Talk:Kama Sutra

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Kama Sutra article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
More information about this article... ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

	Kama Sutra is part of WikiProject Sexuality, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of human sexuality. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Contents 1 "Hello" 2 "Featured Article Candidate" status 3 Divinity of the text 3.1 2004 3.2 2006 4 anthropology pleeeze! 5 sexual content warning message? 6 How many chapters 7 It explains a book? 8 Role of the Kama Sutra in Hinduism? 9 Do we need this link? 10 External links 11 Chapter titles can be removed

[edit] "Hello"

Hi everyone. Cool page. Am using it to help write a talk. Thanks. I made some edits today and would like to make more if I have time. Hopefully I can convince my fiancee who is much more qualified to do the same. The page has some nice stuff on it but is I would say still at around B quality b/c there are a lot of POV problems (I fixed some up in the first paragraph) and the informtion is inconsistent. Thanks for having me and hope I can help. Isouweine 02:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)Isaac

[edit] "Featured Article Candidate" status

(The original poster left no headline. I made up one. --Netizen 11:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)) Oops! I couldn't understand, how this could be FAC...--Rrjanbiah 04:57, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What do you mean? --ganesh 15:46, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I meant that this article is not complete enough to get featured status. Also, no one did nominate it. --Rrjanbiah 04:09, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Divinity of the text

(The original poster left no headline. I made up one. --Netizen 11:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC))

[edit] 2004

Okkey... I have a problem with the first line itself. Kama Sutra in *not* a sacred text. I want to change that. any objections? Spundun 00:23, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

okkey.. I could find any good source which said kama sutra is sacred.. so I am deleting that part. Ofcourse in the text itself vatsyayan says that love and love making is sacred but that doesnt make it a sacred text. he is not (imho) authority on spirituality. Spundun 02:40, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It is considered to be sacred atleast in India. There is a temple, in konark, dedicated to Kamasutra. --ganesh 15:49, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The temple in konark is a temple of sun with a lot of sculptures of sexual positions on the walls of it. Btw I found this very interesting link on the sculptures.. its a bit depressing though :).

The scope of the word sacred can be debated.... but I think kama sutra doesnt go with geeta, ramayan, mahabharat, bhagwat, upnishads etc. Just like I wouldn't call the text of ayurved as a sacred text either(though its definately ancient.)

Btw for the record I am a hindu/Indian. Although I will have to admit that I didnt know that kama sutra talked about sex as a divine ritual. :)

Regards -- Spundun 03:17, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Let's replace sacred with divine. BTW, till last week the introduction paragraph gave me a feeling as if Burton wrote Sutra. There was only an ephemeral reference to India, Vatsyayana and Sanskrit. This gave me a feeling that no one from India had ever edited!--ganesh 22:02, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

whoa!!... divine is way off.... according to webster: definition: of, relating to, or proceeding directly from God or a god.......this is even worse than sacred. i suggest that we take out divine from that place. Later in the article it is stated that vatsyayan describes sex as a sacred ritual. That should be good enough to convey the information. People can then decide how they want to see that. Ofcourse all of above is my humble opinion.. you can get more people (indian or not) in this discussion for more opinions. oh, and you are right.... I just started using wikipedia recently... only a week or so back I saw the article for the first time. -- Spundun 08:27, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] 2006

Listen, the whole origin of Sutra is wrong. There is no sacred nor divine references in it, nor any attributed to Shiva. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.103.127.252 (talk • contribs).

Please read the article more carefully. The article says the earliest text of the Kama Shastra tradition is attributed to Nandi. No one ever said it is attributed to Shiva. --BorgQueen 20:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

== Unavailibility of "Kama Shastra" == (The original poster left no headline. I made up one. --Netizen 11:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)) could maybe mention that Kama Shastra is not available? mostly due to its size, probably, but i couldnt confirm.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.110.149.157 (talk • contribs) 04:53, 6 December 2005. (See diff) Thats right ..I have the original sanskrit version of kama-sutra..The sanskrit shlokas and all such stuff...Kama sutra is not just about *positions* , but rather it tells about fulfilling one of the 4 duties of a man ( artha,KAMA,moksha,dana)Kama...

[edit] anthropology pleeeze!

can we invite someone from anthropology pages to write/add some context?! Autumnleaf 16:29, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] sexual content warning message?

Although I found this article to be very informative, I think it would be appropriate to place some sort of warning message about the sexual nature of the material. Particularly the image titled , "Anonymous artist from Rajahstan around 1950 Oil on cardboard 12 x 18 cm". I do not believe that image is appropriate for ALL ages. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.36.67.128 (talk • contribs) .

Then you will be shocked by Bondage (BDSM). How about Prince Albert piercing? Wikipedia is not censored for minors. However, if you are serious about your idea I suggest you discuss it on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). --BorgQueen 19:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How many chapters

The burton edition has 36 chapters but this includes an introduction which I think is by Burton and not part of the original text. I may be mistaken. How many chapters do other translations have? I only have the Burton/Arbuthnot translation. --Richard Clegg 21:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I have the Danielou traslation, and it has 36 chapters including the introduction chapter, but it is clearly of the original document, not Danielou's - since he lists his own introduction separately. --BorgQueen 21:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks, I just wanted to be sure. --Richard Clegg 22:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] It explains a book?

It is not a book name. This page must be "kamasutra (book)".

[edit] Role of the Kama Sutra in Hinduism?

Is it a Hindu text? Is it accepted or marginal within Hinduism? The Vātsyāyana page describes him as belonging to the Carvaka school, which is contrasted to Hinduism. This is at odds with decsriptions elsewhere on the web. Any thoughts appreciated. ntennis 00:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Do we need this link?

I'd like to gather consensus about the site "sekspozi.hit.bg". Do we really need this kind of external link? Kama Sutra is not only about the "positions", and we already have more than enough on the topic in the external link section. Besides, I don't think the site contributes much on it anyway. --BorgQueen 13:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I just had a request to restore it but will wait for consensus on here first. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 10:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

You mean this link. It gives different features - animated sex scences, instead of the slide show of still images of clothes models. Slightly more intriguing. --BorgQueen 10:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

sekspozi.hit.bg also is interesing site, but ... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.25.37.111 (talk) 10:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

Being an interesting site alone does not qualify it to be included here, nor is being relevant to the article topic. The question we need to ask is that 'does this article truly need it?'. --BorgQueen 10:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Please, make the difference between "sekspozi.hit.bg" and "kamasutraposes.hit.bg" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.25.37.111 (talk) 12:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

Yes, I am fully aware of the difference; that is why I presented the link to the latter and commented "Slightly more intriguing". Why do you think the link should be included in the article, by the way? I may be persuaded if you give a good reason. --BorgQueen 14:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

So, what is the conclusion? If you want add both link, some section have more than 15-20 external link ... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.25.37.111 (talk • contribs).

I am against adding the links for now, unless someone gives a good reasoning. --BorgQueen 15:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, some good reason: Many people when search information about Kama Sutra, want to see something practice. Both links do right that, give the easy and fast information to people. I think Wikipedia is created for this, to give and share information in many forms. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.58.205.55 (talk) 18:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

But we already have other links giving information about the "positions" in the external link section. Do you think the links you were trying to add are better than those already exist in the section? If you do, perhaps it would be a good idea to remove some of them and add "kamasutraposes.hit.bg". --BorgQueen 12:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

There are not "better" but is different and more "clearly". I can't found where is the problem to add this link? Let the people decide. The images from "kamasutraposes.hit.bg", are much pretty from "users.forthnet.gr/ath/nektar/kma/main.htm"(this is my prefer). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.58.205.55 (talk • contribs) 16:43, 20 February 2007.

Ok, the link has been added, replacing "users.forthnet.gr/ath/nektar/kma/main.htm". I am fairly certain someone will complain about the new link, calling it "pornographic" though. --BorgQueen 17:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I now have a question to 80.58.205.55's last comment about them being from "users.forthnet.gr/ath/nektar/kma/main.htm". Do you mean the pictures are taken from that site or they are created using the position descriptions at the site? CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 20:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

No, my guess is that he is not a native English speaker and meant to say "are much prettier than". --BorgQueen 02:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

For some reason when I read it yesterday my mind automatically reversed "much" and "pretty". CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 23:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External links

Why they was removed from Buddhipriya ?!? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Soneko (talk • contribs) 18:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC).

Please review Wikipedia policy on external links. Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, the external links you added do not comply with our guidelines for external links. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. The sites you linked to appear to be advertising sites designed to attract adolescents by displaying pictures of sexual activity. In addition to being link spam, they also fail to meet the test for reliable souces, showing no citations as to how the content oof the web site is an authentic version of the Hindu text that is the subject of this article. Buddhipriya 19:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, you need to remove about 99% "External links" from Wikipedia, because there are "advertising or promotion". Good luck!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Soneko (talk • contribs) 20:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC).

Yes, there is much abuse of Wikipedia in this way. I encourage all editors to participate in the removal of linkspam whenever they see it. For pages that get frequent linkspam, consider addition of the linkspam warning to the links section, as I have done with this page. Buddhipriya 20:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

So, this link (The Kamasutra and Its Interpretations - Photos of sculptures and arts with interpretations) is not in this category "advertising or promotion"??? You must be joking ... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Soneko (talk • contribs) 20:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC).

I would support removing it as well, but for that site there is some redeeming value in that photographs of archeological sites are shown, not computer graphics. When doing spam removal often deleting one thing begins to raise the bar for other links. By all means remove it if you think it is best to do so, with a note in your edit record suggesting that the issue be taken up on the talk page. Links may fail to meet tests for reliable sourcing, excessive advertising, or many other reasons. For more spam fighting tips see WikiProjectSpam. Buddhipriya 20:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chapter titles can be removed

The inclusion of chapter titles is unnecessary because the entire English tranlation is available as a link at the bottom of the page. The chapter titles do not correspond to Burton's translation and thus are not supported by WP:RS. Many of the individual chapter titles seem to invite vandalism edits by adolescents,a and removing them will reduce vandalism. Also, the practice of giving this level of detail for the contents of books is not consistent with Wiki practice for most other books. There is more detail on this book than we have for the Rig Veda, for example. There is a disproportionate focus by the vandals on these details. Buddhipriya 21:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why not. --BorgQueen 21:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I was asked for my opinion but I really just tidy stuff up and remove vandalism. However, if after 4 days no one has objected then I say go for it. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 21:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, I will remove the chapter titles and check the remaining section titles against the Burton translation. Buddhipriya 21:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I looked in the edit history and I have not edited that article recently. I don't know much about Kama Sutra and would only edit such an article if I saw obvious spam. But I would agree with the post above that says if no one objects, remove them. It sounds like you have a good reason for doing so. Sincerely, Mattisse 21:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)