This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
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.
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2018 and 17 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Assigned student editor(s): S.glo1, Jameilla.
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. NiciVampireHeart 17:01, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. --Danski454 (talk) 10:47, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not censored, and I think that sexual act image would complete the article's coverage. So that's why I added the template in my past edit to this talkpage. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 23:57, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Qwertyxp2000, WP:Not censored does not mean that we unnecessarily add sexual images. There is no need whatsoever for a sexual act image to be in this article, especially for the lead. Read WP:GRATUITOUS. The absence of a sexual act image does not at all decrease readers' understanding of the topic of love. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:23, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
As for this and this image currently in the article, their inclusion is fine, in my opinion. But are they needed? I would say no. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:39, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
I would seriously agree with the statement that the sex image isn't at all necessary. I suppose that they aren't even necessary to make it complete so I reckon it should be removed altogether. Not that I'm saying that it should be "obscene" to put in sexual acts in the article, but I suppose it just isn't vital nor necessary to complete the article. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 21:23, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Strangely, I noticed the Indian section of the article, but it seems that it does illustrate a "love" in terms of sexual love, but I deem it unnecessary for the completeness of the article. I even think this article can still be complete if the image weren't even included. What do you reckon about the inclusion of the image? Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 21:26, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Wait... So you said their inclusion is fine but not needed. And WP:NOTCENSORED also means not add unnecessary sexual images. I don't see a necessity of applying this image if it isn't even the subject of the article. In my opinion, I think these images should be removed from this article and perhaps be put into a different more appropriate place, such as the sexual love article. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 21:29, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Qwertyxp2000, I was simply letting you know that sexual images do not automatically get protection from exclusion. The Human sexual activity article (what you call the Sexual love article) already has enough sexual images. Furthermore, since love can also be sexual love, the "sexual love" term should redirect to this article or to the Intimate relationship article, or even to the Romance (love) article. The India section states, in part, "Kama in Indian literature means 'desire, wish or longing'. In contemporary literature, kama refers usually to sexual desire. However, the term also refers to any sensory enjoyment, emotional attraction and aesthetic pleasure such as from arts, dance, music, painting, sculpture and nature." So that seems why that image was added. The image is not off-topic in that sense. I don't care if either image stays or goes. I made my initial above comment before looking at the two images. I was under the impression that you felt that people can just come in and add sexual images to the article and that those images get to stay because of WP:NOTCENSORED. So my initial commentary was to clear that up. As for this, there is no need to ping me to this page since this article/talk page is on my watchlist. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:25, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Loev (film) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 05:02, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 16 November 2018
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. --Bsherr (talk) 12:46, 16 November 2018 (UTC)