Friendship and User talk:Wildhartlivie: Difference between pages

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Difference between pages)
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Kac786 (talk | contribs)
11 edits
No edit summary
 
Hag2 (talk | contribs)
1,922 edits
 
Line 1: Line 1:
<!---Please scroll down to below line noted to add new talk page discussion--->
{{Cleanup|date=May 2008}}
<div style="border: 1px solid black; background: purple; background-color:lavender; padding: 1ex 1ex 1ex 1.5ex; margin: 0px 0px 1em 1em; font-size: 100%">
{{otheruses6|Friendship (disambiguation)|Friends (disambiguation)}}
<div style="border-bottom: 2px solid black">'''Welcome!'''</div>
{{Close Relationships}}
[[Image:Film reel.svg|50px|right]]


{{archive box|
Friendship
*[[{{FULLPAGENAME}}/Archive 1|Through 2007]]
*[[{{FULLPAGENAME}}/Archive 2|1/08 through 3/08]]
*[[{{FULLPAGENAME}}/Archive 4|4/08 through 6/08]]
*[[{{FULLPAGENAME}}/Archive 5|7/08 through 9/08]]
<!---*[[{{FULLPAGENAME}}/Archive 3|Through 12/07]]--->
}}


Friendship is one of the most important factors in life.


Really good a person feels when friendship is deep within them.


==Referencing==
In the world, friendship must be shared between everyone.
{{[[Template:refstart|refstart]]}} or link to [[WP:REFB]].


----
Excited everyone should be when friendship is shining in front of their eyes.
<!---------------Please place new talk below this line and at the bottom of the page--------------->


== Re: I'm sorry! ==
Never does anything come between true friendship.


No problem at all. I happened to look at the page history and saw that you'd been working on it, but figured you had finished because it was about 15 minutes since your last edit. When I got a edit conflict note I realized you were still working on it and skaddadled off to the Serial killer article. Ugh, trying to find sources for all that uncited info is a real pain in the arse. The beautiful bibliography is useless without page numbers! How goes your editing? --[[User:Momoricks|*momoricks*]] ([[User talk:Momoricks|talk]]) 09:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Down will go evil when love and friendship overcomes it.
:Your edits to the Wuornos article look good. I'm going to expand the Victims section and find sources about her legal adoption by Arlene Pralle so I can add that back in. As I'm sure you saw on the talk page, the original info was uncited and ridiculously inflammatory/POV. *sigh* Oh, and I read the note on the Zodiac page...ack. Have fun with Andrei! ;) --[[User:Momoricks|*momoricks*]] ([[User talk:Momoricks|talk]]) 10:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for expanding the murders section. The article is starting to look really good. Have a great weekend! --[[User:Momoricks|*momoricks*]] ([[User talk:Momoricks|talk]]) 00:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


== Note ==
Smiles all round when friendship is around.


Yes. However, some comments aside, I'm rather hopeful that he can be logically argued to be a more productive than disruptive influence. From the link you gave to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAlan_Moore&diff=240840553&oldid=240798211 this] (which I like to hope is a genuine thought); from [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alan_Moore&diff=prev&oldid=239736932 outright removal] of (possibly) spuriously-sourced comments, to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_and_Wendy&diff=prev&oldid=240604631 asking for sources]. That's progress... I hope. :o)
happiness is what friendship brings.


Basically, I think there's hope, even though the memory you evoke was not a pleasant one (and, frankly, somewhat bemusing at the time). If you are aware of the ''pre''-history to that, though, or even if you read between the lines of the BLP-points raised, it becomes clear that "A.K.A.S" did have initial cause for serious complaint against Wikipedia. Not against us, nor against many of the people that ire is being (mis)directed at, but certainly cause for very serious complaint. I absolutely disagree with many of the methods by which he seems to be addressing those complaints, and certainly feel that more constructive contributions would go a long way to helping heal the harm, rather than simply fighting fire with fire. I tried to point that out [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAlan_Moore&diff=240798211&oldid=240704839 here], and hope that some of those thoughts reached home.
It is said that if a person makes a wish when they see a wishing star, their wish always comes true.


Ultimately, attempting to "unmask," ban, block or otherwise hinder him at the moment is, clearly, going to bring about precisely the situation you mention ''all over again''. If possible, I would like to avoid that. If on this occasion we can all calmly and rationally have a meeting of the minds (and, again, I ''hope'' this is possible), then I think there will be a massive positive reached from a pretty nasty negative. I prefer to hope that careful handling, rational discussion, a lot of crossed fingers and some understanding will be a help; while I would pretty much guarantee that any submission/referal/complaint of puppetry (or similar) will swiftly degenerate back into an identical situation, and we'll all be worse off.
Please make a wish next time you see a wishing star, because I did, and I found you.


I would advise caution. I would prefer everyone to 'let it go' (a little, at least) for the time being, and just think positive thoughts..! I don't want this to escalate further, and I don't think it ''has'' to, so...


If this makes any sense (or even if it doesn't!), please comment further. :o) And thanks for mentioning it. [[User:Ntnon|ntnon]] ([[User talk:Ntnon|talk]]) 15:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
by sweetheart k (on bebo)


:Appreciated, and as I say: 'fingers crossed'. The threats and stalking are totally beyond the pale, I agree. But there's some mitigation (''some'') to be had from the deeper history of the issues. Conflict of Interest is also an issue, but not one that's particularly high on my agenda - unless it's overly self-serving, un-'notable' or misinformation. And frankly, I can think of few people ''better'' to start certain articles than those involved... so long as they maintain a proper degree of attachment and non-bias.


:I broadly agree with your old school approach, but there are two obvious flaws: second chances <small>(although the multiple number of second chances some people seem to get with simple things like 'good faith' - there's somebody heading through the [[Archie Comics]] articles at the moment randomly erasing details without a thought, comment or edit summary, who seems to just be allowed to continue! ''That'' is more of a problem; at least here we have engagement... not always entirely civil, and sometimes downright nasty, but still. There's a dialog.)</small> or the chance to turn over a new leaf, and trying to do what's best, or right. In this, fairly sensitive, case, it would not do anyone much good to go for a puppet-branding and banning, and would likely do ill. That is, I realise, not a million miles from tacit scare tactics, but it's also hand-in-hand with kid gloves and red tape, both of which have some history to them..!
''''''Friendship'''''' is used to denote ''co-operative and supportive behavior'' between two or more beings. In this sense, the term connotes a [[Interpersonal relationship|relationship]] which involves mutual [[knowledge]], [[esteem]], and [[affection]] and respect along with a degree of rendering service to friends in times of need or crisis. Friends will welcome each other's company and exhibit [[loyalty]] towards each other, often to the point of [[altruism]]. Their [[taste (aesthetics)|tastes]] will usually be similar and may converge, and they will share enjoyable activities. They will also engage in mutually helping [[human behavior|behavior]], such as exchange of advice and the sharing of hardship. A friend is someone who may often demonstrate reciprocating [[behavior]]s. Yet for many, friendship is nothing more than the [[Trust (sociology)|trust]] that someone or something will not harm them...


:Luck will be helpful. Politeness will be a must, and I may change my hopes shortly, but in the meantime... optimism isn't an inherently bad thing, is it..?! :o) [[User:Ntnon|ntnon]] ([[User talk:Ntnon|talk]]) 20:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
* the tendency to desire what is [[altruism|best for the other]],
* [[sympathy]] and [[empathy]],
* [[honesty]], perhaps in situations where it may be difficult for others to speak the [[truth]], especially in terms of pointing out the perceived faults of one's counterpart
* mutual [[understanding]].
[[Image:Palestinian Kids in Nazareth by David Shankbone.jpg|thumb|left|Friends in [[Nazareth, Israel]]. Friendships are often the most important relationships in the emotional life of the [[adolescent]], and are often more intense than relationships later in life.]]
In a comparison of [[interpersonal relationship|personal relationships]], friendship is considered to be closer than association, although there is a range of degrees of [[intimacy]] in both friendships and associations. Friendship and association can be thought of as spanning across the same continuum. The study of friendship is included in [[sociology]], [[anthropology]], [[philosophy]], and [[zoology]]. Various theories of friendship have been proposed, among which are [[social psychology]], [[social exchange theory]], [[equity theory]], relational [[dialectics]], and [[attachment styles]]. ''See [[Interpersonal relationship#Theories of interpersonal relationships|Interpersonal relationships]]''


== Manson articles ==
Friendship is considered one of the central human experiences, and has been sanctified by all major religions. ''[[The Epic of Gilgamesh]]'', a Babylonian poem that is among the earliest known literary works in history, chronicles in great depth the friendship between [[Gilgamesh]] and [[Enkidu]]. The [[Greek religion|Greco-Roman]] had, as a paramount example, the friendship of [[Orestes]] and [[Pylades]]. The [[Abrahamic faiths]] have the story of [[David and Jonathan]]. Friendship played an important role in German [[Romanticism]]. A good example for this is Schiller's [[Die Bürgschaft]].
The [[Christian]] [[Gospels]] state that [[Jesus Christ]] declared, "No one has greater love than this, to lay down one's life for one's friends."(John 15:13).


Thanks for the alert re the sock puppet.[[User:JohnBonaccorsi|JohnBonaccorsi]] ([[User talk:JohnBonaccorsi|talk]]) 02:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
In philosophy, [[Aristotle]] is known for his discussion (in the ''[[Nicomachean Ethics]]'') of ''[[philia]],'' which is usually (somewhat misleadingly) translated as "friendship," and certainly includes friendship, though is a much broader concept.


== Clinton/Palin ==
Cultural variations:
(stub-section)
A group of friends consists of two or more people who are in a mutually pleasing relationship engendering a sentiment of camaraderie, exclusivity, and mutual trust. There are varying degrees of "closeness" between friends. Hence, some people choose to differentiate and categorize friendships based on this sentiment.


Yep, that would've actually been insulting! [[User:Pinkadelica|Pinkadelica]] ([[User talk:Pinkadelica|talk]]) 05:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
===Rome===
During the time of the [[Roman Empire]], [[Cicero]] had his own beliefs on friendship. Cicero believed that in order to have a true friendship with someone there must be all honesty and truth. If there isn’t, then this isn’t a true friendship. In that case, friends must be one hundred percent honest with each other and put one hundred percent of their trust in the other person. Cicero also believed that for people to be friends with another person, they must do things without the expectation that their friend will have to repay them. He also believes that if a friend is about to do something wrong, and something that goes against your morals, you shouldn’t compromise your morals. You must explain why what they are going to do is wrong, and help them to see what the right thing to do is, because Cicero believes that ignorance is the cause of evil. Finally the last thing that Cicero believed was that the reason that a friendship comes to an end is because one person in that friendship has become bad. (On Friendship, Cicero)


=== Russia ===
== Myspace ==
People really aren't pulling your leg. Validated Myspace sites can be used as being statements from the people that own them. It's subject to the normal problems of primary sourcing: you can't take primary sources as being truth, you can only take them as truly reflecting the statements of the source (i.e., if Lindsay Lohan claimed she was the Queen of Senegal on her Myspace, an article could say "Lohan says she is the Queen of Senegal", not "Lohan is the Queen of Senegal").
The relationship is constructed differently in different cultures. In [[Russia]], for example, one typically accords very few people the status of "friend". These friendships however make up in intensity what they lack in number. Friends are entitled to call each other by their first names alone, and to use diminutives. A norm of polite behaviour is addressing "acquaintances" by full first name plus [[patronymic]]. These could include relationships which elsewhere would be qualified as real friendships, such as workplace relationships of long standing, neighbors with whom one shares an occasional meal and visit, and so on. Physical contact between friends was expected, and friends, whether or not of the same sex, would embrace, sometimes kiss and walk in public with their arms around each other, or arm-in-arm, or hand-in-hand.


As for validating the page, look at http://www.lindsaylohanmusic.com/. It redirects to the Myspace page in question. A whois on that site shows that it is owned and maintained by Motown Records, Lohan's record label. Validates all the way through. [[User:Kww|Kww]] ([[User talk:Kww|talk]]) 02:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
===Asia===
In the [[Middle East]] and [[Central Asia]] male friendships, while less restricted than in Russia, tend also to be reserved and respectable in nature.
They tend to call friends by a shorter name or nick names.


== WikiProject Films [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Outreach/September 2008 Newsletter|September 2008 Newsletter]] ==
===Modern west===
The '''[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Outreach/September 2008 Newsletter|September 2008 issue]]''' of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Please also note that after the roll call for active members, we've cleared the specialized delivery lists. Feel free to sign-up in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films/Outreach#Delivery_options|relevant sections]] again!<br /><small>This has been an automated delivery by [[User:BrownBot|BrownBot]] ([[User talk:BrownBot|talk]]) 00:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)</small>
In the Western world, intimate physical contact has been sexualized in the public mind over the last one hundred years and is considered almost taboo in friendship, especially between two males. However, stylized hugging or kissing may be considered acceptable, depending on the context (see, for example, the kiss the tramp gives the kid in ''[[The Kid (1921 film)|The Kid]]''). In Spain and other Mediterranean countries men may embrace each other in public and kiss each other on the cheek. This is not limited solely to older generations but rather is present throughout all generations. In young children throughout the modern western world, friendship, usually of a homosocial nature, typically exhibits elements of a closeness and intimacy suppressed later in life in order to conform to societal standards. {{Unreferenced|date=August 2008}}


== Kirk Douglas ==
==Decline of close friendships==
{{Quotefarm|date=May 2008}}
{{globalize}}
The number and quality of friendships for the average American has been declining since at least 1985, according to a [[2006]] study.<ref>[http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-06-22-friendship_x.htm USATODAY.com - Study: 25% of Americans have no one to confide in<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> The study states that 25% of Americans have no close confidants, and that the average total number of confidants per person has dropped to 2.


As seen on the [[Kirk Douglas]] discussion page:
In recent times, some thinkers have postulated that modern friendships have lost the force and importance that they had in antiquity. [[C. S. Lewis]] for example, in his ''The Four Loves,'' writes:
Notability is difficult for me to discern. I have a feeling that it is like art. You know it when you know it. I added the notability phrase to publicly announce why I was adding it. I felt since it was the lead idea expressed in the new york times review of the piece, that was enough for me to consider it notable. One the source of the review. Two the fact it was written 25 years after release. Three I forget what three was for. I am not advocating for a return for the notability phrase. I am just satisfied, the entire edit was not deleted. I had this great picture and felt it needed to be discussed, and did not want to get into a is it notable or non notable debate. cheers I am still new in content creation. I am much more a nit picking tidbitter to existing article.
:"To the Ancients, Friendship seemed the happiest and most fully human of all loves; the crown of life and the school of virtue. The modern world, in comparison, ignores it. We admit of course that besides a wife and family a man needs a few 'friends'. But the very tone of the admission, and the sort of acquaintanceships which those who make it would describe as 'friendships', show clearly that what they are talking about has very little to do with that ''Philía'' which Aristotle classified among the virtues or that ''Amicitia'' on which [[Cicero]] wrote a book."


Likewise, [[Paul Halsall]] claims that:
:"The intense emotional and affective relationships described in the past as "non-sexual" cannot be said to exist today: modern heterosexual men can be buddies, but unless drunk they cannot touch each other, or regularly sleep together. They cannot affirm that an emotional affective relationship with another man is the centrally important relationship in their lives. It is not going too far, is it, to claim that friendship &ndash; if used to translate Greek philia or Latin amicitia &ndash; hardly exists among heterosexual men in modern Western society."


ps
[[Mark McLelland]], writing under his [[Buddhism|Buddhist]] name of Dharmachari Jñanavira [http://www.westernbuddhistreview.com/vol3/homosexuality.html (Article)], more directly points to [[homophobia]] being at the root of a modern decline in the western tradition of friendship:
<div> I could not easily tell what was wrong
:"Hence, in our cultural context where homosexual desire has for centuries been considered sinful, unnatural and a great evil, the experience of homoerotic desire can be very traumatic for some individuals and severely limit the potential for same-sex friendship. The Danish sociologist [[Henning Bech]], for instance, writes of the anxiety which often accompanies developing intimacy between male friends:
with the references. if you would share with me,
I will adjust my citation methods.</div>


--[[User:K3vin|K3vin]] ([[User talk:K3vin|talk]]) 05:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
:"'The more one has to assure oneself that one's relationship with another man is not homosexual, the more conscious one becomes that it might be, and the more necessary it becomes to protect oneself against it. The result is that friendship gradually becomes impossible.'"
:Thank you for responding. I agree with the notability issue, I just am so notabilanoid, it seems every article I work on has a notability template put on it. So I tend to stress things that may fit in the notability guidelines. In this case it was a stretch, in that the review went on to say how poor the production was :-) anyway, thanks again for your helpful guidance. --[[User:K3vin|K3vin]] ([[User talk:K3vin|talk]]) 12:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


== Our killer pet project ==
Their opinion that fear of being, or being seen as, homosexual has killed off western man's ability to form close friendships with other men is shared by Japanese psychologist [[Doi Takeo]], who claims that male friendships in American society are fraught with homosexual anxiety and thus homophobia is a limiting factor stopping men from establishing deep friendships with other men.


The Wuornos article is getting close to being a GA; however, I've reached the land of confusion with the [[Serial killer]] article. While I was trying to improve the Motives section, the sources kept mentioning that most serial killers exhibit numerous motives, which makes it difficult to give examples for each category. Would you mind looking at it? Perhaps we should just give basic descriptions of the four categories and leave it at that. On a different note, I was thinking about going through all the articles and performing citation cleanup/archiving. Are you cool with that? Thanks, --[[User:Momoricks|*momoricks*]] ([[User talk:Momoricks|talk]]) 04:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
The suggestion that friendship contains an ineluctable element of erotic desire is not new, but has been advanced by students of friendship ever since the time of the ancient Greeks, where it comes up in the writings of [[Plato]]. More recently, the [[Austria]]n philosopher [[Otto Weininger]] claimed that:
:Thanks for the input. I was able to find an example of a mission killer (the Unabomber) from the preview of ''Serial Murder'', but the other examples were of non-notable people or not included in the preview. I'll try to track down a hard copy. I'll also take a look at the list of related articles. --[[User:Momoricks|*momoricks*]] ([[User talk:Momoricks|talk]]) 09:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
:"There is no friendship between men that has not an element of sexuality in it, however little accentuated it may be in the nature of the friendship, and however painful the idea of the sexual element would be. But it is enough to remember that there can be no friendship unless there has been some attraction to draw the men together. Much of the affection, protection, and nepotism between men is due to the presence of unsuspected sexual compatibility." (''Sex and Character'', 1903)


== Manson tags ==
Recent western scholarship in [[gender theory]] and [[feminism]] concurs, as reflected in the writings of [[Eve Sedgwick]] in her ''The Epistemology of the Closet'', and [[Jonathan Dollimore]] in his ''Sexual Dissidence and Cultural Change: Augustine to Wilde, Freud to Foucault''.


Thanks for the message re the fact tags. On the article's discussion page, as you've probably noticed by now, I've presented my reaction to the points raised. We'll see what happens.[[User:JohnBonaccorsi|JohnBonaccorsi]] ([[User talk:JohnBonaccorsi|talk]]) 08:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
There is another theory for the decline of male friendship in Western societies. Modern Western men have grown up in smaller families. This means they had fewer siblings and, importantly, fewer brothers to play with younger or elder. After leaving the family nest for work, studies or other reasons, the sudden loss of brotherly friendships may be compensated by seeking more male friends. Men from smaller families will have less need to compensate, thus explaining the decline of male friendships later in life. This theory is particularly interesting because it does not require the obscure assumptions that all men must have homo-erotic desires to need male friends.
:Hmm. The Sock Who Debated Himself. — At the moment, my recommendations re the fact-tagged items are as follows:
::1 — The tags in paragraph two's first sentence (re "Helter Skelter") should come out. The sentence is a summary, introductory statement whose claims are presented and documented in detail elsewhere in the article; it doesn't need a footnote or footnotes of its own. (Not sure what the Wikipedia procedure is re documentation of this sort of introductory remark. Choosing a particular footnote in support of the summary statement would be difficult. Three or four footnotes would probably be necessary.)
::2 — The article's opening sentence should be changed to this:
:::Charles Milles Manson (born November 12, 1934) is an American criminal who led what became known as "the Manson Family," a quasi-commune that arose in California in the late 1960s.
::3 — The DeCarlo-based remarks about girls at Brunner's place should be changed to the following:
:::After moving in with her, according to a second-hand account, he overcame her resistance to his bringing other women in to live with them; and before long, they were sharing Brunner's residence with eighteen other women.
:Of course, Antivert might respond with information that would make me change or withdraw those recommendations. I suppose a waiting period for his or her response is in order, but you would know better than I.[[User:JohnBonaccorsi|JohnBonaccorsi]] ([[User talk:JohnBonaccorsi|talk]]) 20:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your lucid reply. Maybe you've seen that Antivert has suggested I make the changes mentioned in my talk-page comments. I'm going to enter the revised sentences I presented above.[[User:JohnBonaccorsi|JohnBonaccorsi]] ([[User talk:JohnBonaccorsi|talk]]) 03:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


== Robert Taylor & OR ==
==Developmental issues==
{{Unreferenced|date=October 2008}}
[[Image:Freundinnen.jpg|thumb|right|two friends]]
In the sequence of the emotional development of the individual, friendships come after parental bonding and before the [[pair bond]]ing engaged in at the approach of maturity. In the intervening period between the end of early childhood and the onset of full adulthood, friendships are often the most important relationships in the emotional life of the [[Adolescence|adolescent]], and are often more intense than relationships later in life{{Fact|date=October 2008}}. However making friends seems to trouble lots of people{{Fact|date=October 2008}}; having no friends can be emotionally damaging in some cases{{Fact|date=October 2008}}. Sometimes going years without a single friend can lead to suicide{{Fact|date=October 2008}}. A long time of friendship may also result in marriage, as they say{{Who|date=October 2008}}, too much friendship, is followed by a compromise.


I'm asking you [[How Will I Know|'cause you know about these things]]. Sorry, cheesy 80s song cliches aside, do you think it's time the uncited/OR section of the Robert Taylor article should be 86'ed already? It's been uncited for a loooong time (tagged since Feb '08 by me, but there for much longer) and I doubt the anonymous editor who added it in [[Sarcasm|good faith]] will return to cite it. [[User:Pinkadelica|Pinkadelica]] ([[User talk:Pinkadelica|talk]]) 03:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
A study by researchers from [[Purdue University]] found that post secondary education (e.g. university) friendships last longer than the friendships before it.{{Fact|date=December 2007}}
:Yep, I can do that. Let me go see Bob and I'll get started. [[User:Pinkadelica|Pinkadelica]] ([[User talk:Pinkadelica|talk]]) 05:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
::Just to be clear, do you want me to fix what's wrong (some of those will take awhile) or just tag 'em and strike 'em out? [[User:Pinkadelica|Pinkadelica]] ([[User talk:Pinkadelica|talk]]) 05:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Gotcha. I'm letting you know now that [[Béla Lugosi]] is a mess and should be dumped. It has loads of unsourced content, speculation, trivia, pop culture references, etc. You can take a look (I'm still going to finish up some sourcing and then I'll tag it) and then remove it. [[User:Pinkadelica|Pinkadelica]] ([[User talk:Pinkadelica|talk]]) 06:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


== Article review ==
==Types of friendship==
* [[Acquaintance]]
* [[Romantic friendship]]
* [[Soulmate]]
* [[Pen pal]]
* [[Internet friendship]]
* [[Comrade]]
* [[Casual relationship|Friends with benefits]]
* [[Boston marriage]]
* [[Blood brother]]hood
* [[Companionate love]]
* [[Intimate relationship]]
* [[Love]]
* [[Platonic love]]
* [[Romantic love]]
* [[Open relationship]]
* [[Roommate]]
* [[Spirituality|Spiritual]]
* [[Imaginary friend|Invisible]]


You can strike Julia Stiles off the list or make a note of it since I skipped to the "S" section. I did a checklink, removed the unclear wording, removed all the unsourced content, and sourced the bits that warranted inclusion. I now know way too much about Julia Stiles. [[User:Pinkadelica|Pinkadelica]] ([[User talk:Pinkadelica|talk]]) 03:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
==Non-personal friendships==
:I have no idea what that is! I'm guessing someone didn't know how to cite references and put them there and then someone came along and created citations and didn't bother taking them down. That's my guess anyway. They probably can be removed since they're already in the article as far as I can tell. I didn't do a through check as I was going into Julia Stiles overload. By the way, your last question...what the hell? Dumb it down for me....I'm high as a kite on Tylenol severe allergy meds and I'm slow on the uptake. Well, slower than usual. [[User:Pinkadelica|Pinkadelica]] ([[User talk:Pinkadelica|talk]]) 04:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Although the term initially described relations between individuals, it is at times used for political purposes to describe relations between states or peoples ("the Franco-German friendship", for example), indicating in this case an affinity or mutuality of purpose between the two nations.
::I knew that's what you were asking! Here I was chiding myself for thinking that. She's not that I know of. There was some stuff that she "reportedly" dated [[Joseph Gordon-Levitt|this dude]] and some other guy, but I didn't find any thing concrete. [[User:Pinkadelica|Pinkadelica]] ([[User talk:Pinkadelica|talk]]) 04:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
:::You can cross off [[Johnny Weissmuller]]. It still needs additional references (I'll add some later), but other than that, it's good to go. [[User:Pinkadelica|Pinkadelica]] ([[User talk:Pinkadelica|talk]]) 06:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
::::Wowza...that's quite a farm. Thanks for the input. '''<font color="DeepPink" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Pinkadelica|Pinkadelica]]</font> <sup><font color="Black" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User talk:Pinkadelica|Say it...]]</font></sup>''' 00:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


==Russell Crowe==
Regarding this aspect of [[international relations]], [[Henry Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston|Lord Palmerston]] said: "Therefore I say that it is a narrow policy to suppose that this country or that is to be marked out as the eternal ally or the perpetual enemy of England. We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow."<ref>Speech to the House of Commons, Hansard (1 March 1848)</ref> This is often paraphrased as: "Nations have no permanent friends and no permanent enemies. Only permanent interests."
Please see [[Talk:Russell Crowe]] regarding South Park episode discussion. Thanks. [[User:HagenUK|HagenUK]] ([[User talk:HagenUK|talk]]) 14:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


==Your note==
The word "friendship" can be used in political speeches as an [[wikt:emotive|emotive]] modifier. Friendship in international relationships often refers to the quality of historical, existing, or anticipated [[bilateral]] relationships.
Hello again Wildhartlivie. My apologies for the delay in getting back to you. To answer your first question I wound up working on the Dillinger page after veiwing the 1973 Warren Oates film on cable TV the other night. I know that it has its inaccuracies but I like it anyway. One of the reasons being the fact that Oates and Ben Johnson get the lead roles after years of marvelous supporting performances (they were even brothers once in ''[[The Wild Bunch]]''!) Next, thanks for the links to other ongoing projects. As a wikignome I am always looking for other areas to work on and I will be happy to help where I can if, and when, I get the time. Things are a little hectic off-wiki right now so it may be a bit before I can do much. Cheers and happy editing. [[User:MarnetteD|MarnetteD]] | [[User talk:MarnetteD|Talk]] 21:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


==Would like your advice==
==Interspecies friendship and animal friendship==
Wild, I need advice. May we discuss it here? Then, after a short discussion, I would like you to delete whatever we have determined. Thanks. [[User:Hag2|Hag2]] ([[User talk:Hag2|talk]]) 15:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Friendship as a type of [[interpersonal relationship]] is found also among [[animal]]s with high intelligence, such as the higher [[mammal]]s and some [[bird]]s. Cross-species friendships are common between humans and domestic animals. Less common but noteworthy are friendships between an animal and another animal of a different species, such as a dog and cat.
:Thanks. I think [[Inslaw]] is being rewritten by someone who professes to be Wm Hamilton, the owner of Inslaw Inc. (see the differences [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Inslaw&diff=244572631&oldid=244232343 1]); however a good number of his editorial changes seem awkward both in writing, and in known reported factual information. On the other hand, before I pass him off as a vandal, I would like another opinion, yours. You are far more experienced in this sort of thing than I. Give me until tonight to write up my concerns in a lengthy diabtribe with crosslinking to various exhibits. I'll try to workout the details this afternoon. I elected to use your talkpage for our conversation so that I did not tip the person off yet to my concerns if he happens to be watching my talkpage. If you want to begin deleting immediately after reading this, that is good by me too. Please look sometime this evening for my further remarks, and thanks. [[User:Hag2|Hag2]] ([[User talk:Hag2|talk]]) 17:26, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
:''See also:'' [[ethology]], [[altruism in animals]], [[sociobiology]]

== Colloquial terms ==
A number of colloquial terms have been used to describe friendship and the context in which a friendship is fostered. These are briefly described below.

A friend who supports others only when it is easy and convenient to do so is called a "fair-weather friend".
A friend who supports their own friends through emotional difficulties is a "true friend." This term also denotes a large degree of altruism, in that the true friend often sacrifices something of his or her own (usually their time and resources) in order to help the friend in need. True friends also are known to be very rare. A true friend may not be your best friend but someone who you know will be there for you.
Friends who are sexually intimate but don't consider themselves to be dating is said to be a "casual relationship". This is also referred to as being "friends with benefits".
A "best friend" is a friend to whom one feels closest. It is usually implied that the relationship is reciprocal, but such is not always the case, and best friend relationships can often be very complex.

==Friendship contrasted with comradeship==
Friendship can be mistaken for comradeship. [[Comrade]]ship is the feeling of affinity that draws people together in time of war or when people have a mutual enemy or even a common goal. Former ''New York Times'' war correspondent [[Chris Hedges]] wrote: "We feel in wartime comradeship. We confuse this with friendship, with love. There are those, who will insist that the comradeship of war is love &mdash; the exotic glow that makes us in war feel as one people, one entity, is real, but this is part of war's intoxication. As this feeling dissipated in the weeks after the attack, there was a kind of nostalgia for its warm glow and wartime always brings with it this comradeship, which is the opposite of friendship. Friends are predetermined; friendship takes place between men and women who possess an intellectual and emotional affinity for each other. But comradeship &ndash; that ecstatic bliss that comes with belonging to the crowd in wartime &ndash; is within our reach. We can all have comrades." [http://listproc.ucdavis.edu/archives/twf/log0305/0052.html] As a war ends, or a common enemy recedes, comrades return to being strangers, who lack friendship and have little in common.

==Bibliography==
*[[Aristotle]], ''[[Nicomachean Ethics]]''
*[[Cicero]], "On Friendship"
*David Hein, "Farrer on Friendship, Sainthood, and the Will of God" (in ''Captured by the Crucified: The Practical Theology of Austin Farrer'', edited by David Hein and Edward Hugh Henderson. New York and London: Continuum/T. & T. Clark, 2004. 119&ndash;48)
*John von Heyking and Richard Avramenko (eds.), ''Friendship and Politics: Essays in Political Thought''. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2008.

== See also ==
{{Wikiquote}}
{{Wiktionary}}
{{Commons|Category:Friends|Friends}}

* [[Acquaintance]]
* [[Social contact]]
* [[Imaginary friend]]
* [[Mentoring]]
* [[Love]]
* [[Platonic love]]
* [[Friendship network]]

== References ==
{{reflist}}

==External links==
* [http://crome.us/home.php Make new friends from all over the world for free!]
* [http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/inourtime/inourtime_20060302.shtml BBC Radio 4 series "In Our Time", on ''Friendship'', 2 March 2006]
* [http://www.srcd.org/journals/cdev/1-1/crosnoe.pdf The study of friendships in adolescent development.]
* [http://www.whispersfrometernity.org/whispers/friendship.html Friendship] by Paramhansa Yogananda
* [http://www.tpn.info Worldwide Friendship Network.]
* [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/friendship/ Friendship] at the [[Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy]]

[[Category:Friendship]]
[[Category:Virtues]]

[[ar:صداقة]]
[[gn:Joayhu]]
[[bg:Приятелство]]
[[ca:Amistat]]
[[cs:Přátelství]]
[[da:Venskab]]
[[de:Freundschaft]]
[[et:Sõprus]]
[[es:Amistad]]
[[eo:Amikeco]]
[[eu:Adiskidetasun]]
[[fa:دوستی]]
[[fr:Amitié]]
[[zh-classical:朋友]]
[[ko:우정]]
[[id:Persahabatan]]
[[it:Amicizia]]
[[he:רעות (ערך)]]
[[kk:Достық]]
[[lt:Draugystė]]
[[nl:Vriendschap]]
[[ja:友情]]
[[ka:მეგობრობა]]
[[no:Vennskap]]
[[pl:Przyjaźń (uczucie)]]
[[pt:Amizade]]
[[ru:Дружба]]
[[simple:Friend]]
[[sk:Priateľ]]
[[fi:Ystävyys]]
[[sv:Vänskap]]
[[ta:நட்பு]]
[[te:మిత్రుడు]]
[[vi:Tình bạn]]
[[tg:Дӯст]]
[[uk:Дружба]]
[[yi:פריינטשאפט]]
[[zh:友情]]

Revision as of 17:26, 12 October 2008

Welcome!


Referencing

{{refstart}} or link to WP:REFB.

Re: I'm sorry!

No problem at all. I happened to look at the page history and saw that you'd been working on it, but figured you had finished because it was about 15 minutes since your last edit. When I got a edit conflict note I realized you were still working on it and skaddadled off to the Serial killer article. Ugh, trying to find sources for all that uncited info is a real pain in the arse. The beautiful bibliography is useless without page numbers! How goes your editing? --*momoricks* (talk) 09:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Your edits to the Wuornos article look good. I'm going to expand the Victims section and find sources about her legal adoption by Arlene Pralle so I can add that back in. As I'm sure you saw on the talk page, the original info was uncited and ridiculously inflammatory/POV. *sigh* Oh, and I read the note on the Zodiac page...ack. Have fun with Andrei! ;) --*momoricks* (talk) 10:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for expanding the murders section. The article is starting to look really good. Have a great weekend! --*momoricks* (talk) 00:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Note

Yes. However, some comments aside, I'm rather hopeful that he can be logically argued to be a more productive than disruptive influence. From the link you gave to this (which I like to hope is a genuine thought); from outright removal of (possibly) spuriously-sourced comments, to asking for sources. That's progress... I hope. :o)

Basically, I think there's hope, even though the memory you evoke was not a pleasant one (and, frankly, somewhat bemusing at the time). If you are aware of the pre-history to that, though, or even if you read between the lines of the BLP-points raised, it becomes clear that "A.K.A.S" did have initial cause for serious complaint against Wikipedia. Not against us, nor against many of the people that ire is being (mis)directed at, but certainly cause for very serious complaint. I absolutely disagree with many of the methods by which he seems to be addressing those complaints, and certainly feel that more constructive contributions would go a long way to helping heal the harm, rather than simply fighting fire with fire. I tried to point that out here, and hope that some of those thoughts reached home.

Ultimately, attempting to "unmask," ban, block or otherwise hinder him at the moment is, clearly, going to bring about precisely the situation you mention all over again. If possible, I would like to avoid that. If on this occasion we can all calmly and rationally have a meeting of the minds (and, again, I hope this is possible), then I think there will be a massive positive reached from a pretty nasty negative. I prefer to hope that careful handling, rational discussion, a lot of crossed fingers and some understanding will be a help; while I would pretty much guarantee that any submission/referal/complaint of puppetry (or similar) will swiftly degenerate back into an identical situation, and we'll all be worse off.

I would advise caution. I would prefer everyone to 'let it go' (a little, at least) for the time being, and just think positive thoughts..! I don't want this to escalate further, and I don't think it has to, so...

If this makes any sense (or even if it doesn't!), please comment further. :o) And thanks for mentioning it. ntnon (talk) 15:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Appreciated, and as I say: 'fingers crossed'. The threats and stalking are totally beyond the pale, I agree. But there's some mitigation (some) to be had from the deeper history of the issues. Conflict of Interest is also an issue, but not one that's particularly high on my agenda - unless it's overly self-serving, un-'notable' or misinformation. And frankly, I can think of few people better to start certain articles than those involved... so long as they maintain a proper degree of attachment and non-bias.
I broadly agree with your old school approach, but there are two obvious flaws: second chances (although the multiple number of second chances some people seem to get with simple things like 'good faith' - there's somebody heading through the Archie Comics articles at the moment randomly erasing details without a thought, comment or edit summary, who seems to just be allowed to continue! That is more of a problem; at least here we have engagement... not always entirely civil, and sometimes downright nasty, but still. There's a dialog.) or the chance to turn over a new leaf, and trying to do what's best, or right. In this, fairly sensitive, case, it would not do anyone much good to go for a puppet-branding and banning, and would likely do ill. That is, I realise, not a million miles from tacit scare tactics, but it's also hand-in-hand with kid gloves and red tape, both of which have some history to them..!
Luck will be helpful. Politeness will be a must, and I may change my hopes shortly, but in the meantime... optimism isn't an inherently bad thing, is it..?! :o) ntnon (talk) 20:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Manson articles

Thanks for the alert re the sock puppet.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 02:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Clinton/Palin

Yep, that would've actually been insulting! Pinkadelica (talk) 05:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Myspace

People really aren't pulling your leg. Validated Myspace sites can be used as being statements from the people that own them. It's subject to the normal problems of primary sourcing: you can't take primary sources as being truth, you can only take them as truly reflecting the statements of the source (i.e., if Lindsay Lohan claimed she was the Queen of Senegal on her Myspace, an article could say "Lohan says she is the Queen of Senegal", not "Lohan is the Queen of Senegal").

As for validating the page, look at http://www.lindsaylohanmusic.com/. It redirects to the Myspace page in question. A whois on that site shows that it is owned and maintained by Motown Records, Lohan's record label. Validates all the way through. Kww (talk) 02:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films September 2008 Newsletter

The September 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Please also note that after the roll call for active members, we've cleared the specialized delivery lists. Feel free to sign-up in the relevant sections again!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Kirk Douglas

As seen on the Kirk Douglas discussion page: Notability is difficult for me to discern. I have a feeling that it is like art. You know it when you know it. I added the notability phrase to publicly announce why I was adding it. I felt since it was the lead idea expressed in the new york times review of the piece, that was enough for me to consider it notable. One the source of the review. Two the fact it was written 25 years after release. Three I forget what three was for. I am not advocating for a return for the notability phrase. I am just satisfied, the entire edit was not deleted. I had this great picture and felt it needed to be discussed, and did not want to get into a is it notable or non notable debate. cheers I am still new in content creation. I am much more a nit picking tidbitter to existing article. 


ps
I could not easily tell what was wrong

with the references. if you would share with me,

I will adjust my citation methods.

--K3vin (talk) 05:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. I agree with the notability issue, I just am so notabilanoid, it seems every article I work on has a notability template put on it. So I tend to stress things that may fit in the notability guidelines. In this case it was a stretch, in that the review went on to say how poor the production was :-) anyway, thanks again for your helpful guidance. --K3vin (talk) 12:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Our killer pet project

The Wuornos article is getting close to being a GA; however, I've reached the land of confusion with the Serial killer article. While I was trying to improve the Motives section, the sources kept mentioning that most serial killers exhibit numerous motives, which makes it difficult to give examples for each category. Would you mind looking at it? Perhaps we should just give basic descriptions of the four categories and leave it at that. On a different note, I was thinking about going through all the articles and performing citation cleanup/archiving. Are you cool with that? Thanks, --*momoricks* (talk) 04:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I was able to find an example of a mission killer (the Unabomber) from the preview of Serial Murder, but the other examples were of non-notable people or not included in the preview. I'll try to track down a hard copy. I'll also take a look at the list of related articles. --*momoricks* (talk) 09:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Manson tags

Thanks for the message re the fact tags. On the article's discussion page, as you've probably noticed by now, I've presented my reaction to the points raised. We'll see what happens.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 08:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. The Sock Who Debated Himself. — At the moment, my recommendations re the fact-tagged items are as follows:
1 — The tags in paragraph two's first sentence (re "Helter Skelter") should come out. The sentence is a summary, introductory statement whose claims are presented and documented in detail elsewhere in the article; it doesn't need a footnote or footnotes of its own. (Not sure what the Wikipedia procedure is re documentation of this sort of introductory remark. Choosing a particular footnote in support of the summary statement would be difficult. Three or four footnotes would probably be necessary.)
2 — The article's opening sentence should be changed to this:
Charles Milles Manson (born November 12, 1934) is an American criminal who led what became known as "the Manson Family," a quasi-commune that arose in California in the late 1960s.
3 — The DeCarlo-based remarks about girls at Brunner's place should be changed to the following:
After moving in with her, according to a second-hand account, he overcame her resistance to his bringing other women in to live with them; and before long, they were sharing Brunner's residence with eighteen other women.
Of course, Antivert might respond with information that would make me change or withdraw those recommendations. I suppose a waiting period for his or her response is in order, but you would know better than I.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 20:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your lucid reply. Maybe you've seen that Antivert has suggested I make the changes mentioned in my talk-page comments. I'm going to enter the revised sentences I presented above.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 03:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Robert Taylor & OR

I'm asking you 'cause you know about these things. Sorry, cheesy 80s song cliches aside, do you think it's time the uncited/OR section of the Robert Taylor article should be 86'ed already? It's been uncited for a loooong time (tagged since Feb '08 by me, but there for much longer) and I doubt the anonymous editor who added it in good faith will return to cite it. Pinkadelica (talk) 03:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I can do that. Let me go see Bob and I'll get started. Pinkadelica (talk) 05:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Just to be clear, do you want me to fix what's wrong (some of those will take awhile) or just tag 'em and strike 'em out? Pinkadelica (talk) 05:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Gotcha. I'm letting you know now that Béla Lugosi is a mess and should be dumped. It has loads of unsourced content, speculation, trivia, pop culture references, etc. You can take a look (I'm still going to finish up some sourcing and then I'll tag it) and then remove it. Pinkadelica (talk) 06:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Article review

You can strike Julia Stiles off the list or make a note of it since I skipped to the "S" section. I did a checklink, removed the unclear wording, removed all the unsourced content, and sourced the bits that warranted inclusion. I now know way too much about Julia Stiles. Pinkadelica (talk) 03:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what that is! I'm guessing someone didn't know how to cite references and put them there and then someone came along and created citations and didn't bother taking them down. That's my guess anyway. They probably can be removed since they're already in the article as far as I can tell. I didn't do a through check as I was going into Julia Stiles overload. By the way, your last question...what the hell? Dumb it down for me....I'm high as a kite on Tylenol severe allergy meds and I'm slow on the uptake. Well, slower than usual. Pinkadelica (talk) 04:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I knew that's what you were asking! Here I was chiding myself for thinking that. She's not that I know of. There was some stuff that she "reportedly" dated this dude and some other guy, but I didn't find any thing concrete. Pinkadelica (talk) 04:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
You can cross off Johnny Weissmuller. It still needs additional references (I'll add some later), but other than that, it's good to go. Pinkadelica (talk) 06:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Wowza...that's quite a farm. Thanks for the input. Pinkadelica Say it... 00:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Russell Crowe

Please see Talk:Russell Crowe regarding South Park episode discussion. Thanks. HagenUK (talk) 14:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Your note

Hello again Wildhartlivie. My apologies for the delay in getting back to you. To answer your first question I wound up working on the Dillinger page after veiwing the 1973 Warren Oates film on cable TV the other night. I know that it has its inaccuracies but I like it anyway. One of the reasons being the fact that Oates and Ben Johnson get the lead roles after years of marvelous supporting performances (they were even brothers once in The Wild Bunch!) Next, thanks for the links to other ongoing projects. As a wikignome I am always looking for other areas to work on and I will be happy to help where I can if, and when, I get the time. Things are a little hectic off-wiki right now so it may be a bit before I can do much. Cheers and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 21:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Would like your advice

Wild, I need advice. May we discuss it here? Then, after a short discussion, I would like you to delete whatever we have determined. Thanks. Hag2 (talk) 15:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I think Inslaw is being rewritten by someone who professes to be Wm Hamilton, the owner of Inslaw Inc. (see the differences 1); however a good number of his editorial changes seem awkward both in writing, and in known reported factual information. On the other hand, before I pass him off as a vandal, I would like another opinion, yours. You are far more experienced in this sort of thing than I. Give me until tonight to write up my concerns in a lengthy diabtribe with crosslinking to various exhibits. I'll try to workout the details this afternoon. I elected to use your talkpage for our conversation so that I did not tip the person off yet to my concerns if he happens to be watching my talkpage. If you want to begin deleting immediately after reading this, that is good by me too. Please look sometime this evening for my further remarks, and thanks. Hag2 (talk) 17:26, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Friendship&oldid=244807130"