Talk:True Love

Please do inform readers also about "accepted truth," where one may find "objective science," and consider for a second taking the ambiguity of the idea behind "idea" as an acceptable grey area, wherein if one were to attempt to objectify every human notion, an encyclopedia might not exist.123...

"Truth about 'true' love please

As the article notes true love is a "popular" idea. However, popular is by no means a test for truth as many popular ideas are outright falsehoods. We need to make this distinction here so that readers can understand that 'true' love has no basis in accepted truth...eg there is no objective science that I know of that has tested this idea against the facts.

We also need to be careful with the word 'selfless'. Many martyrs in other areas, such as religious or political martyrs, martyr themselves for selfish reasons that sometimes appear to to the uniformed to be selfless. To call True love to the point of self-sacrifice a 'selfless' act without knowing the genuine intentions of those involved is dangerous and most likely quite false.

I am going to qualify a few of the statements in the article to this end. (drop in editor)

Apologies. Above response attended for this comment. [Please do inform readers also about "accepted truth," where one may find "objective science," and consider for a second taking the ambiguity of the idea behind "idea" as an acceptable grey area, wherein if one were to attempt to objectify every human notion, an encyclopedia might not exist.]

Point of View issues

One editor has a problem with what he calls unsourced personal commentary. As this article has no sources other than mine and is (was) all a collection of personal commentary I find that hard to accept. Below is the content I tried to add before he began to revert what he called 'unsourced personal commentary'. I welcome other editors with cooler heads to weigh in because I see a well-known popular POV being pushed here with no balance from people with other less popular (yet equally potent) points of view. (drop in editor)

True love is a popularly held concept of loving someone without restraint and without restriction. Usually, true love is described as love without condition, motive or attachment, loving someone just because they are themselves, not because of their actions. People acting on the basis of what they see as 'true' love will often set aside their own well being for the safety and happiness of their lovers, even though their relationship may not be formalized or reciprocated. Sometimes, this idea and it's associated feelings are strong enough to inspire acts of suidical self-sacrifice as in Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet. However, it is important to note that 'true' love is a popular idea and as such is far from being inherently true.

In fact, some pyschologists, such as David Schnarch, believe that the opposite is the case. They believe that conditional love (or love in exchange for love) in committed relationships leads to genuine love. This controversial thesis runs counter to popular conceptions of romantic love which stresses 'true' love as genuine love.

Another similar term is unconditional love, though this term is more often used to describe an strong emotional bond between blood family and other relatives. True love, in contrast, usually refers to a strong love between lovers or spouses, though overt sexuality is not required

References

Schnarch, David, Passionate Marriage: Keeping Love and Intimacy Alive in Committed Relationships, 1998, ISBN 0805058265

Inconsistency

I've noticed a small Inconsistency in this article when compared to the one about puppy love. In both articles, Romeo and Juliet are mentioned, and it is basically claimed that they had that particular kind of love for each other. If they DID have both kinds, it should be mentioned, and then further said that their 'puppy love' evolved into 'true love.' (if indeed that was the case.)

About that inconsistency

I was the one who added the puppy love/infatuation part (along with other parts) to the article. Yes, I agree we should point out something along those lines, either of the fact that Romeo/Juliet's love evolved from puppy love to true love, or that there are different interpretations as to whether it was puppy love or true love. Or perhaps it is both, and the Puppy Love article was just pointing out that Romeo and Juliet were both very young. So puppy love can have a partially overlapping definition with true love? I think we can add something like that into the article. Thobanster 07:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

People have been vandalising this article with rude comments and I think it should become protected. 24.83.248.231 07:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does anything, person, place, or idea, exist in an unconditional state? Be it "love," or "true love," or any other term, everything exist in a relationship to one, or more other things. I came to this page, by way of a search for the word "unconditional" as in an unconditional state. I am a poet. I write poems. I write from my life. This means everything I remember, and even what I have forgot. I ask myself, what does this term, or any term, mean to me? What does it mean to others? Does it mean anything at all? Well, certainly it means something, or I wouldn't be writing this at 2am in the morning from the city of Prague. So, what have I learned from reading what you have each written here tonight? Well, we don't seem to agree on what love, or true love means. Do we have to agree? I don't think so. So let us agree to disagree, and go on to the point, or the "meaning" of love, "true love" or an unconditional state of anything. Now I believe in believing. I also believe in an unconditional state of love, but I cannot prove this state, unconditionally. Does that then make it not true? I am an old man. I have been loved, and I have loved in turn, but did I love because I was loved? No, I did not. So, for me, the only proof I have to there being a "true love," is myself. That most likely, is the only proof I will every have. It is enough. Thank you for your thoughts, and good night from Prague. Edmund

Requested move (2007)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was no consensus for move. Following the discussion here, I moved "Romantic love" from being a "see also" to being a main entry in the dab page, as a means to address the concerns here that the items listed were all otherwise titles of works. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 11:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True love → True Love — every entry on this disambiguation page is uppercase-L —Ewlyahoocom 07:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Strong oppose. To rename to True Love would be an obvious violation of WP:CAPS. The reason that the other examples on the disambig page have an uppercase "L" is because they are titles of works of art; i.e., they are proper nouns. The concept of true love isn't, in English, a proper noun. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 07:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But this is not an article about the concept of true love, this is a disambiguation page. Ewlyahoocom 08:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. WP:CAPS reads do not capitalize second and subsequent words, unless: the title is a proper noun (my emphasis). In this case, the title is a proper noun, and should therefore be capitalised. Andrewa 09:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I agree with Andrewa. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 19:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. WP:CAPS isn't relevant here. Crazysuit 21:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - confusing disambiguation. Both true love and True love should point to romantic love or have their own articles, and this current one should be at True Love (disambiguation). The Evil Spartan 04:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia ignores the capitalization of the very first letter of the first word. This move request deals with the capitalization of the first letter of the second word ("love" vs "Love"). Ewlyahoocom 06:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, this page also disambiguates "Romantic love" which is not a title. --Voidvector 08:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: No it doesn't, that's a see also, and probably doesn't belong on the page anyway. No change of vote. Andrewa 09:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Per nom., etc. The concept "true love" is not a particularly encyclopedic topic and is certainly unlikely to need disambiguation itself. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Any additional comments:

I disagree that this proposed move would violate WP:CAPS. With the exception of the redirect at true love (love), the proposer is quite correct: All entries in the disambiguation page currently at true love are to titled works of art, which are correctly captitalised as True Love. So, if we're disambiguating between correctly capitalised articles, shouldn't the disambig be capitalised too? No vote as yet, but I think it's a suggestion with a great deal of merit, not to be quickly dismissed. Andrewa 07:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please compare to Love Story, also a disambiguation page to works of art. Ewlyahoocom 08:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point; See support vote above. Andrewa 09:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support the move, but the redirect true love (love) appears to have been created just so it could be added to this page. No one will ever search for "true love (love)", and redirects shouldn't be listed on disambig pages. I've changed it to a piped link see WP:MOSDAB. Crazysuit 21:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I created and added that link so I could disambiguate some of the links to "true love". I wasn't sure if "true love" is exactly the same thing as "romantic love" so I wanted to leave the option to redirect to a better article. Ewlyahoocom 06:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't last long... to quote the deletion log: 08:05, 30 August 2007 Carlossuarez46 (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "True love (love)" ‎ (CSD R3: Implausible typo). That's because User:Crazysuit had flagged it with template:db-redirmisnomer. Andrewa 04:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was Move Parsecboy (talk) 01:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The case for a move is pretty clear. All the entries on this page use the capitalized form "True Love," so there's no reason for the disambiguation page to be located at True love. This was obviously discussed above about eighteen months ago; the arguments against a move were pretty poor then (and the page may have been in a significantly different form--I haven't checked), and I'm hoping it'll be easier to gain consensus in a new discussion now. There are no good reasons to put a disambiguation page at a spelling that doesn't apply to any of the disambiguated entries. Propaniac (talk) 21:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can't say I object. The logic does make sense. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And where should True love point? To the dab or an article on romance? Dekimasu よ! 02:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm presuming that it should still target this page. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it should be a redirect here. Propaniac (talk) 20:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Jumbled disambiguation page

I'm not sure when this ceased to be an article and now a mess of a disambiguation page, but it's all over the place. Conspicuously missing is also a definition. I don't have the time to clean this now but tagging it and will return later. Ifnord (talk) 20:08, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]