Talk:Love

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 13 January 2022 and 29 April 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Epalasek (article contribs).

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 August 2021 and 1 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Larissa Ismail.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:18, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2018 and 17 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): S.glo1, Jameilla.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

'Love' doesn't exist

Could someone add to this article that 'love' doesn't actually exist, it's a biochemical and bioelectrical reaction in the brain, doesn't exist outside the brain, cannot be seen touched, tasted or smelled, and has no energy signature indicating actual presence, is used as a excuse to feed off of others (and when the feeder no longer experiences endophin release the 'love' disapears) and that studies that have found the above to be true? It's frustrating to come here looking for facts on the exploitive act of 'love' and find only further continuation of the lies taught to us as children (we all learn santa doesn't exist, but 'love' is utilized to manipulate and use others, they get dopamine, vasopressin etc, so no one bothers to point out to our young that they're beliving false data derived from people that weren't aware of brain chemistry or how the brain works.) I'd do it myself, but I'm not sure how, and have little time. A section on the fallacy of love and the actual biochemical causes of such aberant behaviour is needed, this article is FAR too unbalanced towards the side of fallacy and deception. Thank you! 2001:569:BC3F:FB00:44A3:157:6789:CDCC (talk) 09:19, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

"doesn't exist outside the brain". Prove that ANYTHING exists outside the brain. All that you have ever experienced is just biochemical and bioelectrical reactions in the brain. --Khajidha (talk) 17:13, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Can you prove that you exist outside that doobie? 75.80.179.156 (talk) 08:09, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

This is the most Wikipedian/chronically online thing I've ever heard anyone say. - 25eanglin (talk) 17:48, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 October 2020

words that can be said to people to show your love is normally 'I love you' Aannonnyymmoouuss (talk) 06:20, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Not necessary to mention. – Thjarkur (talk) 10:08, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 November 2020 (2)

Under Persian view - second paragraph

Aziz Nasafi, a famous Muslim mystic from Central Asia and Iran, wrote the “Epistle on Love” (Risala fi’l ‘Ishq) in his work The Book of the Perfect Man (Kitab Insan al-Kamil). In the epistle he describes love as an emotion that is fostered in an individual for the beloved through four stages. These four stages are inclination (mayl), desire (iradat), affection (mahabbat) and love (‘ishq). He explains that these four stages lead the lover on a journey through which his love for his beloved progressively strengthens, until he becomes completely immersed in the beloved and the beloved becomes a part of him.

Under Islam (in Religious views) - last paragraph

Aziz Nasafi, a famous Muslim mystic from Central Asia and Iran, wrote the “Epistle on Love” (Risala fi’l Ishq) in his work, The Book of the Perfect Man (Kitab Insan al-Kamil). In the epistle he draws parallels between love and the remembrance of God. He explains that both love and remembrance have four stages. These four stages are inclination (mayl), desire (iradat), affection (mahabbat) and love (‘ishq). He explains that these four stages lead the lover on a journey through which his love for his beloved progressively strengthens, until he becomes completely immersed in the beloved and the beloved becomes a part of him. Similarly, a ‘rememberer’ (of God) progresses through the stages until God becomes predominant in his heart.

Reference: Virani, Shafique N. “The Dear One of Nasaf: Azīz Nasafī’s ‘Epistle on Love’.” In Iran and the Caucasus 13, no. 2 (2009): 311-317 AreebaQ (talk) 13:27, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Not done: - this is a general article about love, not for biographies of specific people - there is no Wikipedia articles on Aziz Nasafi - if he is notable (Wikipedia:Notability (people)) perhaps one could be created and his bio presented there - Epinoia (talk) 14:27, 15 November 2020 (UTC) - Epinoia (talk) 14:27, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

The Caravaggio image in the Christianity subsection - inappropriate

I was shocked to find, in the Christianity subsection, the image shown, together with this caption: “Sacred and Profane Love (1602–03) by Giovanni Baglione. Intended as an attack on his hated enemy the artist Caravaggio, it shows a boy (hinting at Caravaggio's homosexuality) on one side, a devil with Caravaggio's face on the other, and between an angel representing pure, meaning non-erotic, love.[50]” Questions:

1. Whyever should a painting which was apparently “intended as an attack on his hated enemy” be selected as an image to illustrate Love? This is just plain wrong.

2. “It shows a boy (hinting at Caravaggio’s homosexuality)...” Eh? Was the writer of the caption being deliberately disruptive? Why should the idea of the boy suggest homosexuality? If it’s hinting at anything sexual, then it’s pederasty. The two are not the same. The mismatch of meanings adds to confusion for any reader, as well as being misleading, and therefore contributes further to the argument that the image is inappropriate.

3. Christian love is all about sacred love. It is not about profane love. Therefore, the image is entirely inappropriate.

Look, the image shouldn’t be there, and I’d delete it now, but so as not to ruffle feathers, I’ll wait three days. There isn’t a necessity for me to find a much better replacement, it simply has to go. It’s insertion there is offensive. Boscaswell talk 00:46, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

There having been no indications of any contrasting opinions, I have deleted the image. Boscaswell talk 23:17, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2021

Love is a dagger. Its a weapon to be wielded far away or up close. You can see yourself in it. It's beautiful. Until it make you bleed. But ultimately, when you reach for it... It isn't real. Yeah.

Thisisnotourlasthunt (talk) 06:15, 24 June 2021 (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. Living Concrete (talk) 07:08, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

References

Indian love

The first sentence of the Indian section of Cultural Views is unfinished. I’m not qualified to fix it but someone should take a look at it I think. SuperNova422 (talk) 14:44, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Extensive Substantiation Needed

There's a lot in this article that's stated rather blithely and I doubt could be objectively justified. Examples include

Biological models of sex tend to view love as a mammalian drive

Why? What is the evidence for love in mammals generally? The evidence for an absence of love in non-mammals? Evidence say, that iguanas, or sparrows or cockroaches don't love each other?

And ...

Interpersonal love between a male and a female is considered to provide an evolutionary adaptive benefit since it facilitates mating and sexual reproduction

You think? It's commonly cited as propitious in terms of caring for the [defenceless] child, but I would submit only lust is [optionally] required to facilitate mating. I submit sexual desire is altogether separate from the concept of love. A case of correlation, not causation. Love may 'cultivate' and 'facilitate' sex, but it's patently not a requirement of sexual reproduction. Not least the sexual reproduction of plants. Or do plants need love to sexually reproduce too? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.151.210.84 (talk) 13:15, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 October 2022

"Further Reading":

Claude-Hélène Mayer, Elisabeth Vanderheiden: International Handbook of Love. Springer Nature Switzerland 2021; ISBN 978-3-030-45995-6. Kreativität und Intelligenz (talk) 07:55, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. This comment doesn't explain why the addition would be suitable for the further reading section. Aoidh (talk) 23:57, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 February 2023

Thegoldengander (talk) 07:33, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

When you fall in love do not fantasise it, though it feels good in the moment if the person breaks your heart it is a lot harder to let go when you have fantasised it.

 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. Lightoil (talk) 09:06, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Cafuné leads to a band

Please fix the redirect to the actual definition of the word 99.72.221.195 (talk) 13:44, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done As compared to the other words, this does not have an independent article. Did find a redirect to Physical intimacy of it, so added that as a target.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 14:16, 18 March 2023 (UTC)