Talk:Broken heart

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Broken heart 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. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

	Broken heart was a Natural sciences good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result February 4, 2006 Articles for deletion Speedily kept August 12, 2015 Good article nominee Not listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Medicine Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Psychology Mid‑importance 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This page needs references, or site where this information was aquired from. Otherwise it's just someone's opinion. Thanx :) Lordofchaosiori 17:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RESPONSE :

It began as someone's opinion, and judging by the editing that it has been subject to - quite a correct opinion. However, editing has taken place, thus making this article not one person's opinion, but the opinion of those who edit it. Hence, the article named 'broken heart' requires no reference as all information is correct, and it has proved popular with other users of www.wikipedia.org.

thank you - Skip

Hurrah! lol. Lordofchaosiori 23:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article should really be called Heartbreak. Does anyone have any objections? Satchfan 08:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with 'broken heart'?

actually, I agree. Heartbreak sounds much more fitting, if only because it compresses it into one word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.38.66.206 (talk) 22:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

this article sounds like it's all just 100% opinion. one of the worst articles i've read on wikipedia.

I randomly wandered into this page after a painful break up. Thanks for the commiseration Wikipedia. --Doom Music 20:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I said! Lordofchaosiori 05:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this is a horrid article and definitely needs cleanup. I just wish I could contribute something to it myself. This article will most likely end up being deleted in the near future. StealthHit06 03:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that it be redirected to Broken heart (disambiguation), which should include pointers to Grief as well as Stress cardiomyopathy. Any useful content here could be merged into Grief, which is a much more encyclopedic treatment of the topic. Alternatively, the disambiguation page could be moved to Broken heart, although that would require admin intervention. -- Visviva 03:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I support your proposal, otherwise this article should just be re-written.Code E 20:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"In literature, traditional or otherwise, "dying of a broken heart" is a euphemism for suicide." This statement is false--not every character in every piece of literature who "dies of a broken heart" commits suicide. Some of them simply die because the pain is too much for them to bear. I feel that this statement should be removed from the article. Also, the medical condition should be separate from the "philosophical" section of the article. The pain of Broken Heart Syndrome is very real to the people who experience it.

LadyCygnet 05:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Love is equal to suffering In both good and bad way

A nicely balanced, honest article without the tiresome separation between male and female as though we are two different species. Well done.Lisa inCA (talk) 09:18, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whats wrong with this article? It's obvious that its an emotion felt by alot of people as real as emotions like 'I feel hungry' and anger. Just because you havent felt it doesnt mean its not true. I'm sure alot of people havent felt shit like anger and other emotions like that, but you do not dispute their existance. 140.159.2.31 01:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, what people haven't felt anger and other emotions like that?. I mean, I don't personally doubt a person can have a broken heart but that doesn't mean it does exist, only that many people seem to believe it does. It is certainly not an emotive response that every person experiences like anger, hunger, desire etc. I see no reason to disbelieve in it myself but someone else could say it was nonsense because its not a constant among humanity. It could be argued to be normal grief compounded by mental illness or what could be referered to as a fragile mind. Though of course that term is rife with the same problems. To put it in perspective you could compare it to the term soulmate. Many people believe that such a theoretical person does or could exist but that doesn't mean that it does. Again I believe it, but another person could say it was silly, that all there is is compatibility, sexual attraction, a common outlook etc.Colin 8 18:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC) Another small point, but does the term "dying of a broken heart" have to be a term for suicide?. I was under the impression that it could also refer to somebody who due to extreme grief allowed their health to fail and slowly withered away. This could be seen as suicide of course, but it is kind of distinct as apposed to active suicide.Colin 8 18:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The symptoms bit lets the article down. 81.153.12.85 12:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the objections, as the article does sound subjective and unscientific. However, I think its manner, as a whole, is just fine as is, though more input from the field of psychology would be nice. Having experienced one myself, I found this article to be both a very accurate description (including the symptoms) and oddly comforting. Heartbreak is probably still best understood and communicated by personal experiences, so there is nothing wrong with this article being based primarily on such. Having a broken heart is a very real and unique phenomenon. It is NOT the same as grief or heart stress, and though these subjects might coincide in some sitations, there is no reason to include one inside the others.(Tekito 03:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)tekito)[reply]

Many animals are reported to not suffer from any feelings of heartache or loss in that general emotional way. Yet it is widely reported and known that many humans do. I believe that this has something to do with our diminished sex drive when compared to animals. Animals basically live their lives to pass on their seed, however humans, while subconsciously living their lives for the same reason, rely on another thing to justify this sex drive. It takes many many years for a child to be able to stand no its own two feet and make its own mark in the world, and I believe that the need to love and be loved by the one who we want to pass our seed onto is because we need to trust the other person enough to stay with us while we raise the child. Thus, the feeling of love can be explained as evolution, where we want our children, our genetics to be safe with two parents. This way, we can watch over our physical exertion and raise it in the manner we see fit. I'm a 20 year old from Australia named Leigh Barlow and this is all very crude and rudimentary theories, but I hope I have shed some philosophical light on the subject of love and heart ache. 140.159.2.31 02:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This sharp divide between humans and animals does not hold water. It also takes many years for several animals to 'make their mark on the world' yet according to you they do not love, nor suffer grief nor loss. We share much more with animals than we sometimes like to think. For example, the old saying "elephants never forget" is partially true. They form deep and lasting relationships, and as well as being reported to mourn those close to them they have been reported, decades later, to return to the site where the former matriarch died when it was time for their own death.

Wireless99 (talk) 10:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the prod. I was thinking of just making this a redirect to suicide instead, but I think the concept really does deserve fuller treatment. If it is put an AfD please consider whether a redirect to a subsection of suicide covering this topic is believed appropriate.--<font face="coronet" color="#9966FF" size=3>Birgitte</font><font face="coronet" color="#CC99CC" size=3>SB</font> 17:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a notable and unique experience in the sum of humanity, both in life and literature. The topic might only seem unworthy of seperation because it has hardly been covered in this article.

• AfD votes should be directed to the AfD page. --N Shar 04:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should like to add that there is value in knowing what the phrase refers to, regardless of whether there is any evidence that the heart is actually malfunctioning. Keep it. Ooze2b 01:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)ooze2b[reply]

agreed. this is a topic that appears to be universall accurate enough, and simply requires more scientific analysis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.38.66.206 (talk) 22:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the reference to Johnny Cash, italicized as follows:

However, even in reality people die from what appears to be a broken heart. In 2003, Johnny Cash died within three months of his wife June Carter Cash. Some speculated that Cash died of a broken heart, but that was not the case. Broken heart syndrome is commonly blamed for the death of a person whose spouse is already deceased, when in fact it is sudden emotional stress that can be caused by a traumatic breakup, the death of a loved one, or even the shock of a surprise party.

Needs to be clarified. What did he die from, if not a broken heart? Who are "some"? How does this relate?? Kaelynn 23:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article should actually be added to the 'Emotions' Sidebar. it appears to have the criteria of a type of emotional psychological state, and it is definitely different from general Grief. This article accurately describes the stat of Heartbreak, and as such, It is an important Psychology reference page.

This article opens with "A broken heart (or heartbreak) is a common metaphor used to describe the intense psychological pain", but the article on psychological pain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_pain) states "Psychological pain is distinct and separate from emotional pain, which is 'heartache', or heart break"; these are clearly contradictory statements. Someone should change one of the two articles; I'd do it, but I'm a Wikipedia editing newbie and find my changes are generally rejected so I'll leave it to the experts. Vorpal22 (talk) 11:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find this section really out of place: "In conclusion, I would like to say that we are conditioned to feelings of self through others. Not a huge philosophical or psychological breakthrough, but it works. No longer should we ask the question of why, but we should look within ourselves and find out how. How did I get this way, what exists? I have learned that attachment is a deadly weapon, a curse, a social conditioning of the “happy” people. The blundered and burdened are cursed because of them. As I look back at my freshly lit new cigarette I find happiness in the death of it because I control how many drugs I take, I control the allotted time it takes for that cigarette to die. I can put it out, and save it for later, or I can take heavy drags, enjoy, and watch it die fast. Much like human life, it must die sometime. I am the maker of my world. I am the perceiver to my reality. I make my feelings come true and I give them fallacy. No longer will I pine over that girl, whether she is “perfect” or not. I will be a rock, stay strong, and paint my own world as time allows(Art Olefir). This is a an example of a philosophical view. Mainly Nagarjuna, who said that everything is made up of nothing. It is all a web of relations that we, as human beings conjure up."

lol wut? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.1.161.36 (talk) 19:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The one external link on this article doesn't seem to be relevant...I think perhaps it should be deleted, but I'm just voicing an opinion. Robert Skyhawk (Talk) 03:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anything else think the 'Symptoms' part of the article should be renamed to 'Effects of a Heartbreak', or something?

I doubt death could be described as symptom of a broken heart, and most of those things seem to be indeed effects rather than 'symptoms' which is a medical term, and, unfortunately, I doubt a 'broken heart' is universally recognised by medical figures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gajakk (talk • contribs) 00:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the symtpoms of this are very much unique to the individual. While most humans share some sort of connection in this area, especially culturally, the problem again comes down to subjective experience.

My case, for instance, is weird. Standard broken heart stuff and loneliness. When dwelling on these issues ,I'd feel rushes of pain across my chest. And I dont mean a little bit of pain; indeed, I can almost classify it as "addictive", as a distractio nfrom the mental state. But I also developed conditions of mitral valve prolapse around this same time (coincidence, have nothint odo with one another) and the feelings are so very different. With the heartbreak pain, it feels as if a crushing but formless weight taht surged across my chest, but with no further anxiety symptoms, whereas the prolapse felt like a sharp squeezing at a specific point time and again; despite being significantly "less painful" than the heartbreak pain, this prolapse pain would spark huge panic attacks; the heartbreak pain never did or does any of those things. because of stuff like this, the section must remain, unfortunately, vague. If it were not such an important part of human experience, I would advocate the removal of this article/section. However, all humans do experience this, and it has shaped our world in ways which are almost definetly not clear. 74.128.56.194 (talk) 22:00, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Has there been any studies on what happens during a broken heart, in the brain? I read in the Kissing article that scientists noticed an event in the brain in relation to lovers/affection which is similar to the effects of cocaine.

It would be interesting to know what chemicals are triggered during heart-break. I have a broken heart right now, so it would be a good time to study it. 50.47.140.236 (talk) 13:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's a bit more on neurology now, but not much on endocrinology (chemicals), if there is anyone finds further research or discussions. We shouldn't lose the cultural and literary understandings of heartbreak either though, and it would be good to cross-reference to Grief more--Cedders^tk 13:57, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also for possible inclusion there is an overlap with psychological/psychiatric themes. Not to say that the answer to Jimmy Ruffin's question is "they all end up on Prozac", but DSM-IV says (p 324) "in some cultures, depression may be experienced largely in somatic terms rather than with sadness or guilt. Complaints of... problems of the heart (in Middle Eastern cultures) or of being 'heartbroken' (among the Hopi) may express depressive experiences". Here's a PR about research linking "somatic" complaints in depression with rejection sensitivity: <http://www.medwire-news.md/56/79457/Depression/Social_rejection_linked_with_pain_in_depressed_patients_.html> According to Kellner (1973), 46% of "neurotics" report chest pain. Even more tangentially, it seems the anterior cingulate cortex is supposed to atrophy in depression, but surgically removing it is regarded as an effective treatment for depression and pain [1]. --Cedders^tk 19:58, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just finished my GA-improvement of the article in my sandbox and have implemented the whole lot. Going to nominate it for GA-status; please jump in with thoughts for improvements during the review. Cheers, Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 17:47, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I like it sweetie 47.16.161.225 (talk) 06:06, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why thank you. :) Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 15:05, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abandonment (emotional) contains concepts from The Journey from Abandonment to Healing ISBN-10: 0425172287 which would help fill in some weaknesses in this article. We should also bring in work from Rutgers University anthropologist Helen Fisher, who did brain scans on people who had just experienced romantic rejection. The Journey from Abandonment to Healing work and Helen Fisher's work is good, but probably not substantial enough at this point to warrant stand alone articles.
Wiki-psyc (talk) 22:40, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA toolbox
Copyvio detector Authorship External links
Reviewing
Templates Criteria Instructions

This review is transcluded from Talk:Broken heart/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Valereee (talk · contribs) 21:30, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'm starting this review. This will be my first GA review, so I've asked an experienced reviewer to give me some oversight/guidance. valereee (talk) 21:30, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Valereee! Thanks for taking the time to review this. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 22:51, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing, Jonas Vinther! You can call me Val and refer to me with she, her, hers. I hope we'll have a really productive review. valereee (talk) 00:37, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So do I, Val. ;) Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 11:52, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Jonas! There are a couple of close paraphrases from sources. In the section Causation/Evolution, the paragraph is pretty close to the referenced source at BPDfamily.com. Ditto in the Causation/Neurobiology section -- close paraphrasing from the source at ns.umich.edu. (If you run a copyvio package like https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/, you'll also find a site called blackhorseequestrian that has obviously copied the entire article at some point into a spam page, so you can ignore that one.) I am willing to keep reviewing, but we won't be able to pass it without fixing these two paragraphs. How would you like to proceed? valereee (talk) 13:52, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Val! Good job in spotting those copyvio's. When I started my improvement of the article, I mainly converted everything into Harv references and believe I only added the JAMA and Mayo Clinic sources. Anyway, I just got home from the longest day ever at work, but I will be sure to reformulate everything suspected of being a copyvio in the article in a few hours. I'll be sure to ping you once I'm done. Thanks again. Best, Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 16:48, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jonas, no huge hurry! Relax, have a drink bubble bath.  :) valereee (talk) 17:26, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How about a drink AND a bubble bath? ;) Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 17:53, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, Val! I have reworded both paragraphs with these two edits. Let me know if you're satisfied and ready to continue. Peace, Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 21:48, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

sciencedaily reports on

• Craig Eric Morris, Chris Reiber, Emily Roman: Quantitative Sex Differences in Response to the Dissolution of a Romantic Relationship, Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences, 13. July 2015, doi:10.1037/ebs0000054

and also on "An unexpected way to recover from a breakup"

• G. M. Larson, D. A. Sbarra: Participating in Research on Romantic Breakups Promotes Emotional Recovery via Changes in Self-Concept Clarity, Social Psychological and Personality Science, May 2015, vol. 6, no. 4, p399-406 doi:10.1177/1948550614563085

-- Cherubino (talk) 04:29, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Thanks for the links. I'm planning making a difference with this article today. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 12:04, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jonas, great! Okay, so on to the review criteria. First is well-written. I see a few issues, but those are probably easier for me to just go through and deal with instead myself rather than detailing them here so you can go make the edits, so I'm going to go ahead and do that now. valereee (talk) 09:56, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're a kind woman, Val! Let me know if I can help with anything. :) Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 11:34, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here are my questions so far:

• I've been going through the article smoothing out wording and in one case reorganizing content. I've come across a sentence that I can't interpret, and the source is not online. Here's the sentence: "The same researchers mention effect of social stressors on the heart, and personality on perception of pain." I don't know what this means. It doesn't seem to make sense grammatically, and I can't interpret what meaning it is trying to convey. valereee (talk) 11:53, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• What's the difference between Neurobiology and Neurology sections? What I mean is, isn't there significant overlap? valereee (talk) 11:53, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• This entire paragraph is sourced at the Scientific American article, and for the life of me I cannot find any of this in that article. "Researchers have found that the amount of stress is related inversely to the amount of breakup distress.[5] This is because greater distress is felt in a shorter amount of time since the breakup.[5] This is closely related to the perception of pain by how an individual can choose to feel greater distress after a breakup or look at the breakup in a positive way, which decreases their distress, but does not usually happen.[5] Studies show that the most helpful way to get over a broken heart is time and a new partner.[5] Most people look for a desirable new partner to help regulate their daily activities and mood. This is also related to the perception of pain; the individual is unable to handle their pain so they want someone else to make them feel better.[5]" Are you sure this was the article you used to source this section? valereee (talk) 11:52, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  
  

Valereee, it seems quite a few problems were introduced with Wiki-psyc's recent edits. I'll take care of these issues as best I can later as I'm able to do that now. Cheers, Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 12:44, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Scientific American Citation was added on November 3, 2011. This disqualification is not related to any edit of Wiki-psyc whos involvement started in August 2015. [diff #458804183]
Wiki-psyc (talk) 19:12, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article centers on the clinical aspects of a broken heart ranging from the most common ( uncomplicated grieving) to the very rare (broken heart syndrome/Takotsubo cardiomyopathy).

Missing from this range are the intermediate points of depression and emotional trauma. The most significant clinical consideration of a broken heart is acute depression. The most common reason individuals seek therapy is a broken heart.
Wiki-psyc (talk) 14:21, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bereavement means a period of mourning after a death [Merriam Webster].

Grieving is the broader and more conventional term covering broken relationship, family deaths, loss of pets. We generally don't bereave our high school sweetheart.

Additionally, researchers have suggested that the term bereavement be used to refer to the fact of the loss; the term grief should then be used to describe the emotional, cognitive, functional and behavioral responses to the death. What is described under the heading of bereavement are aspects of the latter.
see:
|last1=Zisooki|first1=Sidney|last2=Shear|first2=Katherine
|title=Grief and bereavement: what psychiatrists need to know
|journal=World Psychiatry|date=2009 Jun|volume=8|issue=2|page=67–74

The subhead should be changed to Uncomplicated grief or Grief (uncomplicated) .

I'd also suggest making it part of the psychology section. Wiki-psyc (talk) 16:35, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the following her from the reference section. I'm not sure where it should be, but it shouldn't be there.
Tali Bashour was the first doctor to write and publish about this syndrome calling it the "broken heart syndrome". He was published on 4 February 1994, in the ''[[San Francisco Independent]]'' and in the summer of that same year in the newspaper ''Health Scene'' discussing and naming it such. Bashour also wrote and published the book, ''The Broken Heart'' in 2011.{{Citation needed |date=June 2022}} -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:19, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]