Talk:Triangular theory of love

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Triangular theory of love article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Psychology Low‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology 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.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sexology and sexuality Low‑importance

	Human sexuality portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality 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.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Love merge

I don't think that a merge with Love is a particularly good idea. The Love article is all over the place and covers many different concepts. This article on the other hand is specific and focussed. It would benefit from expansion perhaps but not from a merge. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:04, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should add this section onto the love page but also keep this page by itself, so you're basically duplicating it. -- Patman2648 | Talk 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with derek. we should not remove this page. and I think that we should not duplicate it either. a link from Love would be fine. Kirils 00:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, this shouldn't be merged with Love as it refers to a specific theory on Love. The theory refers to Passion, Intimacy and Commitment and I wonder if these should be explained according to Sternberg's interpretations. Indeed, the Passion (emotion) link currently redirects to Emotion which is pretty useless so this definitely needs cleared up. -- Chris Paton 21:50 29 January 2006 (UTC)

That's true. Sternberg uses the three words in a technical sense with very specific meanings, so an explanation of each would be a good thing. -- Derek Ross | Talk 03:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you all. So, given the span of time this discussion has covered, and having no opposing opinions, I'll remove the merge tag. Waldir ^talk 13:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject banner spam

An anonymous editor appears to have dedicated him-/herself to spamming talk pages with long lists of WikiProject banners. This goes against the good advice at WP:WikiProject Council/Guide#Article_tagging and WP:WikiProject Council/Guide/WikiProject#Over-tagging, which recommends against speculatively spamming a long list of tangentially related WikiProjects to an article.

The editor often adds empty {{todo}} lists and usually {{talkheader}}, even to empty talk pages, which also violates the instructions for their use.

While WikiProject Medicine is normally happy to have articles obviously within its scope tagged by any editor, I have removed the WPMED tag from this article because it doesn't fall within the core "diseases and their treatments" scope of the project. WikiProject Medicine does not support the inappropriate medicalization of everyday life. (I may or may not have removed other banners at the same time.)

If you believe that there is a significant medical connection to this subject that I've overlooked, please do not re-add the banner. Instead, take these steps:

Read Is WPMED the correct WikiProject to support this article?
Read the instructions on the WPMED template.
Then leave a message at the doctors' mess to ask whether the article falls within the scope of the project.

I continue to attempt to communicate with this anon editor, but the IP address changes very frequently, and efforts so far appear to be unsuccessful. If the anon editor places the WPMED banner on this article again, I ask for your support in removing it again. Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mis-described

I don't think it's strictly a 'theory'. I think it's a 'model', albeit a theoretical one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.49.207.29 (talk) 00:09, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough but a model is generally based on a theory. So what is the theory that this model is based upon? -- Derek Ross | Talk 07:09, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism section

The "Criticism" section for this article doesn't seem very substantial. Three of the five books it cites don't appear to have anything to do with Sternberg's theory (citations 13, 14, and 15), and the other two are not cited as specifically criticizing the theory.

Furthermore, the insubstantially cited criticisms that are present seem to amount to the editor suggesting that Sternberg's theory is the result of OCD. This is hardly up to Wikipedia's standards. I suggest the section be removed or replaced entirely, though I don't know what criticisms might replace those currently here. Schwantner (talk) 05:11, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zap it then. Criticism sections are generally deprecated and if this one is as insubstantial as you say, we might as well get rid of it. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:53, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I had similar opinions about the criticism section when it was added to the article a few months ago. I've gone ahead and removed it. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 17:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Educational assignment

I am going to be adding content to this page for a class assignment. I welcome any input/suggestions. Kayegib (talk) 17:03, 3 April 2013 (UTC)userpage:kayegib[reply]

Excellent! Just make sure that you follow Wikipedia's guidelines and you shouldn't have any problems. Good luck! -- Derek Ross | Talk 22:06, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome also from me! Please remember that Wikipedia is not an academic paper or essay. Wikipedia articles should not be based on WP:primary sources, but on reliable, published secondary sources (for instance, journal reviews and professional or advanced academic textbooks) and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources (such as undergraduate textbooks). WP:MEDRS describes how to identify reliable sources for medical information, which is a good guideline for many psychology articles as well. With friendly regards, Lova Falk talk 06:29, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to everyone for the advice! I've made a few additions, nothing drastic. Kayegib (talk) 00:20, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But...

Not sure how scholarly vs. experiential an observation this is, but this theory's formula for "Romantic Love" - that is, intimacy (i.e., friendship) plus sexual passion - doesn't discriminate it much from the spirit of "Fuck Buddy," an arguably altogether different animal. Have its theorists ever addressed this conceptual discrepancy, or has no one yet formally challenged it? If not, maybe someone should write a paper or something. AgentOrangeTabby (talk) 21:24, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't confuse passion and sex. The "Fuck buddy" relationship isn't supposed to be anything more than intimacy with passion-free sex. Although, as many have discovered, it's often difficult to keep it that way. The passion described in the article is the sexual fixation (the crush) that one person can have for another even if sex never actually takes place. -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:26, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fatuous Love mismatch?

According to the bullet points, "Fatuous love [...] has points of intimacy and commitment but no passion", which seems in conflict with the diagram and table - I would think it should be stated "has points of passion and commitment but no intimacy" - or am I reading something wrong? Brettpeirce (talk) 17:34, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]