This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
START OF PROPOSED NEW SECTION - PROPOSED TEXT
Universal themes This section lists the universal themes from relationship books, all of the themes in this list appear in all of the books. These universal themes are: Love, kindness, bonding, intimacy, communication, attachment, cheerfulness, reflectiveness and parenting.
END OF PROPOSED NEW SECTION
Using a syntopical reading approach to those secondary sources a list of the themes has been distilled with links to further references, from the most notable relationship books.
VisitingPhilosopher ( talk) 23:28, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
As a new editor on Wikipedia, I have tried to show below how this new section (text above) adheres to the Wikipedia policies which I have read. Please let me know if there are any relevant policies which I have missed. Please let me know if more detail is required in any of the policy adherence notes for this new section I am proposing to add. See the table and following sections.
Policies adhered to: WP:HOWTO WP:VER WP:NPOV WP:N WP:NEO WP:SYN WP:ADVERT WP:ESSAY WP:OPINION WP:ORIG
Policy | Checked By | Policy quote | Evidence |
---|---|---|---|
Shortcode | Sign Your Name Below | . | . |
WP:VER | . | Verifiable sources | see here |
WP:N | . | Notable | . |
WP:NPOV | . | Neutral | . |
WP:ORIG | . | No original research | see here |
WP:ESSAY | . | No essays, no original thought or opinions. | . |
WP:ADVERT | . | No adverts, no external links whatsoever, no living people quoted. | . |
WP:SYN | . | No synthesis of ideas. | . |
WP:HOWTO | . | No guide-like sentences | see here |
WP:OPINION | . | No personal opinions | . |
WP:LISTPURP | . | Acts as navigation within wikipedia and the list appears in secondary sources | . |
. | . | . | . |
Policy adherence notes: relationship books, all of the themes in this list appear in all of the books.
Policy adherence notes: Kindness: In surveys, when people are asked what they most desire from their intimate relationship, kindness appears as a highly prized trait sought for in a partner.
Policy adherence notes: Reflectiveness: Several terms exist for this thinking skill -
Policy adherence notes: This section does not contain howto advice. For "how-to" guides on this subject, see [ Wikihow:Maintaining-Relationships].
Policy adherence notes: No original research. References provided.
Any feedback? let me know, thanks. VisitingPhilosopher ( talk) 23:00, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
I find it a bit unbelievable that the discussion of the history of affective relationships skips from Aristotle to the 19th c....that's a study worth summarizing for someone, somewhere. Not me, not now, although the work I'm doing on medieval dance iconography w/re/to handholding positions in group dances led me to do some work on it, but is there really no discussion possible between the two bookends as they appear here? 108.20.41.15 ( talk) 07:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
The section on Different Terms and Types of Intimate Relationships needs a LOT of work. Bobgilmore43 ( talk) 10:08, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
The whole explanation of the meaning of an "intimate relationship" is lacking and meaningless as presented. To present in some detail the work with children and youth and suggest the link with adult romance and intimacy seems to be totally misplaced in this type of a discussion. The author speaks a lot about the importance of empirical studies and has a foundation that is nothing but sand for the conclusions the article makes. This article should be flagged as significantly deficient. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.108.55.69 ( talk) 06:46, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
It's supposed that the so called "Platonic love" was not as most think today when hearing the word, an spiritual love with no participation of the physical parts or expressions of feelings, that as address very deep parts in our minds are so strong in effects that are close to limiting freedom, but "Platonic" probably referred to "Erastia", the homosexual bond between teacher and student that is cited in classical texts, for example some regret that in contrary to what happened in the old times, when Erastia was limited to one person to other, people started having multiple relationships, and students offered themselves to teachers in a too open and obscene way. Any kind of body contact is always close to sex, and as it triggers old parts of brain, from a phylogenetic point of view, it can be good to restrict it and limit it to the relationships where it can reach an stronger degree, and give more affection and pleasure: the couple relationships.-- Jgrosay ( talk) 14:04, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Two distinct things should not be Implied to be the same thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.183.100.228 ( talk) 22:50, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
I want to quote C.colombus's on "Genuine intimacy in human relationships requires dialogue, transparency, vulnerability and reciprocity," but I found his/her references insufficient. The closest citation used in "This was clarified by Dalton (1959) who discusses how anthropologists and ethnographic researchers access 'inside information' from within a particular cultural setting by establishing networks of intimates capable (and willing) to provide information unobtainable through formal channels" makes it unclear if the first definition is derived solely from that M. Dalton's book Men who Manage or from other sources. Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Intimate_relationship&diff=348462602&oldid=348148340 Airelor ( talk) 23:19, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
47.184.237.138 ( talk · contribs) removed an image that HeliumPearl added. As seen with this edit, HeliumPearl re-added the image and I removed it. As noted in my edit summary, I removed it because this article is not solely about sexual intimacy. So having that image in the lead makes it seem as though this article is mainly or primarily about sexual intimacy. The image also is not needed and clearly violates WP:GRATUITOUS. It is a foursome image that is not needed in the least to help readers understand what an intimate relationship is.
HeliumPearl has been making poor choices when it comes to lead material, as seen when he got into a dispute with Meters at the Love article and in a dispute with me and others at the Man article. HeliumPearl, I ask that you think your edits through more carefully and stop WP:Edit warring over matters such as these. Take the time to actually listen to the objections instead of having your say and reverting. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 23:28, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Intimate relationship. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:42, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Clearly, you all have intimate relationships with your parents.
And you have intimate relationships with your children.
And possibly your co-workers.
It ought to be CLEARLY spelled out how any non-negative regular interaction with another human being IS NOT an "intimate relationship," at least for purposes of an encyclopedaic article. After that, it ought to be CLEARLY spelled out how feeling some vague sort of positive affection for someone IS NOT automatically an "intimate relationship," and as well how an imperfect or even antagonostic relationship can be intimate.
Until then, this article is on shaky ground.
Weeb Dingle (
talk)
05:20, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
The second sentence of the article seems to make no logical sense.
How is "friendship" physically intimate? Or is there a skipped step or reversed order of presentation? I can see where friendship might lead to physical intimacy; it's much less obvious how proxemics and propinquity can lead to friendship (or other forms of intimacy) but this would need to be more explicitly written out, and very early on.
Anyone with excessive free time is welcome to do it, actually, so I'll get back the next storm.
Weeb Dingle (
talk)
06:55, 13 September 2018 (UTC)