Talk:Romance (love)

Opinion

Just a suggestion, I am no expert but when I read the intro it seemed a bit closed off. It contradicts what is mention later in the article about how romantic love can be more than just sexual appeal. The first sentence seems to imply that sexual appeal is the main definer of romantic love. This is not the case and yes this article does supply good examples of romantic love beyond this. Which is why I feel the intro should be more direct and indefinite.

Also be careful with words like most! I like the anonymous quote but if it has no source that is linked correctly and is unknown I feel it shouldn't b part of this article.Beverlysvasquez (talk) 06:50, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

An expert? What, like Hitch? :P~~~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.9.58.237 (talk) 16:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

No mention of the troubadors? No mention of the Courts of Love? Can't we find an expert on early Renaissance history to at least stick a few footnotes in?

Please, sign and date your comments. Just insert 4 tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comment. If you know something on this subjects, please, add them yourself. Thank you. :) Jotomicron | (talk)

Jotomicron: apparently you forgot to date your comment. Just insert four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments (instead of three). The other half of your comment is just as patronizing. Shalini 05:28, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I "second" the initial comment above. I'm currently reading Denis de Rougemont's Love in the Western World. and can vouch that this article leaves out a lot about the origins and history of romantic love. However, I'm no authority in this area and am reluctant to interpret de Rougemont. soverman 02:13, 30 Sept 2005 (UTC)

Fantasy against reality

These must be the old comments--sorry.Cdg1072 19:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I am wondering where some of this material comes from. I have gone back today and added some citations and begun to build a works cited page. I accept the fact that it is considered original research for the reason that there aren't any minor or contemporary works, such as Dr. John Gray--who remains quite popular today--mentioned, and that gives the article a sense of datedness and being out of touch with contemporary thinking. On the other hand, besides books like Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus, there is a lot of spurious insight about love in many sources. It seemed to me, in thinking that romance as a relative term can't be reduced to the trivial relationship alone.Cdg1072 19:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

"such love, as generally depicted in popular media, rarely, if ever, occurs in society"

For crying out loud it is ridiculous to claim that romantic love doesn't exist! The whole paragraph is RUBBISH and I think it should be deleted. The neutrality tag is not enough, because the whole paragraph is outrageous. here it is...

"While romantic love as discussed above a dream of many, some claim that such love, as generally depicted in popular media, rarely, if ever, occurs in society. They point to the modern practice of dating, where often the goal is to have sexual intercourse as soon as possible instead of building lasting relationships. Often, the rigorous demands of careers in the modern world deny people the time to find such idealised companions, and mental disorders such as social anxiety disorder prevent people from approaching others. In addition, the high prevalence of divorce in western society may be an additional deterrent for individuals seeking long-term, romantic relationships with the possibility of marriage. Yet while romantic love may remain no more than a dream for many, as a dream it is unquestionably a powerful influence on real-world behaviour. " 8 Feb 2007 23:51

I want to add that "Dr." John Gray is not a legitimate expert--his "Degree" is from a now unaccredited school in California. Take his information with a HUGE grain of salt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.246.56.203 (talk) 18:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Improvement drive

Flirting is currently a candidate on WP:IDRIVE. Vote for it if you are interested!--Fenice 20:39, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Nice work

I think this is a very well written article. -- James26 11:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

  Not a bad article, but still needs work...  69.245.172.44 05:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

romantic love before middle ages

I don't believe the concept of romantic love didn't exist prior to the middle ages (whether it was documented or not). It seems like this article hasn't been paid much attention by scholars. This article is linked from the St. Valentine's day article, and is in dire need of improvement. It would be useful if anyone who knows of any work that has been done on exploring the history of the concept could add the reference to this article. Donama 06:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Minor edit

Changed

"Properties of romantic love purported by Western culture that might or might not appear elsewhere include:"

to:

"Properties of romantic love purported by Western culture include:"

due to dictionary-definition quality redundancy. I can't imagine a phrase with less meaning. Drewson99 05:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

You forgot something:

What about how fast does it take to fall in love? 瀬人様

Actually, that is a disputed conclusion. I mean, of course, it could take anywhere from an second (as some claim) to several (possibly not till your death) years. But, it all depends on the person and this has never been revealed. UnDeRsCoRe 23:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Added dubious tag

The problem with that statement is that before the 19th century most marriages in the West were arranged, and the idea of marriage based on romantic love only came into being in the early 19th century.

Roadrunner 10:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

This is a misconception, actually. Even in the middle ages, arranged marriages were only practiced with the nobility. Peasants were free to marry as they pleased. So marriage based on romantic love is at least as old as the middle ages. 12:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Photography?

Or other art?

This is kind of a big one. wiki can be a lot more awesome if this page is inspiring rather than middlin' and descriptiveThechosenone021 15:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

DUMB VANDALISM? "Romantic love can be returned or unrequited. In the former case, the mutual expressions of love can lead to marriage or to the establishment of a permanent relationship, which in most cases will include passionate sexual love. Where the love is one-sided (unrequited), the result can be damaging to the self-esteem and/or the psychological welfare of the spurned lover. Basically they're all the same and you should steer well clear mate."

The last sentence is completely inconsistent and should be removed. PatrickDunfordNZ 02:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC

Why must romantic love take one by surprise?

Romantic love needs not take someone by surprise. All relationships (romantic or not) begin with a "random encounter" of some kind, so saying this is pointless. Also, it can slowly become obvious that two people are interested in each other -- their attraction can develop slowly, predictably and unsurprisingly out of a friendship.

Romance can be easily controlled. Saying it cannot is a sweeping statement that is extremely difficult to prove or even strongly suggest. I'm sure many people have considerable ability to control their romantic interests (especially in the name of culture, politics or religion, for example). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.160.45.248 (talk) 03:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

Request for protection

Article has been requested for semi-protection due to vandalism by anonymous accounts and new users. Zuracech lordum 07:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Introduction

The introduction to this article is wordy and confusing. It should be revised for easier reading.70.174.154.188 03:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

THE INTRODUCTION... POSSIBLY INNACURATE?

Here is what I am questioning... "Romantic love is a form of sexual love that attempts to either partly, or in some cases entirely, transcend mere needs driven by looks, sexual desire, or material and social gain." --- Romantic love is a form of sexual love? This is not necessary untrue, but it also not necessarily true. It can be misleading causing the reader to assume it means "love involving phsyical sexual intercourse." Secondly the word "looks" should be translated as "physical appearances." Sexual desire is not always the cause for romantic, in some case REAL LOVE is, which is quite another factor. I am not saying to delete this, but it needs cited at the very least. Where is this information coming from? Certainly my own experiences have told me that you do not need to try to attribute material or social gain in order to be romantic. And if you've ever been in a relationship you'd instinctually know that you can look like **** and your partner see you as a wonderful romantic partner. Part of what in the article is lacking is the human emotional appeal toward what, why and how partners react romanctically. 69.245.172.44 16:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's why I take issue with your quick questioning of the idea that romantic love is inherently sexual. True, sexual is a loaded term, and "spiritual" is vague. By saying it is always a form of sexual love, I mean that while it tries to transcend these things, it never escapes their inclusion entirely and it always proceeds either in some sense away from these things in terms of origin, or toward them as in some sense being subordinate to sexuality as a goal.

By spirituality I meant the personality, not religious leanings--and one must admit--please consider this--that the personality of the individual to whom we are attracted, or however one thinks of their spirit and mind in metaphysical terms, is something to which we are drawn for its agreeable qualities. As much as one may have the right to argue against, it then, one has to give the devil his due, in the sense that one must recognize the prevailing philosophical view that romantic love, not just in its material aspects, but in all its aspects, is a worldly phenomenon, and to suppose that it rises above that is widely considered to be a delusion. Consider reading Dostoyevsky, Tolstoy, Nietzsche, Flaubert, or Stendhal. Or simply present your view in the debate from an established point of view that contradicts this more worldly view--such as that of Christianity and many other religions which attempt to re-integrate love in all its forms back into a peaceful relationship with spirituality. That is in a sense the agreed purpose, for many, of all forms of art, religion, and even philosophy, is it not? It is possible to argue the contrary, then, but you kind of have to say where you are coming from.

By all this I mean that an article about romance ultimately has to link itself to problems in philosophy, in particular how spritiual qualities experienced in the context of these physical relationships, might be, as Plato suggests, merely faint copies of a truly spiritual reality which surpasses worldly romance. While I have not much sympathy for Plato, I am afraid his position historically and influentially is inescapable.

Though such problems and questions might not normally be approached in a discussion about the practical concerns of love and one's talent and skill at social interaction, nonetheless they are valid criticisms that are relevant to the topic. They also are supported, if not by the philosophy of Plato, by a lot of modern philosophy that, while not a part of natural science necessarily, is an important part of the history of thought. It also happens that much "research" about love and the thinking that truly influences social interaction often comes from fiction. Kierkegaard and Shakespeare, and perhaps secondly Tolstoy and perhaps Flaubert, Austen or Thomas Hardy, from a western perspective should be mentioned as some of the main philosophers of love.

You go on to ask why my comments do not provide a sense that romantic love is in fact meaningful and spiritual, not merely mechanical and useful only for starting a family--but the view most often taken in philosophy is, I think that romantic love is inherently transitory and ephemeral, for a number of reasons.

I have gone back today and added some citations and begun to build a works cited page. I accept the fact that it is considered original research for the reason that there aren't any minor or contemporary works, such as Dr. John Gray--who remains quite popular today--mentioned, and that gives the article a sense of datedness and being out of touch with contemporary thinking. On the other hand, besides books like Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus, there is a lot of spurious insight about love in many sources.

It seemed to me, in thinking that romance as a relative term, it can't be reduced to the trivial relationship alone, but it can not be entirely untangled from it either.Cdg1072 19:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

--The question is not whether or not the term is relative is or not, my question is "is this portion accurate and verifiable? Do we have sources to back up the claims? If you have noticed I did not delete the section, you see I am asking as to the accuracy and the validity to the claims made. At this point I am neither agreeing nor disagreeing, and the reason I do so is simply because in some ways certain portions of the introduction "seemingly" contradict my personal experience yet others seem to fit well. The point of wikipedia is to provide accurate verifiable information to its readers, which is the point of any encyclopedia. I believe the article also calls for a clean-up tag. 69.245.172.44 05:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Yet, I did not say whether the claims in the introductions are true or false. And thirdly I did not write anything on this article, I merely moved a section that seemed more feasible in the introduction than in the portion it was in. 69.245.172.44 05:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I must argue with your argument that "one must recognize the prevailing philosophical view that romantic love, not just in its material aspects, but in all its aspects, is a worldly phenomenon, and to suppose that it rises above that is widely considered to be a delusion (BY WHOM?) Your statement here, is a form of [systematic bias and is highly opinionated, not necessarly factual. This is something that is based upon ideologies and therefore as many verifiable advocates and disputants to such ideas should be examined. For example I doubt that certain people in particluar religious groups would agree with you here. The articles are supposed to be written in NPOV, neutral point of view. 69.245.172.44 05:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

You say that religious groups would not agree that romantic love is limited as being a worldly phenomenon? Possibly--but only in so far as they would claim to be able to sanctify it, in marriage, for example, or in some kind of sublimation. In catholicism, for example, holy orders is itself likened to marriage--by the Church. But that still leaves the romantic element isolated from spirituality. So I disagree with you. Aren't you just making a case for your own biased view, since you are implying that when we are attracted to someone's personality we are drawn to some kind of "higher good"? Such a view is kind of refusing to at least acknowledge the philosophy of Buddhism, for example, or Nietzsche.

Most "religious groups" actually point to God and spirituality as being beyond, above the things of this world, which may be epitomized in romantic love. Augustine claimed that great saints have to have some understanding or experience of worldly pleasures, but on the other hand, Buddha preached abstinence from sex. How is his spirituality compatible with it?68.11.44.76 15:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

"it is not widely held" a clever way of disguising weasel words. I doubt the intentionality of such a usage, but it does not meet Wikipedea's standards... this is the near equivilent of "very few people believe,"... (same guy as above)

Do you think that the article does and should be able to make objective, verifiable claims ABOUT ROMANTIC LOVE, or should it be more on the level of making objective, verifiable claims about PHILOSOPHERS WHO WROTE about romantic love? I think that it is the latter with this kind of subject. Your criticism is kind of equivocal on that point. It seems to me that just about all the claims about historical writers are cited properly at this point. I agree, however, that I am a little glib in my reference to Kierkegaard. I should not just say that "he says in this book" or "Kierkegaard said" that is not proper scholarship, I admit. It should be fixed.68.11.44.76 15:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it is doubtful to me that we could ever make objective and verifiable claims about ROMANTIC LOVE, as an idea in principle, because in my opinion Romantic Love is relative, since differing people and differing cultures would thusly define such a supposed universal phenemon in unique ways. I have to agree that we need to state such an observation within the article, and thruthfully pinpoint that this is a philosophical discussion within the article. In other words we could state: "This article discusses only philosophical idelogies about Romantic Love. For other forms relating to this subject see: Love(disambiguation) and Romance." I had never intended to stray from the topic, yet you are correct, the article did not have a throughouly committed topic, though it appeared to. The term Love is a broad term, and even with the term "romantic" attached, it apparently is more broad than I had previously thought. You see, if we were to discuss it astray from the philosophical views, we would be moving more away from wikipedia's standards, because we would be stating general preferences, and personal bias. Though this article is subject to bias on all accounts, we should only state bias that is referenced. You see we state personal bias in this way... if you have read from a source that agrees with your opinion, you simply state it like this "Bernard Shaw states "..." However if you impose strictly your beliefs without source reference to back up your claim this is conduct considered original research. Thank you for your careful thoughts. The article is well written. Its just sort of like a painting that is pleasant, but seems to be missing something. Like a bookshelf, missing one book. Well, you get my point. 69.245.172.44 17:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Am I making a case for my own bias? No. Let me explain..." Aren't you just making a case for your own biased view, since you are implying that when we are attracted to someone's personality we are drawn to some kind of "higher good"?" I did not imply this, if you so assumed so, you misjudged. Yet, I have read about other people who have this belief system. It is not my personal opinion. I believe both sides of the issue need discussing. Validity and verifiablity are not necessarily the same thing. I believe we should try to write for both, but in a case such as this, wikipedia has set the standard of verifiability over validity. You see I am not of the opinion that when we become aroused "romantically" that we necessarily have tapped into a divine state. Yet, I have met people who hold such beliefs, and have read about them. Portions of the Bible seem to make claims similar to this... especially in the Song of Solomon, which discusses love and lust between two particular people. It is not my personal belief, however there are others who have such beliefs. This is why I say to weigh both sides of such an issue, adherants and disputants. But someone has already begun to incorporate this issue into the article, which saves me some research time. 69.245.172.44 17:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

DOES NOT CITE REFERENCES?

Whoever put that tag on there missed the whole reference section! It does cite references, yet this artcile still retains a whole lot of unverified (and possibly even unverifiable information.)

The correct tag would be this one: This article may contain original research or unverified claims. 69.245.172.44 16:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC), which I have now corrected.

Citation Problem

In the introduction there is a citation problem. While on the surface the quote seems to be verified by source material it lacks in actual credence. Sorry to be a poo-poo head again... I don't always like to be negative nelly. Yet, I think the referenced material should be more specific. This statement "Shakespeare in his plays, and Tolstoy and many others in their novels show this.[1]" is in fact not a citation, as though it would appear. And here is why, let me dissect the sentence for you... "Shakespeare in his plays... show(s) this." (Although this may be true, Which ones?, Which plays? Which particular plays display this particular idea? What portions of the play actually state so? Does the play state so directly, or is this idea based solely upon implication, or individual perception by audience members? Also, are there direct quotes within the play that make a similar statement?) Tolstoy in (his) novels show this. (Which novels?) And many others in their novels show this. (Who are the many others? What are their names? What books have these "others" written that attribute material to the claim?) 69.245.172.44 04:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC) I added a quote by shakespeare which implies agreement to the statement in the paragraph, if one chooses to decipher the meaning in such a way. I'm sorry but it's the closest thing I could find that proposes a similar point of view. 69.245.172.44 06:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

You are correct, and it is not proper scholarship, but I can finish, that is explain the points, and support them with quotations. What I may not be able to do is find a scholarly article, though I have access to JSTOR and Project Muse, which supports the claim that Measure for Measure undermines marriage. I might find an article that mentions that some directors interpret Isabella's silence as a rejection of the proposal. In fact I read that in the chapter on Measure for Measure just a few weeks ago, and I can find the book again.68.11.44.76 15:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

(former 69 point whatever, here, your arch enemy 68.11 -- Haha!) Anyway, thank you for your extensive research and excellent clean-up. I don't have much reference material dealing with the subject matter of marriage and romance... but I do have material dealing with romance in general. I must say that I never imagined such a transition from where the article was only a few days ago. We worked our tails off, probably more you than me, because most of what I did was minor, except the portion on the psychologist. I have the citation somewhere, but lost it, so I put the citation needed thing on it, so when I come back to read it, I'll remember that it needs cited. The Article is a Universit of Utah publication, but I'm not sure if it is copyrighted or publc domain. Chado2423 21:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Messed Up Article Format

Yes, I am to blame for the formatting fault in the article... please shoot me. No, just kidding, I want to live. My computer froze while I was qdding information to the article. If you can correct this problem, please do. PLEASE DO! 69.245.172.44 07:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC) Corrected myself...

Anthony Robbins on Romance

Just out of curiosity is there material by Anthony Robbins on Romance... I know he has material on Relationships, but I was curious if he had written some of his theories on romance in particular?

In Case you want to compare oldest and newest revisions easily

... the oldest form of this article was simply:

"Romantic, in the sense of romantic love is often used as a contrast to sexual "love," or lust, as the case may be." (Revision as of 07:42, 31 July 2003)

Boy has this article really expanded, thanks to some wonderful editors. I did not originate the article, however this is a subject that I am highly interested in, and would love to see what else wonderful information everyone finds and incorporates. I will also do my best research.Chado2423 02:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Bot problem

Is the bot correcting a vandal? Or is it mistaken? If you have citation regarding the accuracy of the beings with spherical torsos, two sets of human limbs and two faces back to back, also having two sets of genitalia, this should be included. Sometimes the bots do clean up work that is really more equated with cencorship than cleap-up. Please let me know if you have reference material to back up this claim 68.11, because I will contact an administrator or other bot equivilent if the case warrants it. The administrational purpose for this is to save the editors from some editing time, but sometimes they falsely accuse, which may have been the case here. Just let me know if we should re-incorporate the genetalia aspect (if it is indeed referenced), and I will try to contect the necessary party to allow such usage. Chado2423 03:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay I must say, I read the portion of Plato's symposium, and I am now aware that the creature did in fact have two differing sets of genetalia, which is of primary importance in relation to that of heterosexual romantic relationships, symbolic that of the sexes being complementary to one another, through the aspect of love, and physicality. The edit has thusly been re-reverted, for this purpose, since the edit was NOT vandal, but mistaken as a vandal. Well three permutations, one of which had differing sets. I have now corrected this. If this happens again by the same editor, I will contact a wikipedia administrator, but for now I give Trusilver the benefit of the doubt. Chado2423 04:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Removed Original Research Tag

There are still a couple of areas that need citations however, but I believe that the original has been limited in scope that the article may almost meet the wikipedia's standards, with just a little more work. Once the article is more complete, I will contact a friendly administrator for review of the page. Chado2423 05:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Move

I moved Romantic love to Romance (love). Term Romance (love) is per cambridge online dictionary, see [1]. This article is the top link in disambiguation page Romance. I had proposed a move in Wikipedia:Requested moves, see discussion in talk:romance. But this move is not related to that move hence moving without consensus. Im afraid wikipedia had no article titled exactly "romance", in five years. Lara_bran 04:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh gosh

Aftter my move request, maybe as a result, this article has gone extensive work by one ip and one new user both seem to be same individual, in just 3 days.

See earlier stable version, i have reverted. Feel free to revert back. version for reference is: [2] Lara_bran 05:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Chado2423, you are doing a great job, you can revert article to your version, or add(merge) your content back to article. But all your edits may be mercylessly edited or reverted back in future under wikipedia policies, please dont mistake, nor take it personally. Thanks for your contributions where article grown from 9kb to 27kb, im sure your contents will be added, but properly structure your contents. Lara_bran 05:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

---

In response, I've been working with reading the guidelines on wikipedia format, which is why I proposed an expert on the subject review the content. I must say that the information in the article was primary concern, and NOT style, at least not initially, and that I was to work on the manual of style: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style; as I went along. In other words it does no good to have an excellent "style" if the information is not first and foremost verifiable. I agree that the article was lacking in proper format and best style, however the information itself was becoming more sound than it had been previously. I will have to look and see exactly what content was deleted, what section it should be in precisely etc, and weigh once again whether or not it should be included. And if I am able to contact an expert I will. I may possibly have a contact to a Marriage conselour, but I'd rather see the overall historical aspect, which would call for a knowledgable historian. I will also have to re-examine the troubadours... I origianlly used an article by Henry Gruenbaum for that particular purpose. But, wikipedia has a direct link to that subject, which is why I did not discuss them in detail, merely, mentioning only an article that does, though they are of primary importance dealing with the subject of romance as an expression of one's creative nature. Without the troubadours much of the romantic poetry, and art, and "romantic traditions" we see today in the Western Society would not exist in the same manner in which it does.

I realize you have made an honest mistake. I know you were merely trying to move the article, and not delete content. I have decided not to revert the change but to observe it more closely. The article may traditionally fit better under the title of "romance", but as an unwritten rule we did not place it there because if you read the article, I must make it clear to you that the title of romantic love was to be construed because this topic is not about the subject of mere romance, but "romance in love relationships", though still a relative term, it is more of a specific topic than romance alone. Though it is sort of discreet the article actually discussed in portions the difference between mere romance and romantic love. We were not originally discussing romance in any other form. This seems like a mere distinction to most people, but in actuality it is a huge one historically. There is a difference between romantic involvement between partners who also love each other in the more spiritual sense, and the romance that occurs between people who do not love each other on that same level. In today's Western society that distinction is nearly lost, but in other societies historically that distinction was a major component of what could constitute legitimate relationships, such as the women known as the Eastern Eurpeon ladies known as the Burgeious in the early 19th century. But, I will look into what needs included and what does not need to be included as far as subject matter goes. Unfortunately the manual of style is still a work of progress. 14:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC) Chado2423 14:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

---

Ladies or gentlemen, please read the article carefully before trying to edit it, unless you decide to restructure the categories altogether. There is a section "romance and Value" which deals with the question of romance's spiritual value and criticisms of it as delusory or misguided. The Zukav citation should be there, not in the beginning.Cdg1072 23:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

---

Cdg, when the article was moved much of the content was deleted, back to an earlier transcript.... I'm working to rebuild the article as much as I can and discover where the content actually goes. Please forgive, and please be patient as I review. At that time, I merely hurriedly placed the paragraph back in, because I did not want to forget about it and I did not have much time at the moment. Sorry for the inconvenience, but I will work on smoothing out the article as often as possible. Please contact me on my user page if you wish to discuss my particular editations, rather than the article itself. Thanks Chado2423 02:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

This article does not have a Wikipedia:Lead_section. That is first paragraph, not existent at all. You cant take too long to conform to style, as this article is visited during time of edit. Its fine you reverted my edits. Lara_bran 05:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

--Laura, sorry but please calm yourself, The purpose of a lead section is to describe the rest of the article, much like the Encyclopedia Britinica does, but this article still needs work and some disputes need solving before we know precisely what we are leading into. You can go ahead and write a lead section if you wish, but lead sections are not a requirement, however standard practice they may be. In time the lead section will appear if you or I or, someone else writes one, but it is not critically set in stone that an article must absolutely have one, only that is considered standard and recommended. Part of what is stalling a lead section here is that of the dispute between the terms "romance" and "romantic love." My question is, if you so adamantly feel this article should have a lead, why didn't you write one? Just curious. Thanks Chado2423 05:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

i have reverted to version that has lead section, i need not write lead section myself. There are many other editors other than me, let them enter the scene. I could not get what exactly going on, otherwise i would have reverted again, now waiting for a third party. Lara_bran 05:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Lead section

I have added old lead section back from this version[3]. Cleanup article if same sentences repeat. Article should be good version all the time, you cant spoil it for long term to edit. Or editing should be such that article is usable condition all the time. Lara_bran 05:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

It's understandable that old materials will resurface when adjustments are made, but sooner or later editors will notice that there are now repeated sentences, where old sentences were shifted around.Cdg1072 06:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

--Yes, this is true, but hopefully they will view the discussion page. Or not, whichever way the Gods favor that day. I will specifically examine the article tomorrow for any repeated sentences or phrases, or any other obvious errors of that type. Things like this happen sometimes, it is correctable, but everyone seems to be in a panic. If you are running around too much because you are on fire, you might not be able to see the pitcher of water that could put the fire out. Chado2423 06:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

--Im not so sure that in the lead section this phrase should appear in the way in which it does: "Romantic love is a form of sexual love that attempts to either partly." Within the article we discuss veiwpoints that sexual desire and romantic love may not be the same thing, even though they are often connected. Anyone have an idea how to word this more properly? right now, I got nothing. Chado2423 14:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Very good point. I just went in and reworded that sentence, it got moved down to the lower section, and I think it was badly worded.Cdg1072 22:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC) And I reworded it in both places so now it is not a repetition.Cdg1072 23:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Diffficulty with finding articles without Gender Bias

The idea of gender bias, even in psychology is a major problem, and especially so involving romance... I am often reading Males do this, Females do this, but yet understanding that these generalizations are only based upon the author's personal experiences rather than actual truth. For instance in The Idiots Guide to Intamacy, there is a distinction between men and women, but these distinctions are not true per se: For men "A typical man will blame the woman for being too demanding, needy, or unappreciative." Yet I have seen examples of the opposite being true, even in my own relationship I was usually classified as the needy one, and I am male. Also the book suggests: "women are still raised to be more relationship focused than men." I would love see documentation proving these assumptions. Chado2423 19:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

romanticism and exaggeration

there is article romanticism any relationship can be established in historical definition? and exaggeration or flaunting or making it rich are the words somewhat connected to romance, any idea? Chado really nice work, you deserve appreciation. Lara_bran 03:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

--Actually there is a connection between these two terms, historically, and there really should be a link to this article. Thanks for mentioning that, you are right about that Lara. However the terms "Romanticsim" and "Romantic" did not always have the same connotation that they do today, but their point of origin is from the same root words, and same general concepts. I have just begun researching the root words. Also, I am hoping someone can help clean this up a bit, restructure the paragraphs etc. Chado2423 16:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I will cleanup article when it reaches little stable state, i will have time by then. "exaggeration" or "show off" seem to be common things in arts and current usage in context of love. Lara_bran 07:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

trim article

It exceeded 32kb, shorten article and introduce images, each image is worth 1000 words. Thanks. Lara_bran 11:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Inadequate Source

This is technically an inadequate source... none of these definitions given adequately show the idea of exagerated or decorated expression: ^ http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=68503&dict=CALD

Chado2423 05:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

(i deleted quote as link is enough, copyright etc.) We are not supposed to copy sentence, so i tried to put in my own words, it was little misleading, now i tweaked it a little. Lara_bran 06:50, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete sentence if not seems proper, I could not research in detail. Put one more reference. Somebody trim the article also. Lara_bran 07:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Not necessary to delete, just added reference that has subject matter related to the idea. I'm not good with the trimming. Chado2423 15:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest and effort on article, i will give a go for cleanup, but not in near soon. Lara_bran 03:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Why is there nothing on here about Jeanette Kritsky?

Like the time I took her to the botanical gardens, and later that day we had a picnic. But then two weeks ago she dumped me for Brett Ellis. Man, I hate that Brett Ellis. Anyway, I came here for answers, and all I got were the philosophical rantings of some basement dweller who obviously has no knowledge of the subject.

76.227.204.230 20:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC) If you are to make criticisms, please make constructive criticisms. What particular areas of the article do you think should be worked on? What particular questions are trying to seek answers to? What precise knowledge were you searching for? If you do not have the knowledge that you seek, then why do you judge someone who does not share the same knowledge, and who might by chance also seeking the same knowledge? Instead of being judgemental it would be much more beneficial to realise that you and they are could be on the same path toward better understanding, wouldn't it? I.E. are you therefore not the same? One thing I can guarantee to you, is that no one has the precise knowledge that relates to all areas of life, therefore your criticisms are invalid. I am learning about this subject and I am proud of that fact, but I do not know everything about it, nor do I intend to. As far as philosophical rantings, this article is about philisophical viewpoints, or did you miss that? There really is no other way to discuss the theory of love in connection with romance that would be verifiable. Otherwise it would be pure personal intention, and whether or not personal theories are valid, they would not be verifiable. How else would you propose this article be written? See if you tell us what particular changes you would like to see, rather than criticising we might be able to adhere to what you want, or at least discuss it. As far as seeking answers, it takes time to find answers to your questions, and wikipedia won't ever truly have all the answers you seek in life, neither will any other particular source. Instead you find answers in different aspects of your life. It is good that you seek answers, but it is not good that you judge for someone who seeks the same answers you seek. At least we are trying to create a more cohesive article, and we feel humbled by that, although we have a long way to go. I have done a lot of research here, but I am no expert, nor do I claim to be. But I do enjoy researching the subject and seeing different p.o.v's and trying to incorporate those as best as I can, while trying to understand the subject. I've learned alot, and I have more to learn. Thank you and have a good day. [(by the way, I don't even have a basement and I work both inside and outside the home(lol)]Chado2423 16:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Obvious troll is obvious. I propose we just delete the current paragraph. 86.76.72.178 (talk) 15:49, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

move

somebody reverted move from "romantic love" to "romance (love)", without even mentioning in talk page. Term romantic love is not found anywhere in cambridge/oxford dictionaries. i have put fact tag, and article needs heavy cleanup. Wikipedia does not have article with title "romance", i dont understand why. Article dablinks to love, but mentioned in dab of romance. Lara_bran 06:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

"Romantic love" google search gives 1.5million hits, with this article on top :D. "romance" gives 116million hits with nowhere wikipedia. Lara_bran 06:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Moved it since nobody provided citation for fact tag to "romantic love". Lara_bran 15:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

"Romantic love" is used 25+ times in this article! -- maybe you should change all those as well? "Romantic love" is far less ambiguous: "Romance (love)" could easily be confused with e.g. a Love affair ("a romance") or Courtship ("to romance") as evidenced by the conflation already present in this article. Ewlyahoocom 08:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Man I've been so busy working... I haven't had time to look at this article. I must say I am not pleased with what has happened... I agree with Lara that many of these changes were uneccessary... AND YES... IF YOU WANT TO WRITE AN ARTICLE ON "ROMANCE" WRITE ONE ON ROMANCE. Romantic love deals with romance in a specific context. There really should be a seperate article on Romance. 69.245.172.44(aka Chado2423)05:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC) Depending on which server I am I could have two identies... lol.

Lisa Diamond?

The section on defining romantic love within a relationship is mostly a discussion of one particular professor's view of romantic love. As Lisa Diamond is not preeminent enough to have a wikipedia page devoted to her as of yet, or to turn up a great many hits in a cursory Google search, perhaps this discussion should be clipped or even removed? It seems strange to have 2/3 of the definition section devoted to one author's view particularly one who is relatively obscure. 140.247.165.56 (talk) 01:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

what kind?

What kind of love is when someone loves a person a they love them back but they don't want to show it? I have that problem.

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) 13:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Removed content

I have removed here the following sentence bcz its intention is to vague to fix.

Romantic love might be requited emotionally and physically while not being consummated, to which one or both parties might agree.

The article it Rdrs to acknowledges that the term is use loosely, but it is about the issue of whether sex takes place in a marriage, and a lk to it is not helpful. If someone knows what its supposed to communicate, it should be rewritten or just replaced.
--Jerzy•t 00:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

New Material for Peer Review

I have created new material to augment the "Psychology of Love" section of this article. I plan to post it to the article in a few days, but would appreciate comments in advance. The draft of this proposed insert can be seen on my talk page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:4Xanadu/workspace

Thanks for your help!

4Xanadu (talk) 09:45, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, I posted the new section today, as I had not received any comments. Please help by editing and/or adding good material. This has already been reviewed by Jamie for policy compliance, but peer review of content will be helpful. Thanks!!

4Xanadu (talk) 04:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Major overhaul of page structure, grammar.

I just finished tackling this absolute beast of a topic. Here are my thoughts:

1. Added the sections for romantic love's history as well as the popularization thereof. I feel this will benefit the reader who is skimming the article best.

2. If you are a beginner or notice editor, please familiarize or refresh yourself on Wikipedia's wiki markup before making a reference link. This goes especially for those who are referencing philosophers, artists, authors et cetera with only their last name. Not everyone has the same education as you, so please write the person's full name initially, then follow with only their last name throughout the rest of the page. It also is not necessary to link the same word more than once in an article, so please check the rest of the article before doing so. This sort of care will make the page on romantic love an excellent read.

3. Topics unrelated specifically to romantic love were being brought into this article. Please go to the topic for love to contribute there.

4. Changes in grammar were made to reflect consistency in this article. Because there are multiple authors and voices, I felt it was necessary to make the wording consistent for everyone's benefit.

5. Please remember not to inject words like "perhaps," "maybe," and your personal opinion on topics. It's also important to be as clear and concise as possible in any wiki page.

That said, the article has been improved and I hope another editor will take on the new challenge of culling away unnecessary data. I would love for the author(s) who wrote specifically on philosophical topics referencing Nietzsche to move their paragraphs to the article on love.

Thank you!

mheart 14:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Romance and the Roman Empire

What is the origin of the word "Romance" or "Romantic" is there a connection with monogamy? Has is something to do with the fact - or is it not a fact? - that under the Roman Empire the monogamy became law (although concubines were kept by the male upper class) to preserve property in the same family line? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.156.91.252 (talk) 07:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Romance has more to do with Romanticism than the roman culture. Romanticism being a blind, northern european immitation of roman traditions. 212.80.5.212 (talk) 04:22, 31 March 2010 (UTC)Goshtaasp

Romance and sexual dimorphism

In my opinion, Based on sexual dimorphism, an undisputable scientific fact; Romance , in its christian sense , is nothing but an ideation on part of the female of all the vagueness and psychological manipulation the male has to offer as part of his sexual advance. 212.80.5.212 (talk) 04:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC)Goshtaasp

Romance and social norms

Romance also has a great deal to do with the social norms and what women perceive as "The greater good". For example, the common saying a couple of years ago was "Get a life!" meaning that a "man" should have a job or some other activity that stimulates the economy in a way; one could easily wonder if it's the same these days with the recession.

81.90.159.233 (talk) 04:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)Goshtaasp

Romance and sexual dimorphism

Sexual dimorphism in fact explains a lot when it comes to romance; as in some mammals like the smaller breeds of dogs, where the male and female are almost equal in physical strength, sex is done without any pursue and hassle while among other mammals like wild horses rape like behavior has been observed. 84.241.20.45 (talk) 20:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)Goshtaasp

Oxford dictionary broken link

new link http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/romance?rskey=gEbSc9&result=2#m_en_gb0716780 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.145.124 (talk) 15:00, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi I am Khan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.242.34.20 (talk) 10:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

One complicated sentence

I don't understand the meaning of the sentence "There may not be evidence, however, that members of such societies formed loving relationships distinct from their established customs in a way that would parallel modern romance." Even with the help of the context, this convoluted sentence is still undecypherable to me, because some negations added to each other in an unpractical way lead to an ambiguous situation.

86.76.72.178 (talk) 15:55, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Meaning of"romance".

• Sorry, but I'm quite sure that the original (and sometimes still used) meaning of romance,is not necessarily anything to do with relationships. I think the original meaning was used in the same way as 'story' or fictitious novel. Personally I still use it in this way. The use of 'romance' as it is more often used now, i.e. as in relationships is not really accurate. I'm fairly sure I'm right about this, & it really does irritate me to see words misused in encyclopaedias or by supposed scholars.

(58.179.206.40 (talk) 17:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC))

I read somewhere that our modern meaning of romance (which this Wikipedia article captures well from my perspective) started from the high ideals for Rome when it was started. the people who founded Rome instituted a new way of governing, replacing a king/dictator with a governing body (Senate) and with the top ruler only in power for a year or so at a time. Also, the same law would apply to everyone. It was a new way of doing things that brought forth the fruits of collaboration for the good of the whole. The attractive idealism associated with this dream-come-true was associated with "Rome" and the abstraction turned in to "Romantic." But I don't see this reported in this article. What's up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.48.226.98 (talk) 20:02, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Move?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: disambiguation page moved back to Romance. Favonian (talk) 11:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

---

Romance (love) → Romance –

• Romance was redirected to "Romance (love)" on 4 June 2011‎. If it is the primary use for Romance, it should not have "(love)" in its title per Wikipedia:Disambiguation. Pengyanan (talk) 10:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I concur, specially given that both Romance and Romance (disambiguation) are redirects. Also Romance (love) gets twice as much page views as Romance (genre), the next more likely candidate. But I think Romantic should redirect to Romanticism instead, though. Diego (talk) 16:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Diego, what do you mean? Romance (disambiguation) is not a redirect. That would be odd. Noetica^Tea? 22:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. As Romance (disambiguation) amply demonstrates, romance has many meanings. Here are some page-view statistics for September 2011:

• Romance languages: 46787 [that group or its core is often simply called "Romance", by the way]
• Romance film: 21576
• Romance novel: 20977
• Romance (genre): 15762
• Romance (music): 1282
• Romance (meter): 122

This gives a total of 106506 page views for that month, without even considering the dozens of articles that use the term romance as a proper name (like Romance, Arkansas), a title (like Romance (novel), by Joseph Conrad), or in a derivative form (like Romancero). See also [this internal search], which finds 418 article title using romance.

Even if the notion of "primary topic" were useful here, it is clear that other topics for romance overwhelm the present topic, which has 28965 page views in the month surveyed above. Take into account the huge number of other titles that readers may have in mind when they consult Wikipedia, and this tally is probably about one fifth of the combined tally for the alternatives. But we find this common criterion at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC: "much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined" (my underlining). The present topic clearly does not qualify; nor, I suggest, by the alternative consideration of "long-term significance". Finally, if the matter can be so easily disputed or shown to be uncertain, that is excellent evidence against considering any candidate topic primary.

Keep the current arrangements; except that Romance should be the disambiguation page, not a redirect. That is standard for DAB pages where there is no primary topic.

Noetica^Tea? 22:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• Agree with Noetica. The notion of primary topic (= vague, usually misleading title) is most inappropriate here. Tony (talk) 00:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose the disambiguation page should be primary. 76.65.128.132 (talk) 06:45, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
• Comment the move in June 2011 violated a preexisting consensus. 76.65.128.132 (talk) 06:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Misrepresentation of Chivalry

As someone who has done some moderate study into the history of domestic violence, it's obvious that the idea that chivalry did anything to help women's rights is a ridiculous myth conceived in the 19th century. There are many resources from the period which show this. For example, in "The Book of the Knight of La Tour Landry", a chivalrous knight is described as doing the following: "smote her with his first down to the earth; and then with his foot he struck her on the visage, and broke her nose; and all her life after that she had her nose crooked, the which shent and disfigured her visage after, that she might not for shame show her visage, it was so foul blemished." Of course, there are other examples- Friar Cherubino of Siena wrote a book called "Rules of Marriage", in which he recommends for husbands to soundly beat their wives with sticks. In one medieval tale, King Arthur rapes a young girl, and her father, upon finding out, says that she hopes she has become pregnant. I remember that one particularly good timeline for some of this stuff is included in a book called "Domestic Violence: A Reference Handbook". Also, while it was technically illegal for a knight to rape or kill a noblewomen, peasants were fair game. It was extremely common for knights to assault female peasants, all the while being considered chivalrous. Chivalry was largely about regulating violence from knights so that it primarily affected peasants, instead of other nobles. Books such as Chandos Herald's The Black Prince and Froissart's Chronicles do a good job of describing what chivalry back then was really like. In other words, the section of this article which describes chivalry as helping empower women is seriously off-base. If nobody has any objections, within the week I will remove all reference to it, but just in case there are any objections, I will give people time to explain them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lazypalindromeemordnilapyzal (talk • contribs) 22:59, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

English Grammar

Portions of this article make me want to cry. There are several sentences that are so unclear, they have resisted all of my attempts to clean them up. For instance, "Within an established relationship, romantic love can be defined as a freeing or optimizing of intimacy in a particularly luxurious manner (or the opposite as in the "natural"), or perhaps in greater spirituality, irony, or peril to the romantic relationship." According to the syntax, this sentence claims (among many things) that "Romantic love can be defined as a freeing of intimacy...in greater spirituality...to the romantic relationship." Really? What exactly does that even mean? And what is the significance of "the 'natural'"? Why is it italicized and quoted? Again, what does it even mean?

I don't want to just excise sentences like this (of which this article has many) because I sense that there is actual content hidden within them, desperate to be heard. But a greater mind than mine will be needed to unlock some of this. Portions of this article read as if Google Translate spat them out after being fed excerpts from an academic journal written in a non-English language. Yes, I'm complaining without providing a fix. Maybe when my brain stops bleeding from earlier attempts I'll make another run at it. Mac (talk) 20:15, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

LOL!! Yes, do fix that horrible grammar when you get good time to do so. Flyer22 (talk) 20:19, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Conclusions?

Is it really appropriate for a Wikipedia article to have a conclusions section? This is not a research paper. It should be presenting facts, and not forwarding an argument from which "conclusions" can be finally drawn. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 06:54, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Timothyjosephwood, go ahead and remove that; this article has, from what I can see, been the subject of WP:Student editing more than once, much like the Gender role article you are currently working on (but not to as great of an extent as that one). Flyer22 (talk) 07:10, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Or rather than delete it, merge it into an existing section of the article. Well, except for its first sentence. Flyer22 (talk) 07:13, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Romance which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 14:14, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Young adults and romance

Dating is an essential part of growing up when it comes to teens. It definitely contributes to growth and strength, and it is a milestone in every young person's life. (Vednidhi Teeruthroy and Uma Bhowon, "Romantic Relationships among Young Adults: An Attachment Perspective", International Journal of Humanities and Social Science (May 2012,vol. 2, no. 10) Luce Fonrose (talk) 22:24, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

The PROBLEM being that this article — that is to say Romance (love) — is kinda obviously NOT THE SAME as Dating. This unsteady heap of garbage will not be improved by piling more garbage upon it. As I say below, there's no rationale (or even clear reason) to conflate Romance with love with courtship with relationship.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 13:44, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Good Article nominations

Asking Regular editors if taking this article to the GA can be one?⭐FORCE RADICAL⭐ @ 11:39, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Romance (love). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100123205411/http://www.astro.umd.edu/~marshall/chivalry.html to http://www.astro.umd.edu/~marshall/chivalry.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to https://www.psych.utah.edu/people/files/diamond54a1.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:36, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

why Brad Hayden is gone

I've removed a Further reading entry: Brad Hayden, "falling in love" ... Made possible by Cora-lee Reid. The ONLY place such a "book" is mentioned is (was) this article, AND every site (of which there are dozens) that takes every trollish WP brainfart as sacred Truth.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 18:18, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Someone thought I was kidding about this. Today, Google has 95 hits for ""Made possible by Cora-lee Reid" that all point straight back to Romance (love) for verification. Welcome to crowdsourced Truth.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 13:55, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

a lot of soft-headed garbage

Wow. Though, I suppose it's appropriate that a bunch of empty conjecture and made-up fluff should be used to "explain" Romance.

I was going to begin overhauling this mess, but quickly bogged down in the slough of nonsense. For the moment, I marked up General definitions for the most glaring gaffes.

You'll note in the revision history that this was reverted within ONE MINUTE. Note also that said reviser did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to address ANY of the pointed-up failures.

Thus follows my rationale, after discussion of which I will more actively pursue "editors" who see WP as a place to flog their close-held prejudices and/or writing projects.

The entire article appears tenuous. For starters, listing of "usage through history" is not at all a definition. resolved (mostly)

Begin with basics. It's both lazy and irresponsible to blithely dump a concept (like, say, chivalry) onto readers assuming they all understand the term or will at least look it up. Make some brief attempt to clarify how the concept fits into the article topic, and perhaps justify your rationale for including it (if indeed you have an actual rationale).

It'll also help to keep topmost in mind that clarifying a vague concept is impossible by relying primarily upon other vague concepts. For me, the article hits a major snag at its outset, claiming For most people it is eros rather than agape, philia, or storge while entirely dodging the Jeopardy!-style question, "What is love?" (Practically a double weasel, right there.) The concept "romance" cannot be readily defined as "love," and defining it instead as "romantic love" is even worse.

My recommendation is that anyone who wants to actually help with this article ought to first take Limerence to heart, and then perhaps have a study of Propaganda:

information that is not objective and is used primarily to influence an audience and further an agenda, often by presenting facts selectively to encourage a particular synthesis or perception, or using loaded language to produce an emotional rather than a rational response to the information that is presented. Propaganda is often associated with material prepared by governments, but activist groups, companies and the media can also produce propaganda.

There ya go.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 17:03, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

No case has yet been offered (much less authoritatively supported) that "Romantic thinking" is at all the same as "Romantic love." To the contrary, the article seems to establish that the tendency to idealize one's outlook and thus crowd objective reality into a stereotyped storyline has no particular need for feelings of love for another human being (or even for the Blessed Virgin Mary or some other deity). improved (marginally)

In short, there's no rationale (or even clear reason) to conflate Romance with love with courtship with relationship (and other loosely used terms available, of course). Sticking two such vague words/concepts together and claiming clarification is irrational enough; gathering multiple such terms together in one spot and claiming it as a grand theory is intellectually dishonest at very best. These concepts ought better be divided into their own respective articles, cross-linked as necessary.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 21:20, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Somehow, I'd overlooked a key sentence in the lede In the context of romantic love relationships, romance usually implies an expression of one's strong romantic love, or one's deep and strong emotional desires to connect with another person romantically. This appears to be using a word to define itself. Seeing as Romance inspires irrational exuberance, let's rewrite it as In the context of perfection, perfection usually implies an expression of one's (feeling of) perfection, or one's deep and strong emotional desires for perfection of another person.

For the moment, I will leave it, hoping a defender will rewrite the sentiments (possibly) contained therein. resolved
Weeb Dingle (talk) 17:55, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Weeb Dingle, as long as we stick to WP:Reliable sources and WP:Due weight, there shouldn't be much of a problem. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:27, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

As I see neither in abundance, then the article is indeed dubious. Thank you for clarifying that.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 05:52, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I see reliable sources here. In what way are you challenging them? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:24, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I also see that Randy Kryn removed this tag you added. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:32, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Dude, do I need to raise the issue of you stalking me all across Wikipedia?
Weeb Dingle (talk) 16:27, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Weeb Dingle, I am not stalking you. You are popping up at a number of articles that are on my watchlist, which is indicated by the fact that I have edited enough of them or their talk pages before you even showed up at them. But if you want to report me for WP:Hounding at WP:ANI, be my guest. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:26, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I have removed the second paragraph from the lede, because it relied almost entirely upon circular reasoning to have any meaning, to wit:

In the context of romantic love relationships, romance usually implies an expression of one's strong romantic love, or one's deep and strong emotional desires to connect with another person intimately or romantically.

To make up a simpler example: logically, that claim is approximately equivalent to

"giddiness" usually implies an expression of one's giddiness, or one's deep and strong emotional desires to connect with another person giddily.

Whoever added that initial clause ("In the context of romantic love relationships") seems to be making an argument from authority (a common fallacy) yet doesn't even point to the supposed authority. That, therefore, MUST go away permanently. resolved
Weeb Dingle (talk) 16:01, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

The first line continues to bother me —

Romance is the expressive and generally pleasurable feeling from an emotional attraction towards another person.

That parses as Romance is the expressive feeling from an emotional attraction which doesn't make any sense as it stands; at very least we need a ref to define what an "expressive feeling" is, as the term exists exactly once in WP. Lacking that, I continue to pare.

The second clause proves to be even more problematic: …the generally pleasurable feeling…. Looking for support, I find the sequence pleasur does not appear anywhere in the subsequent article. There is in fact nothing offered to support the claim that "romance" is somehow enjoyable, and at best pushes credit onto other words like love and dating

At the absolute least, this MUST be

1. called a claim in the lede section
2. early in the article body proper, be referred to as a claim
3. supported by at least one credible source (preferably multiple) that make this specific claim, i.e. "Romance is a feeling, and that feeling is pleasurable"

If left to stand, in order for this to even begin to be a credible encyclopedaic article, that "pleasurable feeling" MUST have further explication. For instance how common amongst humans and back through time is this "feeling" of which you speak? Is this "feeling" discrete — either 100% or zero — or continuous (anything from 0 to 100)? Does it vary? Under what circumstances?

For starters. resolved
Weeb Dingle (talk) 14:14, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

The term expressive feeling exists exactly once in the WP entirety. (Ringside (1949 film)) Being there is no Expressive article, I turn to the Expressivity disambig; of seven entries, only one might have anything to do with Romance (love) and being titled Expressive suppression indicates the direct opposite of the irrational exuberance implied in the present lede. After running into another disambig, I finally fetch up at Emotional expression, which seems a good basis for reworking the lede to remove all the arm-waving "everyone knows what THAT means" nonsense. (note to self: also add links to Sex differences in psychology#Emotion, Emotions and culture#Pioneers, Affect display, maybe Positive affectivity.)
Weeb Dingle (talk) 17:32, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

editorial weaseling

Specifically,

(Nah. If defined that way, romance is no different from love at all. I see that I'm going to have to source this if editors are to add their own personal definitions.)

I mean, Flyer22 Reborn, rather than continuing to hide behind the drapes (i.e., the ever-sacred Wikipedia Rulebook), please attempt to make a cogent case, in public. All I have on my side is simple logic and basic linguistics. I accept that I am being targeted, and my editing efforts relentlessly nitpicked, by an editor who claims ownership of the article (solely on the basis of longevity) — that's how Wikipedia works. However, I can at least present my reasoning behind a contentious change.

In this instance, Flyer22 Reborn insists my statement that

Romance is an emotional feeling of love for another person. "Romance" also refers to courtship behaviors undertaken to express that overall feeling and its resultant emotions

is not only incorrect but constitutes my attempting to "define the term." My contention is that these are two separable phenomena: feelings don't need expression, expression can be insincere, a rather "water is wet!" observation. This distinction is clearly upheld throughout Romance (love) as even the most cursory review of the headings makes clear. As I am not the article's author, this distinction is not in any way on me.

In response, Flyer22 Reborn insists that it is "correct" to reduce complexity to

Romance is an emotional feeling of love for another person and the courtship behaviors undertaken to express that overall feeling and its resultant emotions

which is to say that it's all one phenomenon.

Love is a feeling, and there are not practices inherently associated with the term. Romance is a feeling, AND an accretion of practices — anyone can look at the sprawling See also list to demonstrate this. If this is supported by the article, then (one assumes) any "sourcing" is already in the article… and if not then it is the article itself that ought to be corrected; my version of the lede accurately summarizes the article at present.

To pretend that the feeling and the associated practices are somehow the same is clearly an attempt to impose the mistaken notion that "romance is no different from love at all," so it's bizarre to claim the opposite, moreso to blame me. My version supports the very thesis that the two concepts are differentiable.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 20:15, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

I will also note it was Flyer22 Reborn who earlier this year took issue with statements I made (see above) such as The concept "romance" cannot be readily defined as "love".
Weeb Dingle (talk) 20:19, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't have time for your nonsense. Your arguments above, including your "took issue with statements" argument, are off. You are clearly upset that I recently took to fixing a mess at the Polyamory article, including this one (where I cited WP:Editorializing). But let me make this clear: We follow what the WP:Reliable sources state and with WP:Due weight. And either way, it makes not a bit of sense to define "romance" in the way that you defined it since that definition is no different than platonic love. It's the same regarding this mess of a definition I had to fix at the Polyamory article. If you don't have WP:Reliable sources to support your definition, stop adding such definitions. Following Wikipedia's rules is not "hid[ing] behind the drapes." I told you before that you are not being targeted. All of these articles you are showing up to, where I appear, are articles that are already on my watchlist; I have been at these articles long before you arrived, which is easy enough to check by clicking on the "Edits by user" link, entering my name, and then pressing "Submit." I'd rather not interact with you, but, yes, I am likely to revert and/or correct your poor edits. That is not about you. It is something I am likely to do at any article I am watching. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:32, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Drmies, above you can see that it's not only the sexual activity articles where I go through stuff like this. I can also ping you to a few gender-related and medical articles where I go through the same or similar. So, you see, regarding this, there are other places for us to meet. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:49, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

I see where Randy Kryn has ventured in and, among other lede tweaks, put in a comma. Potential genius; I might agree this is adequate (if imperfect) to give some small separation between the concept of romantic feelings and that of romantic behaviors.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 21:01, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Just seeking for consensus language which includes as many possible points-of-view and still make sense. It's such a wide topic that summarizing it in Wikipedia encyclopedic nutshell language takes a few tweaks sometimes. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:10, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn, I don't know who this Weeb Dingle person is, or why we are entertaining their thoughts on love vs. romance, thoughts which, it seems to be, barely attend a sophomoric level and certainly aren't grounded in a proper reading of the history of these concepts. I don't know where their definition of romance comes from, nor do they provide any secondary sourcing in the screed above. Drmies (talk) 00:45, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

• Flyer, one problem here is that editors (those who mostly wrote the article) seem to think that romance = romance--what I mean is that that there is a modern meaning of romance and somehow or other that's always been there. The very title, "Romance (love)" already suggests that. Anyone who has read romances, from Chretien and Marie de France until its epic version in Malory and everything in between, knows that feeling is much less important than the code of behaviors that steers those things we now call emotional states or drives. In other words, as a medievalist I think this article is a misnomer from the get-go, and reading over the "History" section I can tell that no one knows what to do with it. Note how quickly it turns into a discussion of "romantic love", which is not "romance", and note how it feels the need to discuss the topic consistently in comparison with marriage, as if the whole thing can only be defined in that way, that white American Protestant moralist way. No, I'd rather watch the Ravens against the Steelers, and I don't care about the NFL, let alone these two teams, than try to improve this article, which is a disaster. Maybe Randy Kryn, who I believe to be a decent human being and Wikipedia, is more optimistic then me, and maybe the two of you can produce something which is based on reliable sources. PS Need more BS in your life? I offer you New relationship energy. Drmies (talk) 00:58, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Drmies, yes, like I noted higher above (years ago), this article has been subject to WP:Student editing over the years. Of course, the students aren't the only ones who have built this article. "Romantic love" redirects here; I'm not seeing a need to try to make it its own article, or how we would go about distinguishing that article from this article. Since "romantic love" is an aspect of romance, I think it's best covered here (at least for now). And, after all, the article is disambiguated the way that it is. Romance is the disambiguation page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:24, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Hmm "Romantic love" strikes me as a better term to built an article on. But what do I know--I'm the one downstairs who's doing laundry, dishes, and lunches for tomorrow; the better place is upstairs, where Mrs. Drmies is watching Poldark. Obviously I'm not the one who really feels the concept. Drmies (talk) 01:29, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

As seen at #Move, #Move? and #Move discussion in progress, there have also been move discussions regarding the article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:29, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Discussion of sexual topics clearly encourages people to disconnect from their higher reasoning functions, hence my previous Talk section's heading.

As an example of self-serving soft-headedness, New relationship energy is excellently bad, though I contend that Polycule is more egregious. Also consider Falling in love (with the same Fragonard painting) and Affair (Fragonard again), Dating, Infidelity, Extramarital sex, Asexuality, or Romantic orientation. And I'm still mulling how to cram Faithfulness and Loyalty and Fidelity together, seeing as each uses the other two to "define" itself and pretty much stops there.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 15:40, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

What issue are you taking with the Asexuality article, which I have significantly worked on and which therefore adheres to what WP:Reliable sources state and with WP:Due weight and is currently a WP:Good article? Or are you saying that the Romance (love) article should include some material on asexuality? I was never for the Romantic orientation article existing since "romantic orientation" is usually defined as an aspect of sexual orientation and since, outside of that, "romantic orientation" is mainly used as an idea within the asexual community. But the article exists and is sort of fine as a separate entity. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:04, 14 October 2018 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:17, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

As for "how to cram Faithfulness and Loyalty and Fidelity together," a merge discussion should be had. We already know that merging Extramarital sex with Adultery has been discussed. I mentioned this to you before. We can't just delete the Extramarital sex article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:17, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Where was the suggestion made to just delete the Extramarital sex article?
Weeb Dingle (talk) 04:42, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Do you not see the discussion you started on that article's talk page, titled "I say delete it"? Given the title of that section and what you stated in it, am I to assume you were using the word delete in a way that does not mean delete? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:38, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I remain baffled as how someone carefully tracking my various comments (all across WP and spanning back a couple of years) does not constitute stalking, if not some form of pernicious targeting. I accepted your point (however grudgingly) at that space, but because I didn't subsequently praise your wisdom you now seek to punish me here with a non sequitur. Okay, fine, let's leave it at that.

(Point of fact: what I actually proposed there was a merge and delete of both Extramarital sex and Infidelity, putting any actual content into Adultery, a thought prompted largely by the very first sentence of Infidelity. You could not have missed that statement, therefore you must be intentionally trying to paint me in a bad light, QED, an elementary propaganda tactic. Please stop.)

My point here was that in the present discussion — meaning right here on this very Talk page — nobody (until YOU brought it up) has proposed to just delete the Extramarital sex article. Others are welcome to their mistruths, but I will not accept responsibility for them.

Having clarified myself, this discussion ought to be considered dead. SUMMARY:

• I created it to make my case that the repeated reversion of my edits was illogical if not crazy, actively reducing the credible encyclopedic nature of the article.
• For those good-faith attempts I was shouted down, lectured high-handedly and ridiculed because that's how WP works.
• At that impasse, Randy Kryn passed by and inserted a comma.
• While leaving the sentence (in my opinion) imperfect, that change nevertheless captured much of my intent without changing the "proper" wording so carefully guarded by others.
• I stated that this is to me an acceptable compromise.
• With that, the point of the thread is rendered moot and should be considered closed.

All who agree may signify by NOT responding.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 17:18, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Weeb Dingle, if you want it to be the last response, then stop responding. Paint you in a bad light? Punish you? Editors can easily read what you stated. Like Drmies, I feel that you don't have a clue what you are talking about. You keep going on about my supposed bias against you because of my criticism of your editing rationales and some of your editing. If you cannot take criticism of your editing or follow the rules, why are you editing here? I do not see that you should be editing here, given your WP:OR, and since you clearly hold grudges for criticism and are not beyond making baseless claim after baseless claim against another Wikipedian. I told you to stop with the nonsense that I am "carefully tracking" your editing. And now you state that I'm carefully tracking your various comments, and that this extends "all across WP and spanning back a couple of years"? What???? I told you above: "All of these articles you are showing up to, where I appear, are articles that are already on my watchlist; I have been at these articles long before you arrived, which is easy enough to check by clicking on the 'Edits by user' link, entering my name, and then pressing 'Submit.' I'd rather not interact with you, but, yes, I am likely to revert and/or correct your poor edits. That is not about you. It is something I am likely to do at any article I am watching." Is it that hard for you to check the edit history and see that your WP:Hounding claims are complete nonsense? There is no proof whatsoever that I've been tracking you "all across WP and spanning back a couple of years." I had no idea who you were until recently. It is only recently that you have been active at these articles. Your contribution history, which, yes, I checked to make this statement, shows that your first edit to this site (under your Weeb Dingle account) was on September 17, 2016. I've been with this site since 2007. I've warned you more than once to stop making these claims on the talk pages of articles. I think it is time that I take you to WP:ANI, unless Drmies wants to give you an administrative warning to stop. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:35, 11 November 2018 (UTC)