Jump to content

Talk:Valentine's Day

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 159.83.168.249 (talk) at 21:40, 13 February 2018 (→Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2018: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


No critical words on how cruel it is to cut flowers and watch them die ? "

What do withering flowers and deadheads have to do with love ? Some critical thoughts please ! --2003:62:484A:F901:A96B:E894:45F:1E6B (talk) 15:43, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

American history

In the section Celebration and status worldwide it says, "Valentine's Day customs[which?] developed in early modern England and spread throughout the Anglosphere in the 19th century."

In fact, St. Valentine's Day was observed by several congregations in the Massachusetts Bay Colony in earliest times. Each congregation was allowed to decide for itself which holidays to celebrate. It was one of Governor John Winthrop's favorite holidays. Here is an excerpt from a letter to his wife back in England:

Thine ever, Jo. Winthrop.

february 14, 1629.

Thou must be my valentine, for none hath challenged me.


Also, if you just spend a few minutes on Google Books, searching by century and picking the option to list the books in chronological order, you can at least get some idea of how many of our "Hallmark holiday" traditions are older than they appear.

Incidentally, this is part of a larger issue involving "invented traditions." Nearly every holiday, rite of passage, etc., has been blown out of proportion by business and industry, which in turn has sparked a backlash. The backlash people invent urban legends that these things only date to the early or mid 20th century, when it's only the overblown version that is so recent. In most cases a toned-down version existed much earlier. For example, diamond engagement rings became popular with the American lower middle class in the 1850s, the same decade that "pink for girls, blue for boys" was imported from France. Unfortunately, we have dozens of articles that repeat the urban legends. Zyxwv99 (talk) 21:30, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It may well be that some traditions date back a long way, that is not to say that they haven't been appropriated by commercialism and had non-traditional activities artificially added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.62.26.100 (talk) 07:45, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Valentine's Day. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:24, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted this link from the article because it's just a store link. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:56, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Questioning This Pages Objectivity

Having read through the 'Connection with romantic love' and 'Lupercalia' subheading I can't help but question who wrote such a poor piece. Within two neighboring paragraphs we have the same exact assertion relying on the same one source yet declares in absolute that 'THERE IS NO EVIDENCE' even though many Catholic churches themselves disagree. It seems to have been swamped by a religious prude insulted at the very thought that what we celebrate today may have links to a more sexual celebration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EssenceOfThought (talk • contribs) 11:23, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2017

In the Chaucer quote translation "bryd" is incorrectly "bird" when it should be "bride." See https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bryd Plentyoflight (talk) 18:55, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  03:14, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

valentines day association with bird song

In the section discussing Chaucer's love birds it is stated that "it is an unlikely time for birds to be mating in England"

In fact anybody familiar with the countryside in Britain will be aware how regularly each year bird song - especially chaffinches and skylarks - starts in the middle of February. The birds are not necessarily mating then but establishing a territory and calling for a mate.

The article is presumably written by somebody in North America not familiar with the British countryside.

A correction is in order I think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neilsavory (talk • contribs) 21:06, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Holiday question

I do not think it is correct to say that Valentine's Day is a holiday. Normal activities are not suspended for Valentine's Day. People still go to work. People do not get any extra rest. 58.179.5.119 (talk) 21:43, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Valentine's Day. 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:40, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not promotional spam

It is not promotional spam to include an image of Swedish celebrities having Valentine's dinner in a relevant part of the article. Reverting. Also please see Talk:Indian Love Call#Image of a duo singing the song replaced by movie poster. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:39, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss here User_talk:SergeWoodzing#Emil_Eikner if necessary and also read WP:NOTPROMOTION. Flooding commons with photos of this person his amateur cabaret group and various other of his interests and then adding these photos on wikipedia projects is clearly spamming. Domdeparis (talk) 06:49, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop referring to my talk page, which I have asked you to stay away from with these spam accusations! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:46, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Valentine's Day. 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:03, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a pleasant collection of garbage.

Protestations to the contrary, this "article" reads like a Hallmark promotional piece. Throughout is lots of chatty "informative" filler, like in fact or additionally, that usually indicates an author has a bias and is sneaking in viewpoint statements.

Let's begin with it is not a public holiday in any country. It is NOT some sort of religious holiday, OR a civil holiday, rather a commercial event. A century from now (assuming "civilization" hasn't yet collapsed), we'll likely see all sorts of faux religious and patriotic nonsense pasted onto Black Friday too, as Thanksgiving before it.

The piece has a huge underlying flaw: repeated use of fallacious argument from authority. One second, VD is held up as though some sort of High Church event, which claim is defended by… hmm… stating that "lots of people do it." There's far too much emphasis upon the semi-imaginary "Saint Valentine." There's probably no one such person: honoring one or more early saints named Valentinus.

For starters, I recommend distancing the article content from claims to religiosity. Apparently there are at least 1,486 Roman Catholic saints, with estimates that the actual number may be "over 10,000"; few have a Wikipedia article about their feast day. After the lede, pains should be taken to remove the term "Saint" (which isn't used in the title) unless specifically referring to an established historical personage, and at that should be minimal. The focus of the article is inherently NOT religion or Romance per se, but the commercialization of "love." Leave discussion of Saint Valentine to Saint Valentine.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 16:20, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Add romantic holiday to the first lead paragraph

My edit to add information about the romantic aspect of the day in the first paragraph of the lead was just reverted as original research (as if I'm the only one who knows about it). Not including a mention of it there seems counter to an encyclopedic article about Valentine's Day, and now that the views are up to 20,000 daily this should be quickly addressed. After that revert I'm more likely to agree with Weeb Dingle about lessening the religious aspect in the lead, especially in the first two paragraphs where romance or the commercialization of romance isn't mentioned. Does this need an RfC to include the romantic vision of holiday (its common usage) in the first lead paragraph or can we just agree to add it? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:04, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How long has it been like this, without the romantic holiday being in the first lead paragraph? If nobody objects I'll move my reverted edit (maybe with a slight edit) back into the page again later today. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:17, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:Randy Kryn, the introduction of the article already emphasizes the romantic nature of the celebration, as it states "The day first became associated with romantic love within the circle of Geoffrey Chaucer in the 14th century, when the tradition of courtly love flourished. In 18th-century England, it evolved into an occasion in which lovers expressed their love for each other...". In fact, the entire third paragraph is devoted to discussing this. I strongly disagree with removing any of the historical/religious background from the lede as this is equally important to the context of Valentine's Day. In the spirit of compromise, however, I suggest that we modify the second sentence of the lede, to state: "Valentine's Day is recognized as a significant cultural, religious and commercial celebration of romance in many regions around the world, although it is not a public holiday in any country". This revision includes all three aspects of the commemoration and also mentions that it is a "celebration of romance". What are your thoughts? I look forward to hearing from you. With regards, AnupamTalk 04:32, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That works well if users agree (how about a comma after 'religious'?). As long as it's in the first paragraph, which is what any reasonable reader would expect (or what's that guideline, WP:ASTONISH, I don't know if it fits but it sounds like it would). Adding the sentence you propose into the lead then covers all the bases, which would need to be covered in the initial introduction of an encyclopedic page on Valentine's Day. Thanks for your thoughtful analysis of the request. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:38, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:Randy Kryn, you're very welcome. Indeed, the additional of a serial comma would be fine. Feel free to implement our agreed change to the lede as you see fit. Thanks, AnupamTalk 05:26, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:39, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 7 February 2018

Hello Fellow Wikipedians,

I would like to suggest a change in the following part of this article.

Scandinavia In Denmark and Norway, although February 14 is known as Valentinsdag, it is not celebrated to a large extent, but is largely imported from American culture, and some people take time to eat a romantic dinner with their partner, to send a card to a secret love or give a red rose to their loved one. The cut-flower industry in particular is still working on promoting the holiday. In Sweden it is called Alla hjärtans dag ("All Hearts' Day") and was launched in the 1960s by the flower industry's commercial interests, and due to the influence of American culture. Annzacharia (talk) 04:58, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: I don't know how that link is relevant, and I don't believe there is any other change. Please read our guidelines on external links. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 05:03, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are two sections on Lebanon

I am not an expert on Valentines day, but I noticed that there are 2 sections on Lebanon under 4.2 Asia: 4.2.6 and 4.2.14. Perhaps the content can be combined? I would presume all the content should be under 4.2.6 as all the countries appear to be in alphabetic order.

RandomMonkey (talk) 21:15, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2018

159.83.168.249 (talk) 21:40, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

sdsdafsdfsdfsdfd

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Valentine%27s_Day&oldid=825521028"