Talk:Soulmate

Definitions for Soul mate from the web

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary a person temperamentally suited to another

Encarta® World English Dictionary [North American Edition] somebody close to somebody else: somebody with whom somebody else naturally shares deep feelings and attitudes

The Wordsmyth English Dictionary a person, usu. of the opposite sex, with whom one has a strong intimate attachment based on shared interests, values, and the like.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language One of two persons compatible with each other in disposition, point of view, or sensitivity.

Infoplease Dictionary a person with whom one has a strong affinity.

WordNet 2.0 someone for whom you have a deep affinity

Ultralingua English Dictionaries Someone for whom one has a deep affinity

.RhymeZone someone for whom you have a deep affinity

AllWords.com Multi-Lingual Dictionary someone who shares the same feelings, thoughts, ideas, outlook, tastes, etc as someone else.

LookWAYup dictionary someone for whom you have a deep affinity.

Petersam 08:15, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Films with soul mate themes

Help look for movies with soul mate themes and add them to the list....

Internet Movie Data Base search plot for Soul Mate

DejaVu (1998) with Stephen Dillane and Victoria Foyt, directed by Henry Jaglom.

Possible topics to expand on

Modern Soulmate Theory - explaining soulmates using probabilities.

Classic Soulmate Theory - explaining soulmates versus work-it-out theory.

The Search for the Perfect Soulmate

Work-it-out - or 'love the one you're with'

Soulmate Calculator - A revolutionary analytical web-based tool using population statistics to find out the number of American singles you have to met to find a soulmate.

Criticism of Soul Mate Theories

(moved out of main page)

- Note of skepticism: This concept uses certain ideologies of the supernatural (such as reincarnation) which have no way of being tested. It also supposes conclusions that are not even a part of the borrowed ideologies, without noting the difference, such as that soulmates exist to "heal" or play "other important roles" in each other's lives. This is also, in itself, vague and meaningless. In what way are these supposed "soul mates" supposed to heal each other? And why? The logical fallacy Appeal to Emotion comes to mind.

- Note of skepticism: This "theory" is misleading and makes conclusions for the reader rather than simply explaining what the concept is. It does this by using words such as "unfortunate reality" and then by going on to speak of what that "unfortunate reality" is. Many new agers will describe certain situations in the light of their concepts and accept no other explanation, such as logical explanation.

- Note of skepticism:A concept, derived from fairy tales and bad hollywood movies, used as a justification for what would otherwise be called psychotic behavior. A common mantra when invoking said concept is "But (s)he is my soulmate!" Tears usually follow to add support to the statement and successfully end rational discussion about the wisdom of the relationship.

---

Hey lighten up dude, nothing's perfect.

------

(I can tell *you're* a virgin..;) 69.203.129.19 06:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

this article needs a re-write

I think that this article needs to either be greatly expanded/re-structured or even completely re-written. The esoteric stuff is nice and stuff (/irony), but I feel that this very important topic really needs to be covered from a scientifical/psychological point of view. I was really annoyed when reading it and very dissatisfied, and I would really appreciate if some expert on that topic is willing to make a start for a good article. I could try to re-write it myself if noone else is ready to do it but even though I have some knowledge of this topic, I wouldn't consider myself an expert on it, but I can make myself one if necessary, but it would be easier if someone more knowledgeable would be wanting to do it. Cryonic 12:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

You can't have a scientific debate about soul mates. This is because by definition, a soul is not physical (and represents the spiritual part of a living being). The term soul originates from Hindu Vedic scripture and maybe older than 10,000 years as a concept (in Sanskrit: Atman). By definition, spiritual energy can not be detected by physical science. You can debate scientific experiments designed to observe the function of different area's of the brain. Explaining this using an analogy: The mind is akin to a car. It has certain functions that limit its use. The driver whilst himself not part of the car, can express himself through the car, yet the car limits his capacity for expression. If you want a serious article about the soul, one needs to base the article on religion and spirituality, for that is where the expression originates. Any psychology that can be attributed to the brain or body also has nothing to do with a persons soul which is uneffected by the body/mind.86.4.59.203 00:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)Deva.

if you cant scientifically prove or disprove the existence of the soul then why are there reports out there of a body being weighed right before and right after the exact second of death and there being a differnece of mere grams? explain that one away and i will become a non-believer. yeah right. NOONE can make ME believe that souls dont exist. which brings my next point: how can someone whole-heartedly believe in the concept of soul but NOT the concept of soulmate? to me that's just ridiculous......(later on) ok i cited my 'report' just by googling 'weight of the soul' and got http://www.lostmag.com/issue1/soulsweight.php —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.254.109.48 (talk) 04:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

nice and fluffy

beautiful thoughts however, they are meant to be enjoyed over a glass of red wine at 4am. like faith and religion, these thoughts have merit, just not for those who think rationally on a regular basis. Tamiam3 06:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Scientific Soulmates?

Did somebody just pull that out of their asses? Cite, please. Metalrobot 22:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Multiple Soulmates

What about the possibility of multiple soulmates? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Osterczyk (talk • contribs) 17:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Tall glass of original research

Seriously, this article is in dire need of a complete overhaul. It's on my to-do list: For my own reference: http://marriage.about.com/cs/soulmates/a/soulmates.htm I might even hit up the library for this one. Lara❤Love 16:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Soulmate

Can anyone discribe how it feels to encounter a soulmate? i feel i have found mine... every now and then He an I connect without words, I love him and he loves me we both know that. altho we are not together. there is this feeling, its so deap... not lust... not nerves... its more like satisfaction without being satisfied.. How do we talk about this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.177.113.40 (talk) 04:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

This isn't a talk forum, it's for discussion on improving the article. But I'll respond on your talk page. There's a link at the top of your page that says "my talk", click that. Lara❤Love 06:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Written by a 14 year old girl?

This article is at least 2/3 vomit. The only relevant (or even meaningful) part is the 'concepts' section. "someone you love, and would do anything for, and someone who loves you, and would do anything for you"? This is an encyclopaedia, not a teenage diary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.101.251.160 (talk) 00:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The Picture?

What's with the picture. Horray for James Ososki, but his poorly made photoshop love letter doesn't need to be the main display for this section.

Teldumor (talk) 08:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I've replaced it with a more appropriate image and table. --Polylerus (talk) 19:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

This whole entry need some serious editing.

Isn't there anyone who could clean this up?

People who have no clue what "new age" even is, should not be defining it, especially not in an entry that isn't even about "new age".

This needs some serious editing by people who actually have some idea what they are talking about.

Why bother editing a section on wiki that you know nothing about?

There is no such things as "New Age Religion" so I removed a reference to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.184.146.227 (talk) 01:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

"Why bother editing a section on wiki that you know nothing about?"

That is the normal Wikipedia process, especially with contentious and "esoteric" subjects. ninety-nine percent of Wikipedia editors write about subjects they do not understand but are sure they are an authority regardless of that. I am a Chartered Engineer with Degrees in Engineering and materials science and technology, who is a Healer with "higher sense perception" as Barbara Brennan refers to it and a discarnate Soulmate, in the true sense, but what do I know compared with anonymous Wikipedia editors afraid to declare themselves? RichardKingCEng (talk) 08:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

To the user, who wrote about New Age"there is no such things ..." Yes, thank you. Well done to deleting these verbal garbage. Me has wondered myself about these indiscriminately term-bowling, here in coherence to the definition what a soul and "its connections" could be. It sounding as had religion & cults rented the term 'soul'. Atheists have got doubts in one godness, but not necessarily in the existence of an unexplainable energy. There is also to mention, that since "new ages" as real meant now, seriously scientists are trying to building a bridge between quantum-physics and phenomena, which religions like to calling soul. The term 'soul' oneself is just religious coined, because churches and co. have used it too long. And what concerns New Age ... with such terms will associated all, what has begun with Yuppies and ended with attractions for 'spirit teachers' like Baghwan (or the Mun-Sect). And also is New Age a wide-spread a further term for an era in art, fashion and lifestyle. Whatever here is to associating with ... the term "soul" it isn't, yes absolutely right.

And to RichardKing: "ninety-nine percent of Wikipedia editors write about subjects they do not understand but are sure they are an authority regardless of that." What's got your self-description to do with the mentioned fact of the fore-author, that you tend to put a term into a corner, in which it isn't to categorise? "Soulmate" & "New Age" is of their individual definition such a perfect combination like Marilyn Manson & the pope. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.235.225.146 (talk) 15:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Someone who cowers in anonymity is not deserving of an explanation; quite apart from the above reading close to gibberish anyway, which renders it unanswerable. RichardKingCEng (talk) 18:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

---

Oh, sorry, me hasn't known the netiquette for nickname-elitists. Your opinion is that someone which nickname you can spell, is a true revelation and open book to you. Aaaah, fine that must been new influences of 'New Age' :) P.S. The article-definition itself is too much worth for mine as to continue a discussion with someone who can not differentiate between one of the oldest terms in the world and 'New Age' (if you want proof the fact, email maybe to the Dalai Lama and let tell you, since how much thousand of years in Asia is believed on the 'stuff' whose generally description is 'soul' and not 'esoteric trend')

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.235.252.17 (talk) 13:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit notice debate

The edit notice for this page is currently subject to a deletion debate. The edit notice is the message that appears just over the edit box whenever the page itself is in edit mode. If you love this notice, hate it, or just would like to comment on it's existance, please come and join in the debate. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Using tsl.org as a source

This site fails WP:RS, WP:SPAM, WP:ELNO and WP:SPS as it is a promotional website for Elizabeth Clare Prophet. The site promotes and sells her books, CD and courses. The site cannot be considered a reliable source for evidence and is not independent. It should not be used as a reference.—Ash (talk) 10:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

"Only Love Is Real" by Brian Weiss

I think this book has something important to say about soulmates. As Raymond Moody, author of "Life after Life" says, "this book makes you truly believe that we all really do have soulmates and that Only Love Is Real". Chalice Deathray (talk) 06:15, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Studies section needs proper referencing

The section uses referencing which makes it hard to track the books down, can someone look at this and try and fix it? IRWolfie- (talk) 13:18, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm actually going to remove the section, it has nothing to do with soulmates and more to do with physical attraction and was getting conclusions related to soulmates that was not present in the original sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:24, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

New Age

The lede mentions new age view, can someone knowledgeable add a section on it? IRWolfie- (talk) 20:25, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

The article needs rewritten, but I have not been able to find any good scholarly sources. The image should either be moved to the lede or removed. All is One (talk) 20:30, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I'm not really sure what sections would make sense, maybe different religious opinions (since it's a religious concept and not scientific at all. The Roman Catholic position for example: http://www.catholic.net/index.php?option=dedestaca&id=1064 IRWolfie- (talk) 20:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

my reference isn't great, I'm digging for more. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

The subject seems like a concept. So, you could start with a basic lede to summarize; followed by an "Etymology" section; an "Historical usage" section; a section describing "Contemporary usage" of the term; a "Reception" section; and a "Usage in popular culture" section. The subject is not too broad; this has some potential of becoming a Good Article. All is One (talk) 23:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Archive setup request

Request setting up an archive for this talk page. All is One (talk) 15:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Add "Black Orpheus" to list of soulmate films?

Comment moved from body of the text, added by unknown person at an unknown time:

CONSIDER ADDING "BLACK ORPHEUS" A retelling of the Orpheus and Eurydice myth, set during the time of the Carnaval in Rio de Janeiro. DIRECTED BY MARCEL CAMUS
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0053146/

I have no opinion. Anyone?

Molly-in-md (talk) 14:11, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

See also

The 'Twin Soul...' link doesn't go to a 'Twin Soul...' Wikipedia page. It goes to a page entitled 'Alma Gêmea', but with address http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Twin_Soul Is this correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ProjectWorldPeace (talk • contribs) 01:13, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

It's not a software error, and is intentional - the reader is taken to Alma Gêmea via an internal Wikipedia redirect, as there is no article titled "Twin Soul". The Alma Gêmea article doesn't make clear what the connection is (and thus I'm not convinced the link should be in the 'See also' section), though google translates the title to mean "soul mate". PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 01:40, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Pushing agenda

Is the section titled “Films with soulmate themes” a display of a social concept that Hollywood is trying to legitimize? Along with other behaviors such as divorce (1930s), alcoholism (1930s), tobacco smoking (1940s), gang membership (1950s), drug addiction (1970s), and other detrimental glamorizations, is Hollywood advancing the “soulmate” myth? If so, it will result in much disappointment and unhappiness, but may be financially successful at the box office.Lestrade (talk) 06:33, 17 December 2013 (UTC)Lestrade

Wiki Education assignment: English 111 First-Semester College Composition

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2023 and 16 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Anonymoususer333 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Anonymoususer333 (talk) 04:01, 23 November 2023 (UTC)