love can be expressed in similar terms to interpersonal love" is not a matter of philosophical debate. IT has been done, and that it can be is not in doubt. How it may been done rightly, is a matter of debate.

"Most religions use the term love to express the devotion the follower has to their deity" is simply false, since it's not true at least of Christianity and Islam.

The paragpraph all in all is vague and non-committal and doesn't say much, so I thought it better to leave the heading as a reminder to the casual student of the imporatance of love to religion, but leave the details to the section dealing with them.

My own belief is that love is love, whether we're talking about my love for my wife, or my country, or my friends, or God, it's the same thing, with various other emotions variously involved, however wikipedia is not a soap box for personal views (except talk pages) :-) Oliver Low 17:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

More info?

I think this should be one of the more worked articles! It lacks pictures, possibly a painting or two might help? And is there a section on love for a family? I didn't read all of it, but I only saw "Love for a friend". Maybe someone should put in a few more internal links, too.

Needs a better image

The image at the top is too hard to understand. You have to click on it even to see the couple kissing. Somebody should find a better one. Lou Sander 15:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Why, that's a good painting. Maybe it needs resizing. Gantuya eng (talk) 10:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Introduction

"According to philosophers, the only goal of life is to be happy. And there is only one happiness in life: to love and be loved. Love is essentially an abstract concept, much easier to experience than to explain."

Which philosophers? What authority are they on life? And finally who says that love is the only happiness in life? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.215.114.140 (talk) 18:01, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Diagnostics of Karma

I removed this sentence that expresses a minority POV from the lede, intending to reinsert it somewhere else in the article:

• Some parapsychologists have claimed that love is the true basis of all existence, originating time, space and matter.<ref>[[Diagnostics of Karma]]</ref>

However, I couldn't find anywhere appropriate to put it, so I'm leaving it here for now.  —SMALLJIM  16:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Missing 'Desire' on "EMOTIONS - BASIC" right sidebar

There is a righthand sidebar labeled "EMOTIONS" Under the "BASIC" category is "DISGUST", but lacking the opposite emotion. I suggest using "DESIRE" as basic term. Then under the "OTHER" category, perhaps "LUST"? 60.234.240.242 (talk) 20:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I Removed the God and Patriotism

The sentence in the opening paragraph read: "One definition attempting to be universally applicable is Thomas Jay Oord's: to love is to act intentionally, in sympathetic response to others(including God), to promote overall well-being. This definition applies to the positive connotations of love."

I don't think it's necessary for the opening paragraph of this article to say that people are attempting to make loving God universally applicable. It really has no business being in the article, as it seems to be vandalism.

Also, the opening sentence read:

"The word love has many different meanings in English, from something that gives a little pleasure ("I loved that meal") to something one would die for (patriotism, family)."

I changed the word patriotism to ideals, because I feel it's more appropriate/neutral. I suspect it was probably the same vandal who put in the "God" remarks. Jiminezwaldorf (talk) 08:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

WHy TAKE MY STUFF OFF GOD! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackoneal (talk • contribs) 18:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

There is NO "scientific love"

Love is something that can't be put in a microscope. It is purely a spiritual thing. It is the thing God is made of, and God is something that is beyond the understanding of science.

It's like the human soul, like angels and Heaven and God Himself: something purely spiritual, that can't be undesrtood with scientific means.

When my mom sees birds tweeting in a garden full of flowers, she fells the hand of God. She feels love. THAT cannot be explained in a scientific manner.

In fact, trying to rationalize the ways of the Lord drives you away from Him. You should be thinking less about how good the internet page looks, and more about what will happen to your soul once you die and you pass judgement in front of Saint Peter and/or God.

God is judging you, and he cars about how much love you profess to others, NOT how neat or "accurate" a webpage looks.

~~agustinaldo~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agustinaldo (talk • contribs) 12:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Um.

ok? 72.236.173.22 (talk) 13:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the article's not trying to explain love from a scientific POV, it merely describes the chemical and psychological effects of love in a human being. Therefore I believe the scientific section of the article is quite valuable. Please excuse my English... CRJoe ...

The Scientific Love section describes only erotic love. What about all the others? Platonic, brotherly, parental, etc. When I first read this article, I was confused as anything by this section. --Tim Sabin (talk) 16:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

That's untrue. Sternberg's theory is a scientific one mentioned in the psychology subsection which explains all the forms of love that you mentioned, and even others such as love of country, love of sport, and so on. -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Buddhist view

I would like to see something similar to the following added to the last paragraph of the Buddhist section.

In Tibetan Buddhism the terms love and compassion are often used together but are distinct. Compassion is defined as the wish to relieve another of suffering, while love is the wish for another to be happy.

Pestopasta (talk) 21:26, 14 February 2008 (Valentine's Day!)

Do you have a reference of Buddhist literature that supports this? If so, then I don't think it would be a problem. StephenBuxton (talk) 10:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, here's one. Lama Thubten Yeshe, Ego, Attachment and Liberation 2006, Lama Yeshe Wisdom Archive, 119 (compassion), 121 (love).

Excerpts from the text:

compassion - The sincere wish that others be separated from their mental and physical suffering and the feeling that their freedom from suffering is more important than one's own.

and

love - The sincere wish that others be happy and the feeling that their happiness is more important than one's own; the opposite in nature from attachment. Pestopasta (talk) 20:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

What about metta?

Austerlitz -- 88.75.78.104 (talk) 11:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The Kiss

The inclusion of Gustav Klimt's The Kiss is questionable here, as when examined further, the woman in the painting is clearly trying to pull away from the man. She has turned her head, and her hands are clearly grasping him as a means to wriggle free. In fact, the only thing stopping her from making a dash in the opposite direction, is that she is kneeling with her back to a cliff. This is not love, in any of the definitions explored in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.177.44.200 (talk) 02:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

good this is isabella gg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.205.238 (talk) 11:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Yup, the picture is real bad for this article, also is kinda hard to see —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.86.45.72 (talk) 17:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

amanda utopa\ia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.37.31.57 (talk) 01:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I also agree that the picture is unsuitable for this topic. Truly it represents a very narrow and superficial aspect of the sacred thing called "Love", which has a much wider and deeper scope, which is more to be felt than understood. --Duty2love (talk) 18:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Quote

Love is our true essence. Love has no limitations of caste, religion, race or nationality. We are all beads strung together on the same thread of love. Amritanandamayi Where to add?

Austerlitz -- 88.75.95.140 (talk) 08:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't add - not a notable enough quote ObamaGirlMachine (talk) 18:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you'd want to add that to Wikiquotes - it's not that it isn't notable, really, it's that we don't load up articles with quotes when there's a better place for them which is linked on the page. Tvoz/talk 19:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Sex & love go together

The main aspect of love should be mutual trust.

It is possible to have a love relationship without sex, but a sex relationship is advised on basis of love & trust. To me is love monogamous affection, a form of intimate communication which shouldn't be generalised.

"Respect" is family, friendship & communication orientated.

Enthusiasm (optimism, passion) is generally related to all aspects of life which fascinate us, such as music, good food, holidays, birthdays etc. .

Phalanx Pursos 01:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's any documentation that supports that love is strictly monogamous affection, furthermore I think this isn't even an universally accepted thought... Please excuse my English... CRJoe —Preceding comment was added at 08:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. There is definitely love without sex (platonic, brotherly, etc.) and there is sex without love (one-night stands, etc.). Of course, many (but not all!) sexual liasons are the result of marriage or other commited relationship. The original comment was an opinion stating the way that person thought things should be, and does not reflect reality. --Tim Sabin (talk) 16:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Unconditional love towards everyone is an overwhelming exception

Unconditional friendship is based on forgiveness.

In order to become a friend, must one be trusted. Once someone is your friend, they receive unconditional friendship. Unconditional friendship means there are no conditions to friendship, unconditional love means there are no conditions to love.

Unconditional love towards everyone is an overwhelming exception.

Phalanx Pursos 01:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

False, false, false. A "friend" doesn't have to be trusted, although this is usually the case. This all depends on the psychology of the individual persons involved. There are very few friendships I've seen that are unconditional.

Now I'm going to give my opinion. I believe that love should always be unconditional. But, I'm realistic enough to know that this not always - nay, I should say,

The Christian meaning of love actually is unconditional. It means wanting others to succeed. Christians actually want their enemies to "succeed", that is, to improve, to get better, to stop being screw-ups. That is how Christian "love" is unconditional. Christians are asked by their faith to love poor people, orphans, criminals, sick people in hospitals, animals, drug addicts, alcoholics, and even high school students. If this is a tenet of any other faith, please let us know. 154.20.131.164 (talk) 00:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

No Greater Love

It should be noted in the article that Jesus said in John 15:13 of the Holy Bible, "Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.255.74.126 (talk) 15:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it shouldn't, that's a statement that applies only to those that follow your religion, and can result controversial for people with different beliefs. Myself beign agnostic, find that sentence offensive. CRJoe

Did you forget that agnostics are actually Christians who are unable to prove that God exists? Maybe you're thinking of "atheist", in which case maybe you don't know that the one is different from the other? If so, do you maybe have an atheist's definition of love?

Delete section 4

The section "scientific models" contains only some babbling of the ideas exposed on section 3 "Scientific views". Also it lacks any quoting and refers to some of the same thoughts on section 3. I think it should be deleted. CRJoe —Preceding comment was added at 07:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC) who cares if u find it offensive? the world isnt fair. someone will always offend you somewhere. whether it be online or in person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BrianlovesMelissa (talk • contribs) 03:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Interpretations of Love

When you love someone it means you never want to lose that person or thing. For example, when someone loves another person very much they usually get married and if they don't then they love each other so much that they want to get married. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.238.96.225 (talk) 15:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a greedy interpretation of love. I like the interpretation that love means that you want what is best for the other person - even if it's to your own detriment. There's an age-old adage in relation to this: "Sometimes love means letting go." --Tim Sabin (talk) 16:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Love and Spirituality

• A Wisdom Archive on Love and spirituality

Is somebody willing to add this to weblinks please?

Austerlitz -- 88.75.82.3 (talk) 12:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

no 1 has ever correctly defined love 1 man's defination ca only support his own case tat is because psycologically we all r different to oneanother and love is completely dependent one one's psycology —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.79.62.16 (talk) 06:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Love as an attitude

Ivan G. Burnell: Die Kraft des positiven Handelns [1]

Austerlitz -- 88.72.8.87 (talk) 09:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

engl.: The Power of Positive Doing: 12 Strategies for Taking Control of Your Life

Austerlitz -- 88.72.8.87 (talk) 10:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

"Taking Control of Your Life"?? What's that, please? A fantastic comedy-bible? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.235.188.11 (talk) 21:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

For after the quote on section 5.1 on Paul the Apostle this should be added.

{{editsemiprotected}} "Right now three things remain: faith, hope, and love. But the greatest of these is love." 1 Corinthians 13:13Watsonjc (talk) 02:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

 Not done We need some verifiable sources LegoK^ontribsT^alkM 04:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Dont be stupid.

You can't "define" love. Mankind does not yet realize the true meaning of love. It may never find the true meaning of love. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BrianlovesMelissa (talk • contribs) 03:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we can't, but one thing is sure. Love is not sexual attraction, and if you're going to marry someone, you might as well marry your best friend.--Fluence (talk) 03:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Definition

Love- To accept or be accepted regardless the circumstances. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.112.100.166 (talk) 19:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Love: Love is not an emotion, more as an acceptance. To love someone, is to accept all of that person; their faults, their annoyances, their habits, everything. To back it up with an example, if you were to be angry with your wife, mother, sister, brother, son, daughter, best friend, ect.. It can be a very strong emotion. But guess what? You STILL love them. You don't "fall out of love" with them at that moment of time, that's retarded. Emotions in the human mind are unstable at best, and I disagree with love being an emotion, because it is consistent. WindsorRoyalty (talk) 06:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)WindsorRoyalty

• Below* Written By --72.184.210.16 (talk) 07:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)Christopher Moss

--The Universal Truth Personal Definition-- <YOU DECIDE> BE WARNED THIS IS DEEP

Ever Wondered why we love or why we get dumped, why we struggled just to feel right?

QA Definition of LOVE

Q:How do you know your in love: A:The way to your heart is long but most importantly you must follow your heart, and make the right decision cause the person that cares more than anything else might be your soul mate, and than again it could be the guy who asks you on a date. You never know when the guy for you is going to pack his bags and move on and you'll never know who he is until you accept him or refuse him and he is gone. But you will know in your heart who he is before you ever make the decision, so when you find that person hold on and dont let go else you lose them forever. I hope that you do find that person no matter who it is cause real love is such a beautiful thing Q:Yea I get what ur sayin but I dont know if I believe it A:You dont have to believe it......Cause you will feel it Q:how will I know when I feel it A:You will long for him even while he longs for you and be too scared to ever embrace it because it doesnt seem to be real at all. That is how you will feel, when you find your true love. Your mind wont believe it, and you will have an inner conflict, but if you can overcome that than you will have found your soul mate. No one ever said love was easy it just gets easier as you go Q:idk A:well you will experience what I have told you one day, and you will know. Forget what your mind is saying, it's hard for your mind to comprehend things so real they seem impossible, its like the card trick in which you show a bunch of cards in red suit and when you put down a black card that is a diamond the eyes percieve it as a red card its called a paradigm but true love is the same way. Q:How can u be so sure? A:Because it's the law of love, it's my hypothesis and i bet you wont find a better definition of how you know when you have found your soul mate you will find your soul mate Q:Maybe idk? A:Just as a quarter has another side so does a person. Woman was made from man and we were meant to be as two from one, god put a twist on things tho and made life interesting by mixing us all up Q:true and.... A:And it gives us our whole purpose for living. Ask your self why do we try so hard to make something of our lives? Is it so that we can live alone in an apartment one day? Why do men buy fancy cars and women spend most of their lives trying to be pretty? Why do women try to be successful and men try to also if we can all be happy and work at mcdonalds with no worries or responsibilities? It is because we weren't biologically programmed to be happy with such a simplistic concept and we feel empty. We truly strive to fill that emptiness and that emptiness leads us to our soul mate. If we are lazy we will watch them pass, but if we strive we will be together forever and ever past the grave in the realm of god. If you think about it, it makes perfect sense Q:It does make since but what if i dont want to try to find them A:Than you wont be trying to make anything of your life, because we find them on accident trying to fill that emptyiness whether its collecting giraffes or playing video games we all buy things to fill that emptiness. Some of us have more of a need to fill that emptiness so they try harder and that means there need for love is larger, and because they are so successful they get that person on the other end who is their and meets them at the end of their voyage of filling that emptiness. Q:Why? A:Because you cant truly find the person you love until you have fully satisfied yourself, and so just like the person who tries hard to fill the large emptiness their are those who have a lesser need to fill it and so try less and are equally as happy with a person who can offer them less Qoes that make sense A:Yeah Q:What made you think of all this and how do you know? A:Think about our friends and where they are in the world and how hard they try you will all of a sudden see that it makes sense Q:It kinda makes sense with our friends A: It makes sense for everyone, if I could simplyfy what I told you I would have the definition to life itself so far i have LV+LVN=LFS lol Q:What does that mean A:Love + Love Needs = Life Success and vise-versa lol meaning the amount you love plus the amount you try to fill that emptiness times your Love = how successful you are, and how succesful you are in life means how much closer you will find love Q:Why is it so hard to for me to understand my feelings on if i like anyone or not? A:Because you are at a stage where you are trying to figure your self out still and if you use my formula lol than it still makes sense because you have to know your self first and be reaching that successful margin in your life and than everything else will align it self; however, here is the problem, if you dont try as hard as your counter part than you will lose him, and if he falls to much behind you, you wont meet him, but again you have to know your self and understand what you want in life

Written by Christopher Moss. Email me At Chriswmoss@aol.com and tell me what you think about my concepts of love.

Judaism Section

On a mystical/Kabbalistic level, the word for love (AHaVa) carries the numerical value of 13. The root for a second word for love, ACHDut, also carries the numerical value of 13. When added together, the numerical value (26) is the same as the tetragrammaton, or the four letter name of G!D. This is believed to reflect the understanding that love, both external and internal, is a reflection of the divine. Agape.1 (talk) 16:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Love is probably the result of a Jewish philosophy, at least in etymology. The last letter of the Torah is Lamed, and the first is Veiz. Lamed-Veiz is transliterated as "Lov" and it's literal meaning in Hebrew is "Heart" CheskiChips (talk) 13:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

According to the Online Etymology dictionary the etymology of "Love" is from Old English, lufu, "love, affection, friendliness"; from ProtoGermanic, *lubo, (compare to Old Frisian liaf, German lieb, Gothic liufs "dear, beloved"); and ultimately from ProtoIndoEuropean, *leubh-, "to care, desire, love" (compare to Latin, lubet, later libet, "pleases"; Sanskrit, lubhyati, "desires"; Old Church Slavonic, l'ubu, "dear, beloved"; Lithuanian, liaupse, "song of praise"). Given that English is fundamentally based on Germanic roots, this would appear to be the most likely etymology to most etymologists. -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Love is eternal... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Koolia99 (talk • contribs) 00:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

i think this is a kewl subject....yea my sis thinks tat is stupid....my lil brother thinks its cute.....wat a freak...anyways..yea i think it kewl... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.31.44.13 (talk) 03:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

HK-47's definition?

Hey guys, I was just thinking about something. In Star Wars Knights of the Old Republic II, HK-47 gives an odd definition of love. Perhaps we could put that on there? Darth Stalker (talk) 19:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

"Definition: 'Love' is making a shot to the knees of a target 120 kilometers away using an Aratech sniper rifle with a tri-light scope. Statement: This definition, I am told, is subject to interpretation. Obviously, love is a matter of odds. Not many meatbags could make such a shot, and fewer would derive love from it. Yet for me, love is knowing your target, putting them in your targeting reticle, and together, achieving a singular purpose, against statistically long odds."

That is the best description of 'love' I read here! And the Yoda in mine is agree to 100 per cent. May the force of love be with you! --217.235.188.11 (talk) 21:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Not sure whether that's appropriate, though._Jame§^ugrono 13:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

what i think of love

i think there really is no definition of love and that there should not be one in the dictionary —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.66.103.92 (talk) 07:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree, love is one of the greatest and yet worst feelings and all of those contrast could never be contained in a definition. There needs to be pictures, music, smells, late-night walks in the rain, 3 am phone calls to see how that special person is doing.

At 3 am phone calls? Isn't such not rather to put in the category sado and masochism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.235.188.11 (talk) 21:19, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

love is universal —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.39.122 (talk) 03:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Love can't really be scientifically proven can it? [[Light]] and [[Love]] (talk) 11:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I think, you're right. Love is rather a mystery as a "microscope's best friend". If you want to connect 'love' and 'science' then you're just able to can 'proven' scientifically "chemical reactions" but never the trigger, even 'love' itself. I think, it's nice that science isn't able to can explain 'all', so much I appreciate science, but a world without miracles and mysteries wouldn't be a world I could love. It would be a sad world --ElkeK (talk) 12:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

To user 98.224.** who was deleted and used here insults, usually in the Netherlands: Are you sick of any hormonally disorders or have your parents just forgot to pick you up from the playschool after midnight? Calm down and drink some cups of antidepressant-tea. You seem to needing it. Much Love Sweetheart.--ElkeK (talk) 14:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Who cares if science can prove love or not? Science isn't everything. Most mysteries in life don't need to be proven, they just exist. And others, that aren't mysteries, are our emotions. Stop this madness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.40.115 (talk) 15:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

doo doo  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.93.221.104 (talk) 18:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC) 

Love is not an emotion

In this article, love is flatly defined as an emotion or a host of emotions in the summary. I believe this to be pitifully inaccurate, as that is not the consensus (although, that is often the popular understanding of love). Emotion is in many traditions an experience often resulting from or accompanying love, but is not love per se. The case is similar with passion, where the modern colloquial understanding of it is at odds with the intellectual tradition. The colloquial ideas surrounding love should certainly be mentioned, but to present them in the summary as the canonical definition is a crime against the intellect. --~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.107.91.99 (talk) 23:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

What do you believe love to be? MissMeticulous (talk) 04:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

There is no evidence that any single part of the brain or the limbic system (where emotions occur) lights up when "love" is sensed or felt. Love may be a "feeling" (I really don't know what the article means by "feelig"). Love is a mental attitude as well as a complex set of behaviors, often culturally determined. There are many different forms. The first time I know of, that it is mentioned in any type of academic literature, is in one of the dialogues of Plato - where Diotema instructs Socrates in what love is, and what she said is way better than what I just said (or this article says). That piece of writing should be referenced in the first sentence, in my view.--Levalley (talk) 03:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)LeValley

Edit notice debate

The edit notice for this page is currently subject to a deletion debate. The edit notice is the message that appears just over the edit box whenever the page itself is in edit mode. If you love this notice, hate it, or just would like to comment on it's existance, please come and join in the debate. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I like it and also think it's necessary. 'Would be sweethearts' - ha ha! --ashwin18 20:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.31.77.9 (talk) 21:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC) 

People who love each other have sex —Preceding unsigned comment added by Can This Name Work ? (talk • contribs) 03:14, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

--Regarding Impersonal love--

Animals are not 'things', furthermore, it's senseless to make a distinction between people 'and' animals as though humans themselves were not great apes. We are. There's no reason why a human can't love a cat, dog, chimpanzee, chicken etc. as they would love another human, non-human animals (at least vertebrates and cephalopods) are sentient beings, capable of reciprocating those feelings of affection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.71.53.130 (talk) 03:27, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

POV

This is really shitty. Mostly POV. It sucks. --91.58.115.177 (talk) 09:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

It might help if you were more specific. --Onorem♠Dil 11:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Where (and if) to put image

I had to replace some images, because they were pushing each other away from their proper places. However, I didn't find any optimal place for this one. Could anybody find a better place, or perhaps consider it sufficient to have it available in Commons for those who want more images? Mikael Häggström (talk) 15:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Two hands forming the outline of a heart shape.

yo

yo to the little peeps Life is about living laughing and loving remember it YEAH —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.130.59.225 (talk) 01:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Cultural views

1. Under the "Cultural views", about the "Turkish" love, you must erase the word "islamic" in parenthesis. Turkish people do not love wrt the Islamic rules or Islamic views.

2. It says: "But that person can "love" just one person from the opposite sex, which they call the word "aşk." Aşk is a feeling for to love, as it still is in Turkish today. The Turks used this word just for their romantic loves in a romantic or sexual sense." This is not 100 percent true. I guess the writer tries to distinguish the difference between the two similar words "sevgi" and "aşk", but occasionally these two words is used with similar meanings. I think the writer tries to say that, a mother has "sevgi" for her child but "aşk" for her husband. But a woman has also "sevgi" for her husnabd too. These two Turkish words are really used in very closed meanings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simsime1 (talk • contribs) 03:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC) Love is LIFE —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackie282 (talk • contribs) 23:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Link removed?

I added a link to this site, but it got removed. I got a message saying the following: "Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added to the page Love do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it."

...so, that is what I'm doing. On this page it says it is OK to link to "Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews.". Now, it's not a review or interview, but I can't see how it isn't relevant? Fair enough, the site runs on Wordpress, so that technically makes it a blog, but that's just by chance due to the software it runs on. SoulRiser (talk) 17:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

love you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.232.195.146 (talk) 17:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Comparison of scientific models

There was a Fact template from last year that I removed from this section, because the statement had been made previously in this article, and a source was cited at that point. Since I felt that the repetition was valid in context, I cited the same reference as before to satisfy the Fact template.  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  20:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

mammalian?

The first sentence of the chemical basis paragraph makes no sense to me, both because there are non-mammal animals that exhibit the stages of love described, notably birds, and the hunger and thirst are probably experienced by all most living creatures that "experience" anything. the main article on the topic also make no mention of mammal uniqueness. presumably some of the hormones involved differ across species, but something like love is is likely experienced by all kinds of living things that are not mammals. no? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.247.251.139 (talk) 11:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

not an emotion

in the article, it is said love is an emotion. According to Helen Fisher (see http://www.amazon.com/Anatomy-Love-Natural-History-Marriage/dp/0449908976), love is not an emotion but a fundamental motivation or urge (such as hunger, ...)

Also, she describes 3 kinds of "love"; sexual urge, being enloved and partnership love. These reproduce the respective compounds in the brains: dopamine, oxytocine, vasopressine.

Please look into it and alter the article accordingly. Perhaps the "love" article can be a redirect to the 3 types noted above —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.245.173.181 (talk) 09:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Woo-hoo! Now you're getting perilously close to religious definitions such as "Love is wanting others to succeed", or "Love is an action word". If you start activating the Christians (who are compelled to love their enemies), the atheists lurking here will become severely agitated! Probably better to leave love as a wishy-washy emotional dream-state, no? Back of Beyond (talk) 05:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, I find that Wikipedia -as an encyclopedia- should give the best possible definition of the word, and not simply formulate a definition everyone can agree/relate to. On behalf of the religions, I fail to see what the religious connotation is here, I did not state something like "love is an action word", I said that it was a fundamental motivation or urge. Everyone can relate to the urge as mentioned above -like hunger-, I know I can and I'm not christian neither.

Missing definition

Please insert this at the end of the article:

Finally, no discussion on Love can be complete without noting that "love" means nothing, in tennis (a score of zero). 68.164.0.71 (talk) 03:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

That's handled properly under Love (disambiguation) Back of Beyond (talk) 05:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

a notation

"Following developments in electrical theories such as Coulomb's law, which showed that positive and negative charges attract, analogs in human life were developed, such as "opposites attract."

Has this any relevance to the psychological section under which it is stated? the idea of plus and minus has existed long before Coloumbs time for example in the yin yan theory. Hxasmirl (talk) 01:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The relevance lies in the fact that the "analogs" were shown to be generally erroneous, as explained later in that section. In human interactions opposites only rarely attract each other, because people are more usually attracted to those who have similar interests and traits.  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  03:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

My Small Definition of Love

You know there are lots of different types of Love, you just really got to know where/when you FEEL love and where/when you don’t feel love. Love is very costly in a lot of ways; you ask anybody who has loved and entrusted so much of their love into one person, and then just as quickly it will disappear. You are taking a very big risk in putting your love into someone or even something; however most of the time it will be directed towards someone. People say Love is what you make it to be, but most of the time its just lust. When we look at either a guy or a girl in a way that we desire, it’s hard not to say we love them because we are so much into what they look and not what or how they feel.

Most of the time when we think about Love we think about the sexual part of, the physical fun side of it and how much we would want to JUST engage into it, no thinking about it nor not really thinking about the consequences or anything but just buck wild! YET! That still is not LOVE its LUST, total difference because Love is when we take the time to really get to know the true love of your life. Emotions, problems, familia, friends, everything in your life and in theirs matters; you can’t say it doesn’t because if you just go off of sex and problems then it’s a complete waste of both your times. A person you love will listen to you and you listen to them and will try to understand you and them if you really want to pursue a good strong healthy relationship. There is so much to it; there are no basic rules and instructions to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marbella19 (talk • contribs) 03:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC) and also love is when you have a feeling for some one —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.90.22.118 (talk) 16:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Split infinitive

Not a big deal, but also not hard to change.

The last line of para 1 currently reads "unusually difficult to consistently define, even compared to other emotional states."

It should read "unusually difficult to define consistently, even compared to other emotional states," or be reworded to avoid the split infinitive.

I love grammar harharhar.

124.197.18.216 (talk) 19:21, 28 June 2009 (UTC)peace

I LOVE and LIVE to boldly split infinitives, to consistently search for new, UNsplit infinitives and to brazenly SPLIT the heck out of them, YES, to lazily sit back, completely satisfied and so happy to hellishly irk academics everywhere! <g>  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  03:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

How Love Begins —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jman33569 (talk • contribs) 03:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The Persian Section

The first poem that is attributed to Hafez is actually a translation of a dream that the poet Daniel Ladinsky had, so I feel it should be removed, or re attributed.

I really liked the poem and was kind of upset when I found that it isn't a real translation of any Persian text written by Hafez, according to this: [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ziasquinn (talk • contribs) 19:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Infoboxes to TOP - 2 Editor Ceoil

2 Editor Ceoil: I am once again reverting the edit that repositioned the Infobox from the TOP. The box titled "Part of a Series" is classed as an "infobox" and goes at the TOP per the Manual of Style. Please discuss here rather than edit battle.
 —  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  00:35, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Paine. Its not an infobox, its a summary of a wider topic that this article is part of. Also its dull, and takes up too much space and add little to the info avialable to a person willing to scroll down half a page. I think the other image is more evoacative. I cant see why a generic tab, better served by lead text or cats should override here. Its also worth noting that infoboxes (and this not not one) are not manditory, and are usually seen as dumming down). The MOS is a guideline, bty. Ceoil (talk) 00:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Hi. The box, if you'll check the "class", is most definitely an "infobox" and belongs at the TOP of the article. However, since the MoS is a "guideline" rather than "policy", then if other editors agree with you, the change may be warranted. Please don't delete anything if this becomes the case. The heart image you keep deleting certainly belongs in the article.

 —  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  00:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The heart img is a near duplicate of the template image. Why have such a banal image twice. Better to make decisions from an astetic viewpoint than from blindly following rules guidelines. Ceoil (talk) 00:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Ceoil, Wikipedia guidelines are there for a reason. This is an encyclopedia, not a magazine that has to be aestetically pleasing. Infoboxes belong at the TOP for purposes of standardizing articles that contain them. Readers expect such standardization in an encyclopedia.

 —  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  01:02, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

No, no, no! Guidelines are for people who are too new to think for themselves! If you belive that we have no decision making ability as editors, that the MOS 'guideline' is a table of stone passed down by who knows but who cares, then I dont know what to say! Paine, if I sound cross, I apologise, but I've had this argument so many times before, and I see you are a very stong editor from your contribs. Anyway, this essay on boxes [3] is worth reading. Ceoil (talk) 01:12, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

That's an interesting essay, Ceoil, and here's a quote from it...

“ If there is any dissent with informational boxes, make no change until there is unanimity from . . . all authors/editors of the article. ”

Also, I strongly disagree with your biased stance on new editors! Maybe some editors have been doing this too long if this is all they have to say about new editors. In my case I have been editing and reverting vandalism on Wikipedia since it began. Until recently I've been using my IP to do so. So some "new" editors are not so new as some may think.

As far as your stance on repositioning infoboxes, there is an important question that must be asked: In any case of repositioning infoboxes against the Manual of Style guideline, how precisely does this improve this encyclopedia? If you can answer this to my satisfaction, then I will definitely consider your opinion. Until then, I suggest you stop edit warring. I must invoke WP:MOS and the above quote from the essay you referenced until you have convinced me that your "aestetic" changes are improvements to Wikipedia.

 —  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  21:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm here too long or you are here too long; or what antilogic are you using to defend infoboxes. Be clear please. The area box here (is not even an infobox) is useless and ugly, adds nothing thats not, or should not, be in included the lead. Better to work on content, not templates, and not game me with quotes taken out of context. Ceoil (talk) 21:37, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

So much for civility! Your personal attack speaks volumes about your Wikipedia editing experience. The quotation from your reference was put there precisely to stop the edit warring that you cannot seem to avoid. The box is anything but useless, and your usage of "ugly" is highly subjective. The box is encyclopedic and should be offered to readers right from the beginning. Please be careful, as your subversive edit warring might get you blocked.

 —  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  23:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• PS. And your accusations do little to convince anyone that the MoS ought to be ignored.

You have lost me. Please feel free to follow plan B; to have me blocked. Seems like a wise plan, given your lack of a coheriant argument. There is a differnece between pointing out the obvious to the cluless and a personal attack. Think! Ceoil (talk) 23:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I doubt that you are "lost", Ceoil. And I do not have the power to block you, since I am an editor, but not an administrator, although there do happen to be admins who watch this article. The warning was friendly, as I do try to keep in mind that other editors probably have the improvement of this encyclopedia at heart. Your weakness is that rather than to earnestly try to convince people that ignoring the MoS is warranted in this case, all you can come up with is more edit warring and that my argument is incoherent. With this weakness in your argument, I shall give you some time to actually enter a valid argument for ignoring the MoS before I revert your edit. So enjoy your edit and try to formulate a convincing argument.

 —  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  04:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)