Talk:Loneliness

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Loneliness 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

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 October 2019 and 13 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Auntieb7.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:48, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Old comments

"Loneliness is the only disease that can be cured by adding two or more cases together." I completely disagree with this statement. Is it really accepted among sociologists? Eagle 17:43, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC) If I understood this well, this one said, that if you feel lonely, you won't if someone puts another man/woman to accompany you. Well..."The loss of a significant person in one's life will typically initiate a grief response; in this situation, one might feel lonely, even while in the company of others." As it is stated on this Wiki. It is true. If an important person either dies, or at least leaves you, it's true. After very disappointing events, this could also happen, as there is almost nothing to cheer you up for a short while. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abyss Ammadelch (talk • contribs) 20:28, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What does it even mean? I am lonely right now. :(

It means putting two lonely people together will make both of them cease to be lonely. — Phil Welch 07:08, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's just a quip and not necessarily true, but logically it works: put 2 lonely people together and they are no longer lonely. --realwingus 09:39, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you put two or more people together (even sif it is the same type of lonelyness), they ceace to be alone, but they most likeley remain lonely. Just becouse someone has experienced something similar to me, doesnt nececarily mean, that i will like the person for this or other reasons. 04.05.2009 Vadim —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.171.131.151 (talk) 06:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that somtimes you can be lonely even when you're surrounded by people, the meer presence of people arround you doesn't necessarily relieve a person's loneliness it is rather reconnecting with those around you that will help you break it. Izzy - Jordan

I believe what was meant by the 'quip' was that putting two of the same cases of loneliness together, those who cannot connect for the same particular reasons, is what cures loneliness, not just putting any two random lonely individuals together. Nagelfar 02:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My Reasoning on Loneliness

"Often, people mitigate loneliness by interacting with others via the Internet. However, it is widely believed that purely online relationships are no substitute for in-person relationships, an opinion based at least partially on the fact that a person's true identity is very difficult to determine on the Internet."

Now, people can do this in real life, and they may be unable to tell their true intentions or personality, particularlyif the person has Autism or Asperger's Syndrome. I think that should be noted in there...it's not Online-Only...

As well, some people may be lonely but not by choice..they may be ostracized, kicked out of groups, abandoned by friends, hurt by their parents...the list goes on and on. Some people like me even give up on trying to make friends from all the betrayals they've been through. Why would you keep trying to make friends when every time, it ends the same...with someone turning on you and harassing you?

That is my argument that loneliness may be a requirement at times.

User:Raccoon Fox Talk 01:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree here with fox. Like me, I usually become friends easily with someone and then they suddenly lose interest in me, and I'm alone again. I've been also ostracized in my life, and there isn't a whole lot I can do. This article is right though, it can lead to an anti-social behavior. I don't like people in general, simply because I always feel I'm wronged, or that it's ok to abuse me. I resent those who have abandoned me, and my trust in others can be shaky, but I'm very warm at heart.--Hellogoodsir 22:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes Section

Not that these aren't all cool quotes, but does this section belong? Usually quotable topics just have a link to the wikiquote page at the bottom. Powrtoch 21:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is a good section to the page, but quotes from like Naruto should be eased up on. Princess Diana and Mother Teressa are examples of the ones that people will take more seriously seeing as they come from real world icons.--Chicito21154 22:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the quote is actually quite witty. What do you have against pop culture references? MadMaxDog 14:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I got nothing against pop culture references. But people with a more serious personality might think of it in a more negative way. I have edited my above statement to get my point more clear. --Chicito21154 18:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I feel most quotes from pop culture lack significance. Where do we draw the line when it comes to what is a "good" quote? Chapium 07:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chapium, we don't draw a line. Some people add, some people delete quotes, and some people revert other people's edits. I would find it very hard to get a consensus on what is an 'appropriate quote' (or even to find a definition!). So at best, we could discuss and find consensus (or majority decision) on individual quotes here on the discussion page. MadMaxDog 09:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then a vote it shall be. In an effort keep the best quotes on the topic, I nominate these for deletion:

   No one can defeat loneliness.    —From the Naruto TV series

-- Witty, but does not stand the test of time and it also is not a quote from someone notable.

Oppose. Wittieness counts, when applied to the subject. And Naruto may be fictional, but in itself notable enough. MadMaxDog 04:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Loneliness has followed me my whole life, in bars and cars, I can't escape it, I'm God's lonely man. —Travis Bickle in Taxi Driver

-- It mentions the word "loneliness" but does not seem to say anything profound about the topic

Support. Not too big on this one either. MadMaxDog 04:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   If you find yourself struggling with loneliness, you're not alone. And yet you are alone. So very alone.   — From the Despair.com website

-- Again, not from a notable person and is also an advertisement.

Oppose. Wittieness counts, when applied to the subject. I get the point about the ad, but... MadMaxDog 04:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   I am alone, I am not lonely  — Neil McCauly from Heat

-- This is probably a better quote for an article on solitude.

Undecided - not too keen on this one. MadMaxDog 04:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chapium 18:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Change of tack - I have taken the liberty of moving ALL quotes over to Wikiquote. Can we, instead of arguing over which few we can prune after long discussion, instead argue about which few should remain here? Maybe 3-5? See old versions of the article.

I support the Francis Bacon quote, the Mother Theresa quote and the bloody Naruto quote, just for pop culture kicks. What do people say? MadMaxDog 06:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Solitary Confinement as Torture

I have removed a single sentence reference to the application of solitary confinement (as administered in a penal system) as "Torture". The reference was without citations, had a distinct POV, and is not germane to the subject of "Loneliness", since it is a question of ethicals, not one of emotional heath.

Incorrect. Solitary confinement deprives a social animal (man) of one of his most important emotional sustenances - human contact. Therefore it is torture, as shown very well in the related Pit of despair article I quoted in my revert and which is also in the 'see also' section.

I do not have the time at the moment, but I will eventually get around to research this better and provide citations and expand that part... MadMaxDog 07:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delinking years

Good move, MadMaxDog. The obsession with linking every ref to years in WP articles is as silly as linking to every other noun we use. Well done, chum. Trevor H. 23:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen some people delinking years with bot assistance. Wonder if they ever face any concerted opposition (more than individual complaints). Style manual certainly seemsto imply that date linkage should be relatively scarce. Also, year links must be one of the least-clicked type of links... MadMaxDog 05:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Causes of Loneliness

I'm posting here mostly in the hope of instigating some discussion on this, not making changes to the page. I think to often loneliness is seen as a form of mental unwell-ness like depression to be 'fixed' instead of a form of sensory awareness, like being hungry or being in pain when you hit your thumb with a hammer.

Human beings are social creatures. They need to be properly connected to a larger social network to ensure their survival from a very early age. If people fail to make the proper connections, are removed from that network, cut off or lose key ellements that connected them to it the human body will react on an emotional level. I think loneliness can be seen as part of a warning system, like hitting your thumb with a hammer, to alert one that something is wrong.

Attempting to fix it then, thru superficial measures, is probably a mistake. I think a lot of people would actually rather experience it then make believe the underlying problems dont exist or dont matter.

I think that that aspect of being human, the need to be properly connected to a larger social network, is such a personal matter and so tightly wound up with so many other complex bits of business that its very often overlooked or has its importance underestimated.

(Bighousen 11:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Hello Bighousen. Please post new material at the low end of the (talk) page! As for your above comments, I do believe you are right, and that this is partly adressed already. Please feel free to add material (referenced if possible). Thanks and have fun editing. MadMaxDog 06:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cancer and Loneliness

This statement seems to be more a case of urban myth. It's stated in the article that there is an association between loneliness and cancer. However, I have not seen literature that lays claim to this relationship. Further, in general there is no known mechanims for mental health stimulated cancer. If there were a relationship, one could hardly make an argument for causative correlation. Additionally, the comment doesn't state which type of cancers are associated with lonliness. Cancers are heterogenic, which just means that they have different etiologies. Thus, it's not prudent to make such a blanket statement. R. Lopez.

Off topic sentence in introduction

Does the last sentence of the first paragraph seem a little off the beginning topic. The paragraph is talking the meaning, feelings, conditions, effects of loneliness, etc, then out of the blue it talks about the word lonely. It is an interesting piece of information but it seems it should be in another section on the etymology or history of the word. Perhaps another topic altogether. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.150.203.74 (talk) 22:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Not necessarily. In articles that do not have a full etymology subsection, something like that often crops up at the end of the introduction. MadMaxDog 05:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, thats the thing with statistics, they're daft. Maybe the loneley person is depressed and eats lots of rubbish, that increases the risk of bowel cancer? who knows Kosta —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.136.123.45 (talk) 22:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Psychological Tests/Detection Measures

Does anyone know of/would it be useful to list any psychological inventories and measures that test for feelings of loneliness? I've heard of the Woodward Loneliness Inventory, but I'm having trouble locating and learning anything about any others. -MyOwnLittlWorld 17:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to add something, if it is relevant. We can always extend later or stick a section-stub on it. MadMaxDog 07:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed website

This site was removed along with all other external links, I find the facts in it very usefull, but I guess its unrefrenced www.2knowmyself.com/loneliness/overcoming_loneliness Overcoming loneliness

The site was removed because it is a 'self-help' type link, which tends to be discouraged on Wikipedia, as there are too many around and they are hard to prove 'valid'. If we allowed these links, people (i.e. the owners) would be adding them to Wikipedia all the time, and we would be hard-pressed to explain which one's were OK and which not. Also, it is not really a link to a notable institution or something similar which would allow inclusion on other grounds.

Finally, such webpages are easy to find on Google, or via link sites which DO specialise in providing such links. MadMaxDog 07:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

self medication.

I agree with the talk on this page how someone said that superficially inducing a good self of esteem to negate loneliness is not as good as the real thing. As far as the alcohol, it can be said that many alcoholics are simply self-medicating(Dr. Phil uses this a lot along with others if someone is looking for a celebrity quote), and that Prozac and the likes of it are simply a more socially accepted way of self medicating(although it isn't quite "self" medicating with prescriptions, but it is not forced either). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tygone2 (talk • contribs) 14:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC). --Tygone2 15:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cancer

I hope that someone will read this and add this citation for increased risk of cancer among the lonely. The citation is this : Elanor Smith, "Fighting Cancerous Feelings," Psychology Today, May 1988, 22-23

thanks 216.249.63.101 19:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)Amanda[reply]

I'd have no problem with adding something referenced, but can you provide an online source for that? MadMaxDog 05:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Found it myself, no need. MadMaxDog 05:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two different types of loneliness

I think it's separated into two different groups

1. Need for people, social interaction, friends...

2. Need for a companion/life-partner/lover...

they both amount to a need for companionship, whether sexual or not

67.176.27.25 (talk) 04:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC)seriously, stop deleting my comments[reply]

Question

Is loneliness connected to Autism in any way?

Not directly. Certainly, autistic people would have fewer friends, due to their difficulties with communication. At the same time, they likely wouldn't FEEL lonely. At least that's my guess. Ingolfson 06:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but your guess is wrong. At least we, with high functioning autism, do feel loneliness and even more as normal people. This is not just my opinion, it is verified in some studies. For example (1) Bauminger, N., & Kasari, C. (2000) Loneliness and Friendship in High-Functioning Children with Autism. Child Development, vol 71, pp 447-456. (2) Burgess, A. F., & Gutstein, S. E. (2007) Quality of Life for People with Autism: Raising the Stabdard for Evaluating Sucessful Outcomes. Child and Adolescent Mental Health, vol 12, pp 80-86. (3) Jobe, L. E., & White, S. W. (2007) Loneliness, social relationships, and a broader autism phenotype in college students. Personality and Individual Differences, vol 42, pp 1479-1489. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.199.226.142 (talk) 16:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is straight up false

"Each human being comes into the world alone, travels through life as a separate person, and ultimately dies alone." This seems to suggest that people spring from the ground without mothers and crumble into dust without families. It's oh so poetic (sarcasm) but not appropriate for an encylopedia. . . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.27.25 (talk) 03:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it's just a subjective assertion, and I personally find it to be wrong. Cazort (talk) 18:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

lonely

loneliness can be caused for being lonely —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.167.13 (talk) 01:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Loneliness as a feeling

Loneliness is not just a feeling. It's a status. One can say I am lonely, I feel lonely is not very common. It is used to describe the current disparity between the need for (good) contact and the (good) contact present. This refers to the actual situation, not just the perception of it. Classifying loneliness as a feeling is done not to harass someone else with your problem. Jh23542 (talk) 19:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added copyedit tag

There are several instances of unclear wording and clumsy sentence construction in this article. I have added the copyedit tag. DQweny (talk) 01:32, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge from Loner

I think the scopes of Loner and Loneliness basically are the same, and therefore, they should be merged - just like vegetarian redirecting to vegetarianism (no other comparison meant). Mikael Häggström (talk) 11:31, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mikael, I completely disagree with you. A loner is not necessarily lonely, and in fact it could be argued more often the opposite is true (a loner is usually not lonely, for if they were prone to loneliness they would not be comfortable being a loner and thus would seek companionship). A vegetarian is a person who subscribes to vegetarianism, a loose ideology; loneliness is not an ideology or set of beliefs which a "loner" follows, but a feeling everyone is subject to, and feeling it doesn't make the subject a loner. No offense, but perhaps this is a misunderstanding of language? Knock-kneed (talk) 00:25, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Strongly oppose any such merger. NewYork1956 (talk) 02:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Strongly oppose. See What's the difference between being lonely and a loner?. Tr33_swalow —Preceding undated comment added 20:52, 25 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]

- Since this merger would never happen I've removed the proposed merger tags from both articles. 174.6.237.45 (talk) 07:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"subjective experience"

Right now the article is contradictory. In one place does it mention that loneliness is a subjective experience (there are no other kinds of experience, so duh), and in another that it is not a subjective experience (it's perhaps an 'objective experience'???).

Someone should fix this. I couldn't immediately see any way to resolve this with the sources listed. --Deleet (talk) 05:21, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

"Loneliness is a complex and usually unpleasant emotion that people can feel in response to solitude." This is complete and utter BS. Loneliness is not a response to solitute. In fact the more people are around, the more obvious it becomes that you have no emotional connection with anyone, and hence the stronger the loneliness becomes. Solitude is what lonely people seek out to ease the pain that peaks when a lack of connection is highlighted. If it was as simple as being around people no one would ever be lonely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.71.109.93 (talk) 19:28, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"What makes a person lonely is the fact that they want more social interaction than what is currently available." Also completely missing the point. A lonely person has no interest in more social interaction per se, what he wants is more meaningful social interaction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.71.109.93 (talk) 19:32, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 193.71.109.93! Welcome to Wikipedia! Please, find some good and reliable sources, be bold and edit the article! Lova Falk talk 20:25, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't say loneliness is only a response to solitude. It says it can be a response. If anyone can be bothered finding reliable sources for such a subjective and unpolitical concept, go ahead.

Without such, I believe these articles should represent accepted definitions (which we would determine by consensus). I already made the wording more general. I'd be happy to see it include 'loneliness in a crowd'. Needless to say, I don't want it to represent one person's experience to the exclusion of everyone else's. You might like to register an account -- they remain anonymous, it just helps other people gain trust in your contributions. WykiP (talk) 04:42, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Attachment theory & Separation distress without an object

Wondering why the section below was removed (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Loneliness&oldid=491743179). Is it not informative, even if unpolished?

Emotional loneliness is derived from attachment theory. Part of attachment theory looks at the relationship between parents/caregivers and children. When securely attached children are separated from their parents, they exhibit separation distress such as crying, attempts to search for parents, inhibited behavior. Adults get attached to romantic partners and show separation distress when separated from their partners. Weiss defined emotional loneliness as "separation distress without an object".[6] This means that emotional loneliness is caused by the lack of a romantic partner, and feels like the separation distress one feels when a romantic partner is missing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.191.231.237 (talk) 22:38, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Problem and missing

That one web archive links to Pfizer failed because of robots.txt, it is at archive[dot]is/IOhHO though. Also add Parasocial interaction to see also --75.71.229.53 (talk) 12:05, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Loneliness/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

It seems to me that a section should be added to this article that adresses lonliness from an evolutionary point of view. Something to the effect: In the past humans were best able to survive by joining together in groups. Those who possesed dna that influenced them to desire to gather in groups had a greater chance of survival, and in turn, a greater chance of having children who possesed similar dna. Over many generations this trait was selected and now, in the present day, almost everyone has a desire to seek human companionship. Of course, this is only half of the story. I would guess that the rest would be concerned with modern lifestyles and the fact that we are no longer dependant on a group for survival, but we still retain the gentetic need for human companionship, which of course manifests itself as "lonliness". Evolutionary ethics has produced much on the subject of group selection, and I'm sure that this topis has been dealt with elsewhere.

Last edited at 06:51, 6 October 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 22:24, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Image of Topless Woman

In the beginning of the article there is a topless woman. I do not see why such an image should be associated with an article on loneliness. In some cultures and religions, being topless in public is considered wrong. It takes away from the article and adds nothing to it.Swift Eagle (talk) 00:01, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A good shout. Removing such an aesthetically pleasing pic isn't something that should be done lightly, wiki has far too few attractive images. But in addition to the risk of offending folk with certain religious sensitivities, the pic risks creating a false impression for our readers. It's titled 'Solitude' and can easily be read as suggesting the subject is suffering emotional pain, which rather contradicts what our article suggests about Solitude being often positive. We could retitle as 'Loneliness' which might be a better translation of the French word solitude, but the pic seems to be one of Henner's Magdalene series, and some say he called all of those things like 'The Magdalene' or 'The Penitent Magdalene', expressing a view of Mary Magdalene thats no long mainstream. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:33, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Loneliness. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080901190730/http://scienceofloneliness.com/ to http://www.scienceofloneliness.com/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111226045830/http://seniorjournal.com/NEWS/Aging/5-11-21-SeniorsAreLonely.htm to http://seniorjournal.com/NEWS/Aging/5-11-21-SeniorsAreLonely.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130815113613/http://isolatedseniors.ca/ to http://www.isolatedseniors.ca/
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://cms.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-20030821-000001.html

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) 17:57, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Those who are comfortable being alone can often love so deeply and purely, because they are not sharing to receive, but simply giving

Those who are comfortable being alone can often love so deeply and purely, because they are not sharing to receive, but simply giving 171.79.118.11 (talk) 22:47, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

i'm lonely

help me Efantasion (talk) 19:18, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to hear that buddy. The pain of loneliness is often just your bodies way to let you know you need more human connection. So taking part in activities where you're likely to form new relationships, or deepen existing ones, can be the best cure. Sadly sometimes easier said than done. If loneliness is something that's been troubling you for a while, and you live somewhere with a free medical service like UK, you could try asking your Doctor and they might refer you to one of the many loneliness intervention projects with social prescribing. This is about all I can suggest, this page is supposed to be for discussion on improving the article, not having this sort of conversation. And as someone who's been an editor here for 15 years, Wikipedia is about the last place I'd ask for help with any personal problems, even one that effects billions like Loneliness. Maybe make a reddit account, go to a sub like https://www.reddit.com/r/lonely/ , and tell them a few things about yourself (approx. age, gender, what country you live in etc) then you might get some useful advise well tailored to your circumstances. Good luck! FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:57, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please add a bibliographic item (on the history of loneliness in anitquity)

Rafał Matuszewski (ed.), Being Alone in Antiquity: Greco-Roman Ideas and Experiences of Misanthropy, Isolation and Solitude. De Gruyter: Berlin/Boston 2021. ISBN: 9783110758078 Kallistratos007 (talk) 16:41, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done Excellent book! Thanks for suggesting. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:50, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

Not merged. Proposal has been opposed, and no support after over 4 months. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:59, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The new article at Loneliness epidemic is quite short, and overlaps with the larger discussion at Loneliness#Increasing prevalence. I therefore propose that it is merged to consolidate the short text, to provide context and reduce overlap. There's also the problem that Loneliness epidemic doesn't present the opposing view is that there is no such epidemic. Klbrain (talk) 19:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. There are enough RS that cover the "loneliness epidemic", especially in the United States, as a standalone topic. RS that deal with the increasing prevalence of loneliness in the abstract, such as the WHO declarations could be added here. I came across this merge proposal as I was preparing to built out the loneliness epidemic article. Longhornsg (talk) 22:21, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.