Talk:Kama Sutra/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Featured article?

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)
{{FAC}} template removed 17:32, 12 July 2004 (UTC) by Chocolateboy.
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)

Not sacred text

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 [not] 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)

Listen, the whole origin of Sutra is wrong. There is no sacred nor divine references in it, nor any attributed to Shiva. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.103.127.252 (talk • contribs) 01:06, 26 March 2006

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 20:42-20:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

anthropology pleeeze!

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

Kama shastra not available?

could maybe mention that Kama Shastra is not available? mostly due to its size, probably, but i couldnt confirm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.110.149.157 (talk • contribs) 04:53, 6 December 2005

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.36.67.128 (talk • contribs) 19:40, 2 February 2006

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 19:55-20:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

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 translation, 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)

Not just positions

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... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.214.40.2 (talk • contribs) 06:29, 21 May 2006

It explains a book?

It is not a book name. This page must be "kamasutra (book)". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.102.50.215 (talk • contribs) 17:27, 24 June 2006

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)

"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

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 ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.25.37.111 (talk • contribs) 10:14, 19 February 2007
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" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.25.37.111 (talk • contribs) 12:06, 19 February 2007
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 ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.25.37.111 (talk • contribs) 15:19, 19 February 2007

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.58.205.55 (talk • contribs) 18:27, 19 February 2007
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). —Preceding unsigned comment 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)

External links

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

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 nofollow 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!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2007 Soneko (talk • contribs) 20:25, 26 February
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 ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2007 Soneko (talk • contribs) 20:35, 26 February
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)

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)

Fair use rationale for Image:Kama Sutra 2.jpg

Image:Kama Sutra 2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

For Buddhipriya, about Note 2

Hi, the point about Nandi as doorkeeper overhearing the lovemaking of Siva and Parvati and being moved to utter slokas first occurs in the 1980 translation of Sinha, rather than the 1993 Danielou translation. It therefore seems right to quote the 1980 translation as the earliest available English source for this tradition, which is nowhere mentioned in Burton-Arbuthnot. Burton merely records Nandi as the origin of the teachings.

On a more general point I feel that the article as a whole hardly begins to do justice to the text and needs a major rewrite deeply sourced in the original sanskrit. I am willing to collaborate with others on this task... it's also amazing to see how much upkeep this page needs to restore it against vandals. I haven't left a note before, so hope I am doing it right. Khuda hafez. Rivergod 23:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for contributing here. If multiple sources exist that make the same point, it is best to cite both of them, rather than remove citations. The strongest method is to use inline citations (see: WP:CITE) that specifically explain what point is being cited by what source. If we try to enforce that approach, gradually the article can improve. I recommend that you use the talk page prior to making major changes. Small incremental changes are more likely to remain rather than big group edits. As you mention, this article has a constant stream of vandalism and nonsense, so one priority is just to prevent nonsense additons. If there are specific points you want to work on first, don't hesitate to raise them on the talk page, placing your comments at the bottom of the page.
FYI, I object to the structural changes to the article which added in a section for the "sex manual" issue. We went to quite a bit of work prior to this to tone down the sex issues in the article and I think this moves it in the wrong direction. I would like to see the previous structure restored pending more agreement on approach. Buddhipriya 23:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Can you please stop blanking sections that are fact tagged? This is a encyclopaedia. The existence of a fact tag implies that the section needs more supporting evidence. It does not matter how long the tag stays there in the article. Anwar 11:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but please read Wikipedia:Verifiability which says that "Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources. Editors adding or restoring material that has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, or quotations, must provide a reliable published source, or the material may be removed." There is no requirement to allow unsourced material to remain in articles, particularly after it was previously fact tagged for quite some time with absolutely no response from any editor. Buddhipriya 17:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Buddhipriya, I appreciate all the work that you and the others have done on this article over a very long time. In future I'll chat here before making edits. On the Nandi point above, could we then make the multiple citation as it seems right to include the earliest example? I'll prepare some ideas for inclusion in the article and publish them on this page first for everyone to discuss. I agree with you about the sex manual point, there are many interesting things in the non-sexual sections that could perhaps be illustrated, so visually reinforcing the point, I am thinking of the sixty four non sexual arts, children's games, instructions on what to grow in the garden, etc. I could probably find some images and get permission from their owners. Editions of the KS illustrated with Indian miniatures have relied very heavily on Lance Dane's collection. Has anyone any news of Lance? I have not heard from him in years. Rivergod 14:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Indian Tradition vs Vatsyayana - Pleasure and the spiritual life

The four great aims of spiritual life (Kama, Artha, Dharma, and Moksha) existed well before Vatsyayana, and have thus been credited to Indian tradition.

Also, a better translation for 'Kama' would be 'Gratification of the Senses' that I had initially posted, rather than merely "pleasure" as has been changed since. Any opnions?

seema 09:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Seema, may I suggest we say that "Vatsyayana affirms the four great aims of spiritual life" in order to tie the discussion to the text?
On your other point, you're quite right, "kama" means the enjoyment of all the senses and not merely sexual pleasure. However "gratification of the senses" sounds to me rather old fashioned. We mean "sensory pleasures", but that may be too easily confused with "sensual pleasures". "Pleasures of the senses" or "enjoyment of the senses" perhaps? It's a hard one. Rivergod 14:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
The definition of kama in the article now is sourced by: Arthur Anthony Macdonell. A Practical Sanskrit Dictionary. p. 66. Please do not edit the text without discussing what WP:RS you think should be added to the one that is currently there. Regarding the four goals, I agree that they are more general than the attribution to Vatsyayana. This can easily be sourced. Buddhipriya 18:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I am moving a discussion that has been taking place on Buddhipriya's talk page to here, where it belongs. This is at the suggestion of Buddhipriya so that other editors can discuss it if they wish to.
QUOTE:
In response to your post, I had earlier sourced the above section in its enirety from exoticindiaart.com. I realize that the text has since been altered completely, however, the title remains the same (Pleasure and the spiritual life). I am afraid I am not authorized to reproduce text from the website without acknowledgment of the source - without which it becomes a copyright violation. Since you have been active on this subject and article, I request you to either restore the credit to source or remove/alter the header (Pleasure and the spiritual life).
I had introduced this section since it places Kama Sutra in the correct perspective - as the general perception links it entirely to erotica, unfortunately.
Thanks,
seema 11:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
exoticindiaart.com is a website selling erotic art. Its Kama Sutra related merchandise can be referenced from [search link]
I have no wish to offend anyone, so I'll leave it for others to discuss whether it is an appropriate source of information, and whether it could be considered an authoritative source. Rivergod 11:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I consider that to be a spam website and will probably object to insertion of any new links to it. I would like to recommend that people use books as sources. It would be best if further discussion on this matter take place on the talk page for the article so all editors can chime in. Buddhipriya 03:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
UNQUOTE

The illustrated link to what I also think is an unsuitable site to use as a source is no longer live. Rivergod 13:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I found the following reference to exoticindiaart.com on the wikipedia spam project discussion:
QUOTE
  • exoticindiaart.com - basically selling crafts
I checked out many of these links and they seem to be legitimate references, not spam or even hawking anything. DUBJAY04 19:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep going down the list. The last 40 or 50 of the 138 entries are products/items for sale (sometimes sold). But many of the pages on this site have been linked to from 5 or 6 wikipedia pages. With 138 different links to this site, my AGF exhausts. Regards, Ben Aveling 21:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
UNQUOTE
Rivergod 00:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Quiet opposite to Indian tradition, this article wrongly says "Indian tradition includes following the "four main goals of life",[12][13] known as the purusharthas:[14] 1). Dharma: Virtuous living. 2). Artha: Material prosperity. 3). Kama: Aesthetic and erotic pleasure.[15][16] 4). Moksha: Liberation." citing Hopkins and others. You ask most Indians and they will tell you the first 3 are total opposites of Indian traditions, Hinduism and what is taught in India. What is worst, is the citations are mainly of Western authors. Who knows Indian traditions better, an Indian or Mr. Hopkins? In Temples across India, people are taught to denounce pleasure, sexual pleasure, material gains and take part in meditation, but Mr. Hopkins decides to talk about some rare invaluable unheard of Indian traditions? It's like me saying in Jewish traditions they love to have sex with 3 year olds as it states in the Talmud. Sexual energy is considered the lowest of the lowest energy a human being can give off in Hinduism and certainly, illicit sex is the most denounced pleasure in Indian tradition and Hinduism. And second of all, as an Indian, you are welcome to go to India and ask about Kama Sutra, half wouldn't know what your talking about, some will tell you its a bad and denounced script of adulterers in the past, and most will tell you that Kama Sutra has nothing to do with Indian traditions. You will always find prostitutes, and sex-maniacs, even in the heavily Islamic country of Saudi Arabia, but that is far from generalizing such behavior as someones culture. Does Freud's irrational obsurd theories mean that European traditions reflect his views? Kama Sutra has been the most insignificant script in Indian and Hindu culture and history, untouched, unwanted, disliked, until some Western Jew managed to find it, and turn it into a multi-million dollar business. By NO MEANS is that "Indian tradition", and I'm sure many Indians including my self are offended by such generalizations made by Westerners. --78.86.117.164 20:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions for external links

Suggestions for external links: <spam removed> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.228.248.102 (talk • contribs) 11:30, June 10, 2007 (UTC)

Amazing, the endless human fascination with the sexual act. I think somewhere there is a pop-up Kama Sutra in book form. Maybe there should be a Wikipedia page for bizarre spin-offs from the Kama Sutra. Rivergod 14:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
This is an example of linkspam inserted on a talk page. I am going to modify the links so they do not result in clickable links. I think this spam should be completely removed and request other editors to do so if they agree. Please consider joining Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam to help with fighting linkspam of this type. Buddhipriya 18:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I removed the links above. Even listing them on the talk page can be considered spam. Adding those links here means they are still being advertised, though less overtly. GizzaDiscuss © 08:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Hive off a separate article about the Kama Sutra spin-off industry

The Kama Sutra has spawned a whole kitsch industry, witness the hundreds of titles available on Amazon and the endless bizarre and lame websites with poses, paintings, sculptures, videos, animations... Why human beings are so obsessed with sex beats me, but the evidence is there. So why not have a separate article to cover this phenomenon? Then this article could confine itself to Vatsyayana's text and translations and all the people with erotic websites and the like could find a happy home elsewhere.Rivergod 13:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Pictures

The Kama Sutra is famous for its graphic depiction of a wide range of sexual images. Can someone please add some of the original images to this page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.203.235.207 (talk • contribs) 09:53, 10 July 2007

You missed three words after famous (in the West) and mistakingly added an extra word before description (graphic). There aren't pictures in the Kama Sutra. Nor it is primarily a pornographical treatise. It is about kāma, which translates as love or desire. And one and only one aspect of love is sexual pleasure, which is the part Burton was most obsessed with. GizzaDiscuss © 10:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
There are no pictures in the Kama Sutra? Then why does this page link to the images on wikimedia? I've added a couple to the article itself, because I was expecting them to be here. If I'm wrong and there are no images, then please revert. 172.203.235.207 10:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay, there were no pictures in the original Kama Sutra, similar to how there are no pictures in novels like Harry Potter. These paintings came afterwards, they weren't made at the time the Kama Sutra was written. That doesn't mean we can't have images. We should however clarify this point. For example, rather than saying "Typical image from KS," it is better to say "Graphic representation of one of the sexual techniques in the KS, painted in the 1?th century." I don't think there were any pictures of Jesus in the original Bible (there still aren't any) but I've bet you've seen a painting of Jesus. It is comparable to that. GizzaDiscuss © 22:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
The fascination with sexual activity is apparent. This is an example of giving undue weight to the small portion of the Kama Sutra that pertains to sexual matters. As Gizza points out, the Kama Sutra is not an illustrated work. Buddhipriya 23:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Would be nice if the article explained that, I imagine it's a common misconception. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.159.69.47 (talk • contribs) 10:55, 12 July 2007

Some manuscripts of Kamasutram were illustrated. I have seen an Oriya palm leaf version in the Oriental Reading Room at the British Library. This of course would have been far later than the original, but as no contemporary manuscripts survive it is impossible to say whether the earliest versions of the text in its present form were or were not illustrated. The descriptions of standing postures as "chitraratha" suggests that such poses were used in art, or at least sculpture. Also, while I agree that the whole of Kamasutram does not pertain to narrowly sexual matters, the sexual content, seen as a crucial part of marriage, is clearly the heart of the treatise. The book attempts to describe and explain the whole relationship between a man and woman who are or could be, sexual partners. There is nothing about motherhood, children or other family matters. The man is not counselled in how to deal with his mother in law, or elderly female relatives. Even love, as understood in the west, is absent. There is nothing remotely sacred about the text and given some of its manipulative and immoral instructions and recommendations, it cannot be called spiritual. Like the Arthashastra (and like Machiavelli) it assumes that the end justifies the means. As instruction it is pedantic to the extreme. One has only to compare Ovid to see how banal and insipid are Vatsyayana's sutras. Nevertheless it is an interesting and quaint old text, of which I am thoroughly fond. It is a real pity that it has to be the subject of a tug of war between those who want it to be an ancient sex manual and those who want it to be spiritual. No one it seems is willing to allow it to be what it actually is. The result is a poor article that exemplifies the weakness of the Wikipedia method. Rivergod 14:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not think there is anything "sacred" about the text, which is classified among the group of Indian literature that pertains to mundane matters. As the article explains, sexual content is only a small part of the work, but many people are fascinated by that aspect. People can find pictures of sexual activity elsewhere, they do not need to see them here. Buddhipriya 04:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh I thoroughly agree with you. Kama Sutra mania has spawned a vast industry of culturally-sanitised pornography which I've suggested elsewhere should have its own page as an interesting phenomenon, rather than intrude here. Rivergod 07:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Kama sutra is really good, nothing mania etc, it deserves what it gets. Maybe you haven't read properly. Lara_bran 04:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Reversion of sexual details

I have reverted the attempt to get sexual detail into this article, but the editor is engaging in revert warring. Over the past several months we have systematically cleaned this article up and gotten a more balanced version of the article. I ask for other editors to review these edits and decide if they want this type of unsourced detaill in or out. We have discussed the issue of WP:UNDUE attention on the sexual content many times before, but this editor seems determined to return the article to a list of sexual activities. Buddhipriya 05:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

This is not unsourced. I will give inline sources, wait. Lara_bran 05:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Very obviously part 2 of kama sutra has most weight in today's context. article is not "history of kamasutra". Other parts have that times(BC) social structure, like prostitution, his views of even acquiring wife also depends on his times social structure. Lara_bran 05:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
The point is not about sourcing, it is about giving undue weight to the sexual content. Your personal assessment of what is most important about his work constitutes WP:OR. This is an article about a work of Sanskrit literature that has a small amount of sexual content in it. If you read the article you will see that the issue of the Western fascination with sex is specifically mentioned as a problem in the way the work is viewed. Your edit comment that I "will win in 3RR" implies that you expect that I will again revert you today, which I will not do. I want other editors to comment on this. Please stop engaging in edit wars and discuss the merits of the issue on the talk page. Please read WP:CON.
Here is an example of another edit by this editor in which the Kama Sutra is being used as a reference: [1]. I request that other editors please examine the edit history for User:Lara bran. 06:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
[block log for User:Lara Bran]
Please dont get personal. even your earlier comment was personal("you are very interested in sexual issues, and edit many articles on sexual matters"), but i left as it is, but even your second comment is personal. i live with my interest, you are welcome to my talk page for my interest, but this is not the place. Lara_bran 06:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry that you don't agree that this review of your edit patterns is relevant. It is part of the recommended procedures for Wikipedia:Recent changes patrol when dealing with apparent vandalism: "Look out for vandalism, and revert it. It is often worthwhile to check the page history after reverting to make sure you have removed all the vandalism. Also, check the user contributions of the vandal - you will often find more malicious edits." I consider your edits here to be vandalism, since they are being done with no consensus and despite months of prior discussion on these issues. You can expect that other editors will examine your edit history in such cases, since it is part of the standard operating procedure for dealing with this type of situation where an editor acts with no consensus and despite opposition. Buddhipriya 06:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it may useful for all of us to take a step back, take a deep breath and then resume discussion on the merits of the recent content addition (instead of editor conduct), while assuming good faith. I have not read through the article and therefore don't have concrete views to offer on the subject yet - but can we all agree to discuss any (significant) proposed addition to the article here on the talk page, before implementing it in article space since clearly there are differing views on the topic ? Abecedare 07:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Your proposal to examine significant new content edits on the talk page prior to implementation is exactly what I have been asking for. If you examine the edit history for the article you will find that over the past several months the sort of sexual detail that has now been forced back into it despite opposition is exactly what was removed, with extensive discussion, in prior editing rounds. The goal of the edit process for this article for months has been to rescue it from being a list of sexual details. I request that the new material be removed pending some WP:CON regarding whether or not we want this article to return to what it was in January. Buddhipriya 07:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Changed structure

I changed structure to make table which looks neat. This table gives good idea and overall view of kama sutra. Please dont delete sourced content that is essential. Give a look now, this should be ok for all. The table needs to be wikified with wikilinking to appropriate articles. Thanks. Lara_bran 15:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted this undiscussed change. The Burton translation that you are relying on is worthless. The problems with it are specifically discussed in the article, with citations. Burton's fascination with sex was one of the reasons why this work came to be mis-characterized as a sex manual. Please read the article which discusses this problem:

Historian Burjor Avari has criticized Burton's translation as "inadequate", resulting in the book gaining the reputation in the West of being a pornographic work.[1]

Any extensive use of Burton here simply carries on the same problem as his translation in print form. Also, there is simply no need for this level of detail about this book. There has been a long history of sexual vandalism on this article, and adding all of this detail in will get us back to that. Now you are proposing links to various articles on sex acts? You continue to force these changes upon the article with no cosensus and with no attempt to build consensus. Also please read What Wikipedia is not, which explains that the purpose of articles on books is not to give plot summaries or detailed replications of tables of contents. It is to give sourced analysis of books, which is what the article was doing prior to these changes. On this talk page you can read the prior discussion that took place when anothe list of chapter titles was removed from the article, with consensus at that time: [2]. So until now the consensus was that the chapter titles should not be in the article.
Another editor has asked that major changes like this be discussed on the talk page prior to implementation. I think that would be a good idea. Again, please read [WP:CON]] and stop forcing this material on others. Buddhipriya 17:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
How contents are structured is independent of translator. It is very essential to get the idea of content of the book. I have put it in a table which is very neat. I saw history of article, you manipulated a lot, i see no consensus on talk page here. It is clearly agenda against kama sutra itself, a book on sexual activities, you say it has less sexual content in it. Let people go through and learn what the book is about. Thanks Lara_bran 03:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I have removed a sentence that was WP:OR, i dinno who had added that statement.. that is WP:SYN(section of WP:OR). Thanks. Lara_bran 05:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Have you read the prior discussion on this talk page from the time when the chapter detail was removed from the article with the consensus of three other editors? You persist in forcing this material into the article but you still have not shown any consensus for making this major structural change, using a translation that is unreliable. If people want to read this detail they can get it by following the link to the entire Burton translation that is in the EL section. Buddhipriya 06:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I dont understand why do you revert, and why dont you leave it for a third user to revert? Where was consent please show me. Is this you are talking about? #Chapter_titles_can_be_removed? How this is consensus, all editors told they have no idea. Consensus can and has changed by now, you cant cling by old consensus. I will be restoring if nobody other than user:Buddhipriya has objected. Lara_bran 07:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
The point is that this type of detail was previously removed through an orderly process of asking in advance, and three editors agreed that it could be removed at that time. No one argued to keep it. You are forcing this material back in with absolutely no consensus. Please stop adding it and see if you can get any support for your position from someone else. You are acting unilaterally to overturn a stable article that reached this state as a result of a cleanup effort. Please read WP:CON and stop edit warring on the article itself. Buddhipriya 07:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I have restored as you are the only user objecting. Lara_bran 07:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
If you are restoring back please take care not to include that unreferenced OR sentence. Clear vandalism using wikilawering(see this, see that, read this, please read that) is seen here. Lara_bran 07:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
You are persisting in your edit war despite this request from another edtior who is agreeing with my request that the material be discussed on the talk page since it is clear that there is no consensus for addition: [3]. Do you really think that edit warring is consistent with Wikipedia policy? You are the one who is overturning the prior consensus as demonstrated by the fact that this article was quite stable after the material was previously removed. I have no objection to removal of the sentence that is unsourced that you think is WP:OR. I would prefer that you remove your chapter material that is contested, and the sentence, but if you do not do so, I will. Buddhipriya 07:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
OK, i will add back after 2 days if no other user objects. Removing that sentence and removing "my" content are contested under different issues, namely WP:OR and WP:UNDUE, not same as you told. Lara_bran 07:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  1. Earlier chapters were under subsection and not properly organised, now that problem is solved by a table. Subsections appeared haphazard and chapter 1 etc were shown in contents(TOC) in top. Now that is solved.
  2. Article needs expansion.
  3. Chapter names give good idea of what kama sutra is all about. Otherwise we have to describe in our own words what kama sutra is about, and weightage etc.

Under the above said points i will ask for reinsert of chapter titles. Lara_bran 07:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

You have not addressed any of the substantive objections I have raised, so I will list them again:
1 Over the past several months we have systematically cleaned this article up. Removal of the chapter subsecion detail was part of that process. The chapter titles were kept, but the section detail was removed. Three editors agreed to that removal, and no one argued for it to be in. After the removal the article remained very stable, showing that the removal was not objected to. Thus the manifest consensus prior to your edits was to not have the section detail you are inserting.
2 One reason for removal of the section detail was to reduce the level of sexual vandalism the article was getting. When the detail was in, it got very frequent malicious vandalism with a constant stream of sexual remarks that required constant reversions. After the section details were removed the level of vandalism dropped to much lower levels. If the section detail is reinserted, we can expect the sexual vandalism to return to prior levels.
3 Your initial effort was just to insert the sexual material. You then included all of the chapter detail only after WP:UNDUE was raised due to your exclusive focus on the sexual content. You have declared that your next step will be to expand the emphasis on the sexual content by adding various Wikilinks to specific sex acts. That will further increase the vandalism control problem by making the article even more of a sex tour.
4 The Burton translation that you are relying on is unreliable, as is documented in the article itself. Burton's fascination with sex was one of the reasons why this work came to be mis-characterized as a sex manual. Any section titles based on him are dubious.
5 If people want to get read the details they can follow the link to the complete Burton translation in the EL section.
6 There is simply no need for this level of detail about this book. We already list the chapters. You are adding details of sections within chapters. Please read What Wikipedia is not, which explains that the purpose of articles on books is not to give plot summaries or detailed replications of tables of contents. It is to give sourced analysis of books, which is what the article was doing prior to your changes.
7 A second editor agrees with my request that the material be discussed on the talk page prior to insertion since it is clear that there is no consensus for addition: [4].
8 Please read WP:CON. If you are unable to show consensus for your position prior to re-adding the material you will be engaged in edit warring. Buddhipriya 08:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Answering your queries:
1. My point 1 is answer to your this point. Earlier content was not organised.
2. This is not a valid reason. In such case article like sex will have no contents at all.
3. initial effort was to give weightage to part that deserves weightage. later i gone through history and got all contents and arranged it. We need not argue any more on this.
4. Not just burton's translation. But contents are structured on that way. I have read a different translation which states the same, as this source is reliable, i dont wish to quote another source.
5. People can go to external link, but here they will get good bird's view and gross idea of contents.
6. Not that deep, in a table, people will read to depth of their wish. It volume certainly not confuse or that they dont get lost in between large information. Content is well structured in a table.
7. Other editor did not agree, he rather told you not to make personal comments.
8. This content addition is very obviously good addition, everyone will welcome it. Content is not at all ambigous, its just a matter of wheather to expand or not. So, if you are the only reverter(of work of my great effort) then i will revert it back till i get blocked. Thanks. Lara_bran 08:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Seems like User:Buddhipriya has agenda to give misconception that kama sutra states very less about sexual acts. You can see this in lead section like this: "A small portion of the work deals with human sexual behavior." and that is repeated wherever possible. He wants to do that by hiding contents of kama sutra from viewers of the article. So he is opposing inclusion. He is forwarding the agenda since last 3-4 months where he systematically changed contents and shortened the article, can be seen in history. The content of current dispute is not addition, but it was previously there in the article which was removed by this editor. Misguiding by hiding fact is what he is trying to do. Lara_bran 05:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Please note that so far the only other editor who has commented on this has seconded my request that you stop putting disputed material into the article and use the talk page first to try to build consensus: "can we all agree to discuss any (significant) proposed addition to the article here on the talk page, before implementing it in article space since clearly there are differing views on the topic ?" ([5]) We have two editors calling for you to stop to your insertion of contested material. You still have made no convincing response to the list of substantive issues that I have raised. I will continue to remove the material, as there is no consensus for its addition. Buddhipriya 06:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Without knowing whose view of the article is better, I am still troubled by this remark of User:Lara_bran: So, if you are the only reverter (of work of my great effort) then i will revert it back till i get blocked. It sounds like Lara is proposing an edit war. It is conceivable that her reforms have merit, but if so, it would be better to bring in more eyes, rather than consciously plan a revert war. One way to do this would be to prepare a new draft of the article as a user subpage, and then get comments on it. EdJohnston 16:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I stand by my words, and i dont revert if anybody(even his meatpuppet) other than other editor reverts my changes. Understand i have put some efforts here, he did nothing other than clicking revert button. I saw article 5 months ago, and i see only this user's manipulations, and by now i know his intentions, i cant assume good faith any more(regarding this article), in whom who used all sorts of wikilawering. Lara_bran 03:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Editor Abcedare has agreed with my request that the material reach consensus on the talk page prior to reinsertionbut Lara Bran continues to ignore the fact that two editors are asking for a stop to her behavior.  : [6]. EdJohnston has also expressed concern about her behavior. I do not support the idea of making a new version on a subpage, as incremental editing is more likely to get agreement than a rewrite. Currently the contested issue is insertion of the detailed section-by-section table of contents, a clearly defined issue. So far, No other editor has yet supported this insertion, which overturns the effort to remove that material that was done with prior consensus. Please refer again to my list of specific objections, none of which has been given a satisfactory reply. Buddhipriya 04:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Please stop talking about what to do, instead support your removal by reasons. I have replied your queries(8 of them). Its not majority vote, it goes by merit. I wonder why nobody came for a third opinion, till now. Lara_bran 04:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I consider all of your replies unresponsive to my objections. I now look forward to participation by other editors in order to get more points of view on this matter. So far, you are the only editor who is pushing for insertion of the material, and two editors (myself and Abcedare) have called for building consensus on the talk page prior to reinsertion of the contested content. Once again, I ask that you read WP:CON. Buddhipriya 04:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Here is an example of how Lara is systematically working to reposition this work as a sex manual, which is the misconception about the book that we have worked to correct over the past several months: [7]. I simply do not understand this drive to re-sexualize this article. If you read the article text, you find that the balanced view of it is that the sexual material is minor component of a work on general social mores, and that its reputation as a sex manual was popularized and sensationalized by the unreliable work of Burton. Buddhipriya 04:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
That sentence is clear WP:SYN, dont add back without ref. Lara_bran 04:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
That sentence is clear WP:SYN, but i wont break 3RR. I beleive in wiki system, hope someone else will remove that unreferenced sentence. Lara_bran 04:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

about recently added image

True, kama sutra was not illustrated. But that certainly does not mean there should be no images in this article. Only point is positions should be one that is described in kama sutra. It is quite acceptable to add images to this article, but while doing so make sure to give proper caption that links with kama sutra. Thanks. Lara_bran 03:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I disagree. And I believe that there is a consensus that both old and modern images which have been associated with the Kama Sutra are not appropriate for this article. IPSOS (talk) 03:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Please dont talk about past consensus, give a valid reason instead. This is wikipedia article, we are not replicating kama sutra. In caption of the image we clearly write kamasutra was not illustrated. I did not reinsert your removal because i was not sure if that position in the image was described in kama sutra. Lara_bran 03:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
There have been regular attempts to insert pictures of sexual activity on this page, all of which have been rebuffed since the cleanup effort on this article took place. You will notice that there have been at least two insertions of new sexual material in the past two days. This constant sexual vandalism is one of the problems that we addressed with the prior cleanup effort, which included removal of the unreliable Burton list of sex activities, which were a magnet for vandalism. Buddhipriya 04:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Vandalism is not a valid reason, me telling again. I think its obvious, you want me to explain why its not a valid reason? It is uncensored encyclopedia, anything notable is mentionable, we cant refrain by fear of vandalism. And mind you that pic addition was a good faith edit. Lara_bran 04:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I think you will find that consensus is against you. You really should read WP:CON. Not all consensus is achieved by a vote or a poll or even discussion. When you can't get your changes to stick, you can be sure that consensus is against you. IPSOS (talk) 04:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, IPSOS for making that comment. The remark "When you can't get your changes to stick, you can be sure that consensus is against you" is a good way of saying the idea I was trying to document with the prior consensus of this article being that the section detail should not be included. The prior consensus was reached by posting in advance my proposal to remove the detail. After three editors agreed that it could be removed, and not a single editor argued for its inclusion, I removed the detail. That removal did stick (showing consensus for the removal) until Lara inserted specifically the sexual detail with no prior discussion. Thus her insertion of the material now has the force of overturning the prior consensus, with no support yet given for it by any other editor. That is why I feel that the status quo ante should remain in the article until such time as a new consensus has been demonstrated on the talk page (that is, the section details should remain out). Buddhipriya 04:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

My reversion and comments

Can we please stop edit-warring on the main article page and dicuss the matter of the new edits calmly. Wikipedia has several dispute resolution mechanisms to decide on article content if the involved editors cannot see face-to-face, but edit warring is not one of them! So for now, I am reverting to the stable version of the article, and hope that any substantial changes that are disputed can be amicably discussed.

FWIW here are my views on the subject of this dispute:

  • I agree that the article should have a discussion on the content of the book, based on secondary reliable sources. If those sources say that the content mainly deals with sexual issues, that is what we should report, and if they say otherwise, so do we.
  • That said, I think the text being added to the Content section is inappropriate, not because I think it is sexualizing the article, but because:
  • Simply reproducing the table of contents of a book is not a good way to discuss its contents. At best it tells the reader the chapter titles and gives an overview of the organization, but that is better explained in prose while also talking about the style of writing (prose? couplets? narrative voice and tone ? ) etc. See Rigveda#Text for a good example. (Note: Even though I have reverted to the version which lists the 7 sections, that is not what I would like to see in a well-formed article either)
  • Even if there should be consensus among editors that "table of contents" is the way to go - Burton's >120 year translation is hardly the desirable one. I am not an expert on the subject but Wendy Doniger, who is, calls it a "highly mannered, padded and inaccurate nineteenth century translation" in her 2002 book on the subject.

My suggestion is that the structure and organization of the "Content" section be proposed and discussed on the talk page (or on a user subpage) so that consensus is reached before substantial changes are made to the article. A final observation: In my opinion both Lara bran and Buddhipriya are editing in good faith and trying to make changes that they personally believe will improve the article - I hope they'll realize that too! Regards. Abecedare 04:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Im not reverting back, till sufficient argument is done in talk page. I will reply to your queries later. Thanks. Lara_bran 04:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you Lara. I appreciate your cooperation. Abecedare 04:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I am also in opposition to your changes, Lara bran. Before proceeding, please demonstrate that you have a consensus for them. Otherwise, do not change the article. IPSOS (talk) 04:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
"you need a consensus to change the article" Who told? Lara_bran 04:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Let us not get into recriminations about past conduct or meta-discussions, and concentrate on the article content instead. Regards. Abecedare 04:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
"you need a consensus to change the article", nowhere such thing is there except buddhipriya and ipsos are telling repeatedly. Another priliminary:Sex is not bad, its rather good. I will reply to subject after some break. end of "how to discuss" discussion. Lara_bran 04:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I am in agreement with Abecedare that the article should primarily be a summary of what secondary WP:RS say about the history and meaning of the work, and that inclusion of the table of contents is inappropriate. I would like to see the quote from Doniger added to the article to support the debunking of the Burton translation that is already sourced from Avari. Abecedare, can you please add the citation? Burton's role in distorting this work is itself a matter of historcal importance, leading to the current example of Western misunderstanding of what this category of Indic literature is about. The book by Avari currently cited is a textboook on Indian history and the fact that Burton is specifically mentioned in a negative light demonstrates that the issue is noteworthy. Beyond that, I also feel that the issue of sexualizing the article needs to be considered as an important factor. This work has been totally misrepresented in the West as a sex manual. Presenting it as such is a distortion of the facts. An additional problem with including explicit sexual content on this article (aside from the issue of WP:UNDUE) you will see continuous sexual vandalism centered on the explicit sexual content that was in the article at that time, because like begets like. The same issue applies to pictures of sexual activity that are frequently added to this page with no prior discussion. Buddhipriya 04:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
The Doniger quote is from her book's back cover and can be seen here. I assume she has more to say within, but I haven't read the book. Abecedare 04:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for providing the link to the cover promotional language. The actual material apparently is in roman numeral "l" (50) of the Introduction. I do not have a copy of it on hand, but we should try to get this correctly sourced if we can. Buddhipriya 05:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
You are right. The words are from her book but not necessarily hers. Didn't mean to misattribute :-) Abecedare 05:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks User:Abecedare for the source. Can you see contents are structured in same way(index pages of your reference), translations of inside contents maybe different/padded but book is structured in same way as in table i am trying to insert into the article. An encyclopedia should describe, not translate. So we here giving overview of content structure, but we are not repeating content here, which is very essential. also we are not translating chapter titles, rather describing chapter content in short.
Now are we giving undue weightage here, we are adding only table, no subsection etc. Problem with too much expansion would be that reader may get lost in contents. But in a table a reader can go to depth he wants to, if he wants only parts, let him not go into chapter details. By your source, it is double verified that structure is the same, but content translation may vary from Burton to others. Lara_bran 09:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Note continuation of edit war with no attempt to discuss changes

Lara continues her efforts to force changes: [8]. I have reverted this once and will continue to revert it if it is still here tomorrow. Note the addition of WP:OR regarding the content of the work. Buddhipriya 05:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

That is an intermediate solution. You are free to edit wording there, which i have taken from history of this article, but in a conflict it is strongly recommended to find an intermediate solution. Lara_bran 05:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
At this point I am leaning toward cutting all of the chapter titles entirely, along the lines discussed by Abcedare. The elaborate table simply goes in the wrong direction of recapitulating a table of contents rather than citing secondary WP:RS. Also, you continue to rely on the Burton translation that is unreliable. Buddhipriya 08:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
War courtesy is to leave a reply in talkpage before revert. You are clearly attempting to hide the content and mislead. Clear vandalism it is called, only because you are long term contributor does not mean you should be allowed to do this. Structure of contents in 7 parts and 36 chapters are crystal clear. And what each chapter talks about also same in two books, see lately added book's index pages. You are treated nothing more or less than a vandal. Thanks. Lara_bran 08:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Please stop edit warring. Discussion has occurred and the consensus is clearly against your changed. Edit warring against consensus can only have one of two results, either you will get blocked or the article will end up being protected. IPSOS (talk) 14:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
See [WP:CON]] to see temporary intermediate version should be used. We should use dispute resolution methods, find a version that is ok for both parties. Dont revert to one extreem, keep it in between. Thanks. Lara_bran 14:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Lara, as can be seen from my posts above, I assumed good faith and thought you were willing to work in an collaborative fashion to help expand/improve this article. But, unfortunately, you haven't even attempted to propose and discuss new changes to the article (which you are by now well aware that other editors oppose), and have chosen to make substantative content changes by labeling them "intermediate versions". As you can see from WP:CON, the "intermediate version" is to be found through discussion, and not simply through declaration. Abecedare 14:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I have proposed another intermediate version. Please give a look. Lara_bran 14:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
If it includes links to individual chapters on sacred-texts.com, it is against the consensus that we will not do that. IPSOS (talk) 14:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I have proposed an intermediate version. where titles are kept same, but expanded for contents, in shortest possible method. As for sacred-text, this structure of contents are one and same in both burton's and another author's translations. You may further shortencompress the contents, but please dont hide contents. Lara_bran 14:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps it would be better to propose the new structure here on the talk page or on a user subpage; wait for other interested editors to discuss, comment and edit till consensus is reached before implementing the changes in the main article. Abecedare 14:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Intermediate version (proposed content)

Feel free to edit here, section titles are kept same :

The Kama Sutra has 36 chapters, organized into 7 parts[2]. Both according to Burton and Doniger[3] the contents of the book are structured into 7 parts like the following:

1. Introductory
Chapters on contents of the book, three aims and priorities of life, the acquisition of knowledge, conduct of the well-bred townsman, reflections on intermediaries who assist the lover in his enterprises (5 chapters).
2. On sexual union
Chapters on stimulation of desire, embraces types, caressing and kisses, marking with nails, biting and marking with teeth, on copulation (positions), slapping by hand and corresponding moaning, virile behavior in women, superior coition and oral sex, preludes and conclusions to the game of love. It describes 64 types of sexual acts (10 chapters).
3. About the acquisition of a wife
Chapters on forms of marriage, relaxing the girl, obtaining the girl, managing alone, union by marriage (5 chapters).
4. About a wife
Chapters on conduct of the only wife and conduct of the chief wife and other wives (2 chapters).
5. About the wives of other people
Chapters on behavior of woman and man, encounters to get acquainted, examination of sentiments, the task of go-between, the king's pleasures, behavior in the gynoecium (6 chapters).
6. About courtesans
Chapters on advice of the assistants on the choice of lovers, looking for a steady lover, ways of making money, renewing friendship with a former lover, occasional profits, profits and losses (6 chapters).
7. On the means of attracting others to one's self
Chapters on improving physical attractions, arousing a weakened sexual power (2 chapters).

Comments

I wish to tell user:ipsos here that consensus is not majority vote, only valid reasons/points are considered for outcome Lara_bran 14:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Only title of parts is certainly insufficient and misleading. This much explaination is minimum. Lara_bran 14:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Please dont have prejudice against edit war, there should be a reason behind. I did not have idea of posting proposed content here in talk page, till user:Abecedare gave a clue, and i thought "look at my sandbox" for proposed version would be unprofessional, and it is unprofessional. And any consensus should be open to change, these people were simply refusing to being open. I now have stopped warring as i got some way out. Lara_bran 03:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Also note that my proposed versions changed, and i was open for compromise. Now, two different questions: 1. Should we expand? or not according to WP:UNDUE. 2. How should be content?(structure & source). We dont mess up these two, these are independent questions. Lara_bran 03:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I will be reinsert the proposed content if no objection looms in next few days. Also section Kama_Sutra#Pleasure_and_the_spiritual_life is given undue weightage, since it is dealt only chapter 2 of part 1. Objecting to put forward all facts about contents and giving undue weightage to one out of 36 chapters clearly seems as attempt to mislead. I will be removing that section, or merging it with "contents" section. Thaks. Lara_bran 08:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Not a single person has supported the addition of this material. It is difficult to understand why you are persisting in this edit war despite the fact that multiple editors have raised multiple problems with your proposed additions, which consist now mainly of WP:OR. If you add this material to the article you will be acting entirely without WP:CON and I would support calling for an RfC on your edit warring. I have previously said that I think even the list of chapter titles should be cut, as it unencyclopedic and relies on the worthless Burton translation. Buddhipriya 19:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Content structure is same both according to Burton and Doniger, see contents section of Doniger's book here [9]. Perticular chapters deal with same thing as mentioned in proposed content. It is not Burton's translation, but it says structure of contents of the book, which is very vital for article. As this is not just by Burton's im changing proposed content, give a look. Lara_bran 03:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Since no objection for 3 days, i will be reinserting latest proposed content into article. Objections welcome. Thanks. Lara_bran 03:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
May I repeat one of the above comments left by another contritor
Not a single person has supported the addition of this material. It is difficult to understand why you are persisting in this edit war despite the fact that multiple editors have raised multiple problems with your proposed additions, which consist now mainly of WP:OR. If you add this material to the article you will be acting entirely without WP:CON and I would support calling for an RfC on your edit warring. I have previously said that I think even the list of chapter titles should be cut, as it unencyclopedic and relies on the worthless Burton translation.
Yes I would seriously reconsider posting the content of your desire. It would be better for you not to add this material as to avoid dissapointment when it does eventually get removed. I have noticed on previous occassions, edit wars conducted by yourself concerning the work of others, works of a certain nature that makes one wonder. Cheers --P-BOY 04:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I changed my proposed content 4 times. I directly added, thinking it to be intermediate version maybe ok for second party, but they were removed without any comment on revised version. But after i saw too much of intolerance, i moved proposed content to talk page to stop edit war. Thanks for your views. Lara_bran 04:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Despite the fact that not a single word of support has been given for this change, once again Lara has inserted the same material: [10]. I have removed it, and will continue to remove it. Is there any support for removing all of the chapter titles completely as I have proposed? Buddhipriya 08:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

small portion of kama sutra

Of 36 chapters 10 chapters(of part 2) deal with what is done inside bedroom. part 3 4 5 6 deal with acquiring a female. part 7 deals with improving attraction and desire. As for "small portion" sentence, you people are synthesising sources.WP:SYN. With recent added source(indra) write as "KS is not sex manual nor religious text", that is called writing by source. If you derive something from that statement then it is called WP:OR, to be precise WP:SYN. Thanks. Lara_bran 05:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

So far, of the changes made on 24 August, almost 100% of the edits have been reverts of someone else's work. I think this is a sign that agreement on principles should be made on the Talk page. The strategy of incremental edits is not working. I agree with Lara Bran that the claim that "a small portion of the work deals with human sexual behavior" needs to be sourced, and such a phrase does sound like a POV effort to play down the sexual aspects. (Why is it up to us to estimate the percent of sexual content, unless a scholar has written about that exact issue?) Also if distorted conclusions are being drawn due to Burton's translation, then that fact needs to be sourced as well. (The reference to Burjor Avari's comment that the translation is 'inadequate' doesn't shed much light). Until these matters are addressed, I don't see how inserting the chapter headings can be judged as good or bad. EdJohnston 16:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

An encyclopedia entry about a book is meant to reflect the book's content, quite aside from the individual preoccupations of some who have read it or the false impressions of those who have heard of it.

The latter, e.g. the apparently widespread misconception that this book is a sex manual, may properly be addressed to the extent to which it is notable and should not deliberately perpetuate it.

I cite here an additional informed view of the book: this one compares it to Baldassare Castiglione’s The Book of the Courtier and Niccolò Machiavelli’s The Prince. (Jerry Pinto. "Essays: More sex please, we’re Indian", Tehelka, 8 January 2005. ) — Athaenara ✉ 22:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

This web site does not seem to be usable as a WP:RS as it looks like just a personal site. Please review WP:EL as well. Buddhipriya 06:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree there is misconception, but to avoid WP:SYN im changing sentence. We dont derive something out of another thing, unless we find similar sentence from a source. You are welcome to give any source stating same thing, im only against WP:OR, but not strict in WP:RS. Thanks. Lara_bran 04:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Lara removed a small portion of the work deals with human sexual behavior, but I'm not convinced by the replacement she provided, about it being neither a sex manual nor a religious text. It's a bit early to be refuting misconceptions; just get on with the story. How about, a portion of the work deals with human sexual behavior, instead of a small portion? EdJohnston 05:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I also note that Lara continues her edit war on this. The suggestion to omit the adjective "small" may be an acceptable way to adjust the language, but the issue that needs expansion is that the mis-characterization of the work as a sex manual. I think the best course would be to continue to locate additional references that support the point that the work in total is not a sex manual, but instead is a a book of manners for a well-to-do urban elite male. The citation to Avari can be expanded to elaborate on this issue. I have placed a copy of the Doniger translation on order so I can check what she says about the Burton translation, but it may take a week for the book to make it via interlibrary loan. Buddhipriya 06:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
It is wrong statement, it is synthesised(WP:SYN) from some other statement. "a portion of work" is very fine, and not WP:SYN. You know where do you state, where give undue weight etc are secondary crimes, wikipedia article expands by part by part. Lara_bran 05:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
This removed "small" is quite fine with me. But please note that inline citation provided does not match with sentence. You can keep this sentence without that or any citation. Lara_bran 08:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Hmmmmmmmmmmm I sometimes wonder --P-BOY 04:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Web site as a WP:RS

I am unsure if the web site used to source this edit is usable: [11]. While it appears to be by the author of a book which we currently cite, I am not sure about policy in this type of like. Can the material be found in the book by that author? Buddhipriya 07:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Indra Sinha (it's his website) is clearly an expert on the subject. I am not going to get involved in the endemic edit warring from which this article has suffered. — Athaenara ✉ 07:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I am not disputing Indra Sinha as a WP:RS. I am asking for clarification on policy regarding use of a personal web site for sourcing in a case such as this. You will note I did not remove the citation, I am merely trying to be sure that we are within policy guidelines in using it. Buddhipriya 08:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
See this [Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources (online and paper)]. A website maintained by an expert in the subject is usually ok as long as it is not used to support a redflag or potential libelous content - so I think the Indra Sinha reference is acceptable in this instance. Abecedare 08:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for that policy link, which is clearly relevant. In part it says: "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so." Note the mention of caution. Can you please look at the detailed formatting of the reference and ensure that it follows correct formatting for a web reference of this type? Buddhipriya 08:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for comments

Dispute on whether to give detail of contents about the book. Proposed content: see above 08:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Lara bran (talk · contribs)

Article clearly misguides since it details a section about only 1 chapter of Kama Sutra in one whole section namely Pleasure and the spiritual life. But all other parts are hidden from user. It is clearly misleading. Also images are removed, stating that Kama Sutra was not illustrated, but an article describing that can have images. All these are clear attempt to mislead, or deprive audience of correct picture. Also please note User:Buddhipriya's comments in above sections, his contempt for Kama Sutra itself, and he had been cutting down the article since 6 months. The disputed content is not new content, but it was cropped off by perticular user. Content puts clear picture about structure of the book, and very essential, hence it should be included. Lara_bran 08:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Content structure is same in both translations, not limited to Burton,s translation, per refs provided. Two different points here 1. whether to expand and 2. How should be structure and source of content. These two factors can be analyzed separately. Lara_bran 09:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree there has not been good spirit here from my side, but if you see initial comments before me being preached with wikilaws, i was sencere in convincing the need of content. I always saw it as an obvious need. But wikipedia has mute spectators problem, they enjoy seeing others in trouble. Be bold in talk pages too, cheers!! Lara_bran 07:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by VanTucky (talk · contribs)

I think the well-cited encyclopedic information that Lara wants included is absolutely necessary. Without it the article is severely lacking in comprehensiveness. Including info that properly summarizes the content of the text and refers to the interpretations of such important figures such as Burton is vitally important. As to the image issue. Whether images were included in the original or not is irrelevant. Wikipedia is not censored, and including images is a part of every good encyclopedic article. We can included a few images without veering into how-to guide territory. There are many historical and artistic representations of related subjects, and Kama Sutra content. VanTucky (talk) 04:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment by EdJohnston (talk · contribs)

I support the inclusion of additional material as recommended by Lara Bran. For instance, I support the retention of the material removed here. It's unfortunate that there has not been a very collegial spirit here on the Talk page, so it has not been easy to see whether a consensus has been emerging. Without doing a detailed study, it seems to me that the July, 2007 versions of this page have been shrunk and reduced compared to the version of one year ago, and that some of that material probably needs to be restored. Discussion on specific items should continue. If a truly balanced summary could be written, it might be possible to drop some of the chapter descriptions. If no fair summary can be agreed on here, I guess we could keep the chapter descriptions in the interim, because they are objective evidence of some of the book's contents. EdJohnston 15:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Buddhipriya (talk · contribs)

I oppose the continued edit warring and WP:OR by Lara Bran. The article should rely primarily on citations to secondary WP:RS rather than recapitulating a table of contents. The inclusion of sexual activity in images gives WP:UNDUE weight to that aspect of the book, which is a mischaracterization of its contents. The ongoing depiction of this work as a sex manual is an insult to the work, and reflects failure to read the analysis of the work given by reliable sources on its actual place as a work of Sanskrit literature. The mis-characterization of this work is likely to continue so long as WP:OR is permitted to be included here. Buddhipriya 21:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by DaGizza (talk · contribs)

I echo most of Buddhipriya's concerns. Nobody is talking about WP:CENSORing all the sexual-related info on the Kama Sutra, but giving it WP:UNDUE weight according to WP:RS transforms the article into WP:OR. Burton's commentary and translation are added only because of notability, not on accuracy. GizzaDiscuss © 12:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by BalanceRestored (talk · contribs)

There should be no images presenting the details, but, everything else can be in. There should be no problem pointing out the detailed contents of the literature. BalanceΩrestored Talk 10:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Content-summary Vs chapter-name Vs both

I feel there is scope for both content summary and chapter names. Article is currently short and needs to be expanded. Lara_bran 03:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

You are still adding WP:OR. It is your personal analysis of what the work contains. It is not based on anything that has been said about it by a WP:RS. You also have failed to reply to the issues raised by Abcedare regarding the fact that the purpose of WP is to quote WP:RS regarding what the book means, not simply to try to recreate the table of contents. I continue to urge complete removal of even the list of contents that was in the article prior to the start of these changes. Buddhipriya 04:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't appear to be original research to me, given that the summary and contents are cited to reliable sources. --Haemo 04:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I have changed proposed content 4 times, and the last version has seen consensus to include. Anybody may expand contents section below for summary. Lara_bran 10:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

images

Since wikipedia is not censored images can be posted. Also, kama sutra may not be illustrated, but we can write that in image caption itself. There are many images in commons media. Thanks. Lara_bran 04:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Added small image in content section. Part 2 comprises 10 out of 36 chapters, i think its not undue weightage. A lead section image is necessary, ideas are welcome. Thanks. Lara_bran 05:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Translations

I think wiki should not be used as an advertising tool to promote sales of any books. There is a section named "Translations" which is primarily showing the front cover of a book. I propose this section to be entirely removed. BalanceΩrestored Talk 10:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not very sure, but I feel that WP:ADVERT is getting violated, Indra Sinha translations are primarily advertised here. BalanceΩrestored Talk 06:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Format

Well, this page looks more like Sir Burtons Table-Of-Content, I did feel that it was wrong to not to discuss the content of the book. But, I don't think Sanskrit texts are ordered this way. BalanceΩrestored Talk 11:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

That is translation not review, see another translation by Wendy Doniger (book, see index pages), which says the same. Both match and so it is given that contents are ordered in 7 parts and 36 chapters, attributing to these 2 translations. You can also see wikisource given below, but that is incomplete. Also translations are not advertising book, but mentioned here depending on notablity of that translation. In your comment you should substantiate your view of excluding images, note that wikipedia is not majority vote. Lara_bran 11:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, I gave my view on this bran. For me this article looks a bit out of the shape. I did not say you are wrong. Just that, right now certain books should have sold few copies. BalanceΩrestored Talk 11:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Author of that book maybe notable, though his book is new. Actually even i was amused to see a book that is ordered in such ordered manner, in so early as 4th century. Lara_bran 03:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)