Talk:Love and Talk:FIA World Motor Sport Council: Difference between pages

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Difference between pages)
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
SineBot (talk | contribs)
Bots
2,546,196 edits
m Signing comment by 67.189.61.7 - ""
 
No edit summary
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{WPF1|class=stub|importance=high}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProject Motorsport}}
{{philosophy|ethics=yes|class=B|importance=high|nested=yes}}
{{WikiProject Psychology|class=B|importance=high|nested=yes}}
{{WikiProject Sociology|class=B|importance=High|nested=yes}}
}}
{{WP1.0|v0.5=pass|core=yes|class=B|category=Everydaylife}}
{{to do}}
----
me+4
== '''''==POV==''''' ==
I LOVE YOU MARK TOCCO


==FISA==
==Philosophy of Love==
Shouldn't [[Fédération Internationale du Sport Automobile]] be mentioned?
As far as I can tell, there is no proper definition of love presented here (in a philosophical (theoretical) sense). I will allow for the following, poorly written theory devotion that I wrote in undergraduate school to aid (probably will not be helpful) and based on Aristotle's theory of ethics, which I do not agree with (I was very young when I wrote this), but I don't think all is lost. (I apologize: I am a law student now, and I feed my use of "negligence" may create false impressions)

In this essay, an examination of Aristotle’s definition of virtue is given. Then, devotion is considered as a virtue. Devotion is found to be concerned primarily with belief. Belief has rational and irrational elements. Reason guides the irrational element of belief to a mean which seeks the greatest good. Objections to devotion as a virtue are considered and refuted.

A virtue is a stable, self-reinforcing, active condition which seeks the mean between some deficiency and excess of the movements of the irrational parts of the soul through right reason. This right reason leads to a choice of the right where right is the greatest good, happiness. One who does not possess virtue aims for a good, but only an apparent good. The virtuous individual also aims for a good, but his good is the greatest good. Virtue is born of habit, so the more experienced one is at acting virtuously (bullshit adverb), the more likely he is to act virtuously and the better he is at doing so (28). Virtue, when developed, guides the irrational part of the soul to the aforementioned mean. The mean is sought out through right reason and is, according to Aristotle, the opposite of the excess as well as the deficiency. The excess and deficiency, however, lie on a continuum together and are each others’ opposites (the geometry of this is a little hard to imagine). This mean actively seeks the greatest good. So, because a virtue seeks the mean, and the mean seeks the good, virtue seeks the good (30).

Devotion is concerned with belief in a cause. Belief in a cause is a product of the elements, faith and reason. Define cause as anything warranting any amount of devotion,
meaning not only abstract ideas or goals, but individuals and institutions as well. The amount of devotion given to a cause is positively related to how much belief one has in a cause. Belief in a cause ought to be proportionate to the amount of devotion that the cause warrants. When one has excessive belief in a cause, he is said to be attached to it. When he has a deficiency in belief to a cause, he is said to be neglecting it.

Belief is an element of the irrational part of the soul inasmuch as it is governed by faith. Faith, at least regarding its elements with which this reasoning is concerned, is an element of the irrational part of the soul. There are two possible ways in which one comes to believe any statement to be true or false. If one comes to such a conclusion hypothetically, through examination of all concerned elements, then he has come to the conclusion rationally; hence, reasoning is the basis for his belief in the truth value of the statement. This belief is thus a product of the rational part of the soul. The other way one may come to believe a statement to be true is through faith. Any belief on faith is not deduced hypothetically, so it is not come to through reason. Any part of a belief that is accepted under some lack of knowledge of the elements in question is accepted under faith. Because faith is apart from reason, and is clearly not an element of the appetitive part of the soul, it must be an element of the irrational part of the soul. Faith is a product of the irrational soul inasmuch as intuition and is the means for belief in any axiomatic principle, because such belief can not be deduced rationally. An axiomatic principle should be thought of as any principle that cannot be proved through reason, either because it is truly a first principle which exists beyond provability, or that, because of a lack of knowledge, it cannot be proved to be true or false.*

Devotion seeks the mean between the vices of negligence and attachment. Negligence should be defined as the vice of under devotion to a cause. Attachment should be defined as the
vice of over devotion to a cause. Because a virtue seeks the greatest good, or happiness, it seeks to allocate the appropriate amount of belief to a cause, and because the appropriate amount of belief is proportionate to how much devotion the cause warrants, and devotion is directly related to belief in a cause, then having the appropriate amount belief should seek the greatest good.

If devotion is a virtue, then it actively seeks the greatest good through choice of right reason. In this case, reason serves to increase the likelihood that an appropriate amount of belief is allocated to a cause. This can occur in two ways and in combination. When one has knowledge about elements with which the cause is concerned, one can correct his belief in the cause because he uses reason to make hypothetical determinations about the elements of which he has knowledge. This way decreases the amount of faith needed to have an equal belief value by replacing it with reason. The second way would use reason to guide faith. One might use reason to justify faith (just as Mill and Kant attempt to justify their improvable first principles) where, although principles that must be taken on faith cannot be proved with knowledge at hand, determinations might be made more accurate by using reason as a guide. This improvement in accurate allocation of belief seeks the greatest good by preventing excess and deficiency in belief in a cause. If an attachment or negligence exists, the greatest good is not attained because it is not “living well and doing good” to have excess belief in a lost cause, or give up on a cause that warrants belief.
An objection to this model of devotion might be that faith alone, in the long run, might seek the greatest good without the need for reason if belief based on faith were randomly distributed over all causes concerning devotion. If this were the case, no virtue would exists in the long run, or either the virtue would be an innate part of the irrational part of the soul, meaning it would be an innate inclination.
Assuming a random distribution of belief based on faith, completely aside from reason, faith would seek the mean in the long run alone. This can only occur if either there is no predisposition of the irrational soul or if the predisposition is centered on the mean, the latter meaning that the virtue has already been perfectly implemented. Either of these could be said for any of Aristotle’s virtues, but, as with the virtues Aristotle mentioned, the predisposition likely does exists. Devotion seems closer to attachment, which means that people likely have a predisposition to negligence. So in the case of devotion, faith alone will likely cause negligence. In some cases, however, the opposite will occur. The predisposition is completely dependent on the circumstance because of how generally cause is defined.
Another objection might be that the second way reason guides the rational soul, where reason aids in the justification of first principles without proof, but allowing a better allocation of faith to them, would be too complex or inaccurate to truly guide the irrational part of the soul to the mean.
If justification through reason of first principles is too complex or not accurate enough to truly guide belief to the mean, then the greatest good might not be reached by this method alone. In these cases, reliance reason based on knowledge should be primary. However, with adequate reasoning, such a circumstance should never exists where justification of axiomatic principles could not be relatively effective.
Devotion is concerned with belief. Because belief is determined by an irrational element, so is devotion. This justifies that devotion guides a part of the irrational soul. The virtue of devotion, through reason, actively seeks out the mean between the excess of attachment, and the deficiency of negligence. This mean seeks the greatest good. Because of the likelihood of a predisposition of faith which is different from the mean, a virtue is necessary to guide the irrational part of the soul. Also, although axiomatic principles are not provable, they can be made plausible, so the guiding of faith by reason can only lead towards the greatest good. Devotion is also clearly active because of the pains and pleasures the soul experiences from having excesses and deficiencies to causes. These qualifications justify devotion as a virtue according to the guidelines in Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics.


CLAIRE HOPKINS LOVES JAKE PAYNE SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO MUCH MORE :)

== Biology of love ==
The first and greatest commandment is this: "And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength. And the second commandment, like it is this: You shall love your neighbor as your self. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/67.160.76.137|67.160.76.137]] ([[User talk:67.160.76.137|talk]]) 00:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

Loving someone is stepping out of your own box, and into theirs.<br>

Love from the center of who you are, don't fake it. Make friends with nobodies; don't be the great somebody.<br> <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/67.160.76.137|67.160.76.137]] ([[User talk:67.160.76.137|talk]]) 00:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

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

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

If love is such a contraversial issue, how in the world can there be a "...leading expert in the topic of love..." ??? I think that should be changed to something like, "an anylist specializing in love" or something wierd like that[[User:68.98.201.19|68.98.201.19]] 04:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)Aaron.

I believe love is magical and when you find that person who can fill that whole in you then you know that he/she is the one! <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Rilez-Risso|Rilez-Risso]] ([[User talk:Rilez-Risso|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Rilez-Risso|contribs]]) 08:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

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

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

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

== Lovelessness? ==

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

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

^^^That's way too subjective to take into account. And it's just not true - There are obviously ''some'' people out there who may be very pious and god-loving, who still feel lonely due to a lack of physical companionship. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/99.235.121.189|99.235.121.189]] ([[User talk:99.235.121.189|talk]]) 04:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
i love sandeep very much tonei <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/210.56.121.187|210.56.121.187]] ([[User talk:210.56.121.187|talk]]) 09:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

==First Line==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Surrendered Wives ==

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

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

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

== "Love" is overworked and needs help ==

“Love” Is Overworked And Needs Help

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

=="trimming" see also==

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

==Opening Para (contd.)==
I saw no response on [[Talk:Love#Opening_Paragraph|this question]] about removing the words "or karma". I assuming no one has any objection taking it out. I will give a day or two and then take it out. [[User:Duty2love|Duty2love]] 00:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

==Talkheader==
Please do not remove the <nowiki> {{talkheader}} </nowiki> template from the top of the page. This article talk page has the potential to, and [[Talk:Love#"Love" is overworked and needs help|has in]] [[Talk:Love#love principles|the past]], veered off-topic, or into non-contributing rants about how people feel about love. I accept that people will have strong feelings about this topic, however, this is not the place to talk about them. '''This is a talk page for discussing improvements to the article, not general talk about the article's subject.''' This talkheader template is the first step to improving this high-importance article.----JamesSugrono<sup>[[User:Jamessugrono|U]]|[[Special:Contributions/Jamessugrono|C]]</sup> 07:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

=="Lovebot"==

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

:But doing that is so cute <small>(if it is meant as a declaration of love, I mean).</small> [[User:A.Z.|a.z.]] 04:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

== Semi-Protection ==

I'd recently requested protection - apparently, it had been un-protected on the 2nd, by [[User:Royalguard11|Royalguard11]] (apparently, this protection needs to stay), so it was really re-protection. This was granted, as on the [[WP:RPP#Love_.28edit.7Ctalk.7Chistory.7Clinks.7Cwatch.7Clogs.29|request]] for protection, because in the few days following, over 50 vandalism-related edits were made, which really is unacceptable. I would very much like it, therefore, that any discussion related to unprotection be started here first. This is not for my personal satisfaction, but rather to centralise any discussion. In addition, it would be best for people actually editing the article to reach a consensus on any unprotection action that would be taken. I probably wouldn't support unprotection, just from the heavy vandalism that occurred in the brief unprotected period of time. But if circumstances change, we can discuss unprotection. It's completely fine if you don't wish to discuss it here first, you can go straight to the [[WP:RPP|requests]] for page protection if you want to. Thank you in advance.[[User:Jamessugrono|James]] [[User talk:Jamessugrono|Sugrono]]<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Jamessugrono|Contributions]]</sub> 11:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

societyoflove

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

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

==excision of Religious Love section near the top==
I excised this:
<blockquote>
Whether religious love can be expressed in similar terms to [[interpersonal love]] is a matter for philosophical debate. Religious 'love' may be considered a euphemistic term, more closely describing feelings of [[deference]] or [[acquiescence]]. Most religions use the term love to express the [[devotion]] the follower has to their deity, who may be a living [[guru]] or religious teacher. This love can be expressed by [[prayer]], service, good deeds, and personal [[sacrifice]]. Reciprocally, the followers may believe that the deity loves the followers and all of creation. Some traditions encourage the development of passionate love in the believer for the deity.</blockquote>
The reason is because I thought it liable to give the wrong impression to the student.

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

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

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

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

== More info? ==

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


== Needs a better image ==

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

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

== Introduction ==

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

Which philosophers? What authority are they on life? And finally who says that love is the only happiness in life? <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/195.215.114.140|195.215.114.140]] ([[User talk:195.215.114.140|talk]]) 18:01, 25 December 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Diagnostics of Karma ==

I removed this sentence that expresses a minority POV from the lede, intending to reinsert it somewhere else in the article:
*<nowiki>Some parapsychologists have claimed that love is the true basis of all existence, originating time, space and matter.<ref>[[Diagnostics of Karma]]</ref></nowiki>
However, I couldn't find anywhere appropriate to put it, so I'm leaving it here for now. &nbsp;—[[User:Smalljim|S<small>MALL</small>]][[User talk:Smalljim#top|<small>JIM</small>]]&nbsp; 16:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

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

There is a righthand sidebar labeled "EMOTIONS"
Under the "BASIC" category is "DISGUST", but lacking the opposite emotion.
I suggest using "DESIRE" as basic term.
Then under the "OTHER" category, perhaps "LUST"?
[[Special:Contributions/60.234.240.242|60.234.240.242]] ([[User talk:60.234.240.242|talk]]) 20:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
== I Removed the God and Patriotism ==

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

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

Also, the opening sentence read:

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

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

WHy TAKE MY STUFF OFF GOD! <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Jackoneal|Jackoneal]] ([[User talk:Jackoneal|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Jackoneal|contribs]]) 18:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== There is NO "scientific love" ==

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

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

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

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

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

~~agustinaldo~~ <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Agustinaldo|Agustinaldo]] ([[User talk:Agustinaldo|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Agustinaldo|contribs]]) 12:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

Um.

ok? [[Special:Contributions/72.236.173.22|72.236.173.22]] ([[User talk:72.236.173.22|talk]]) 13:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

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


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

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

== Buddhist view ==

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

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

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

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


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

Excerpts from the text:
:'''compassion''' - The sincere wish that others be separated from their mental and physical suffering and the feeling that their freedom from suffering is more important than one's own.
and
:'''love''' - The sincere wish that others be happy and the feeling that their happiness is more important than one's own; the opposite in nature from attachment. [[User:Pestopasta|Pestopasta]] ([[User talk:Pestopasta|talk]]) 20:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

What about [[metta]]?
:Austerlitz -- [[Special:Contributions/88.75.78.104|88.75.78.104]] ([[User talk:88.75.78.104|talk]]) 11:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

== The Kiss ==

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

good this is isabella gg <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/86.137.205.238|86.137.205.238]] ([[User talk:86.137.205.238|talk]]) 11:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


Yup, the picture is real bad for this article, also is kinda hard to see <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/200.86.45.72|200.86.45.72]] ([[User talk:200.86.45.72|talk]]) 17:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

amanda utopa\ia <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/71.37.31.57|71.37.31.57]] ([[User talk:71.37.31.57|talk]]) 01:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


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

== Quote ==
Love is our true essence. Love has no limitations of caste, religion, race or nationality. We are all [[beads]] strung together on the same thread of love.
[[Amritanandamayi]]
Where to add?
:Austerlitz -- [[Special:Contributions/88.75.95.140|88.75.95.140]] ([[User talk:88.75.95.140|talk]]) 08:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

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

::I think you'd want to add that to [http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Special:Search/Love Wikiquotes] - it's not that it isn't notable, really, it's that we don't load up articles with quotes when there's a better place for them which is linked on the page. <strong>[[User:Tvoz|Tvoz]]</strong>/<small>[[User talk:Tvoz|talk]]</small> 19:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

== Sex & love go together ==

The main aspect of love should be mutual trust.

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

"Respect" is family, friendship & communication orientated.

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

[[User:phalanxpursos|Phalanx Pursos]] 01:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's any documentation that supports that love is strictly monogamous affection, furthermore I think this isn't even an universally accepted thought... Please excuse my English... [[User:CRJoe|CRJoe]] <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|comment]] was added at 08:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)</small><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


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

== Unconditional love towards everyone is an overwhelming exception ==

''Unconditional friendship is based on forgiveness''.

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

Unconditional love towards everyone is an overwhelming exception.

[[User:phalanxpursos|Phalanx Pursos]] 01:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The last statement: "Unconditional love towards everyone is an overwhelming exception" - exception to '''what'''? --[[User:Timsabin|Tim Sabin]] ([[User talk:Timsabin|talk]]) 16:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

== No Greater Love ==

It should be noted in the article that Jesus said in John 15:13 of the Holy Bible, "Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends." <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/68.255.74.126|68.255.74.126]] ([[User talk:68.255.74.126|talk]]) 15:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

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

== Delete section 4 ==

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

== Interpretations of Love ==

When you love someone it means you never want to lose that person or thing. For example, when someone loves another person very much they usually get married and if they don't then they love each other so much that they want to get married. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/71.238.96.225|71.238.96.225]] ([[User talk:71.238.96.225|talk]]) 15:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

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

== Love and [[Spirituality]] ==
*[http://www.experiencefestival.com/love_and_spirituality A Wisdom Archive on Love and spirituality]
Is somebody willing to add this to weblinks please?
:Austerlitz -- [[Special:Contributions/88.75.82.3|88.75.82.3]] ([[User talk:88.75.82.3|talk]]) 12:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

no 1 has ever correctly defined love 1 man's defination ca only support his own case tat is because psycologically we all r different to oneanother and love is completely dependent one one's psycology <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/202.79.62.16|202.79.62.16]] ([[User talk:202.79.62.16|talk]]) 06:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Love as an attitude ==
[[Ivan G. Burnell]]: Die Kraft des positiven Handelns
[http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/2117NXM5ZHL._SL500_AA140_.jpg]
:Austerlitz -- [[Special:Contributions/88.72.8.87|88.72.8.87]] ([[User talk:88.72.8.87|talk]]) 09:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

engl.: The Power of Positive Doing: 12 Strategies for Taking Control of Your Life
:Austerlitz -- [[Special:Contributions/88.72.8.87|88.72.8.87]] ([[User talk:88.72.8.87|talk]]) 10:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

== Suggestion ==

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

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

{{not done}} We need some [[WP:V|verifiable sources]] <span style="border:1px solid white;background-color: yellow; color: blue">[[User:Legoktm|Lego]][[Special:Contributions/Legoktm|K<sup>ontribs</sup>]][[user talk:Legoktm|T<sup>alk</sup>]][[Special:Random|M]]</span> 04:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

== Dont be stupid. ==

You can't "define" love. Mankind does not yet realize the true meaning of love. It may never find the true meaning of love. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:BrianlovesMelissa|BrianlovesMelissa]] ([[User talk:BrianlovesMelissa|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/BrianlovesMelissa|contribs]]) 03:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

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

== Definition ==

Love- To accept or be accepted regardless the circumstances. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/76.112.100.166|76.112.100.166]] ([[User talk:76.112.100.166|talk]]) 19:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)<!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

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




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

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

Love is eternal... <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Koolia99|Koolia99]] ([[User talk:Koolia99|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Koolia99|contribs]]) 00:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

i think this is a kewl subject....yea my sis thinks tat is stupid....my lil brother thinks its cute.....wat a freak...anyways..yea i think it kewl... <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/216.31.44.13|216.31.44.13]] ([[User talk:216.31.44.13|talk]]) 03:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== HK-47's definition? ==

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


== Hi ==

This...ain't some kind of game. Don't even dare ask until we achieve the transhuman singularity. DON'T YOU FREAKING DARE. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/67.189.61.7|67.189.61.7]] ([[User talk:67.189.61.7|talk]]) 06:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

Revision as of 07:19, 11 October 2008

WikiProject iconFormula One Stub‑class High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is part of WikiProject Formula One, an attempt to improve and standardize articles related to Formula One, including drivers, teams and constructors, events and history. Feel free to join the project and help with any of the tasks or consult the project page for further information.
StubThis article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconMotorsport Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Motorsport, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Motorsport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MotorsportWikipedia:WikiProject MotorsportTemplate:WikiProject Motorsportmotorsport articles
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

FISA

Shouldn't Fédération Internationale du Sport Automobile be mentioned?

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Love&oldid=244528079"