Talk:Kamadeva

message: There is an accepted view that primary sources are to be avoided as much as possible, especially in the areas where secondary sources are present. I have noticed that in some cases its not possible, however even then primary sources should be in the accepted translation of a religious leader or prominent representative of the tradition, rather then just a translation from primary source, as to avoid interpretation of the source while translating. Wikidās ॐ 11:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Primary vs Secondary sources 

message: * The link was Suka was removed, as it is not the article about same Suka, but who cares? one just reverts.
* the beauty of Radha etc. exceeding that of Kamadeva is a poetic device to praise their device, as Kama is believed to most beautiful.
* "The word smara in the tenth book of Bhagavata Purana refers to Krishna, who through the medium of his flute ever increases his influence on the devoted gopis. This, according to Vaishnavas, is the meaning of the word smarodayam in Bhagavata Purana (SB 10. 21. 3) The different symptoms of smarodayam as experienced by the gopis has been described by the commentator Vishvanatha Cakravarti Thakur in the following way:[23] "First comes attraction expressed through the eyes, then intense attachment in the mind, then determination, loss of sleep, becoming emaciated, disinterested in external things, shamelessness, madness, becoming stunned and death. These are the ten stages of Cupid’s effects."["  Please prove me how on earth is this NOT an UNDUE, the entire para does not even mention Kamadeva.
* And what English is "The deity of Kamadeva" ???
--Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:18, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Removal of wrong wikilinks should be marked as a minor edit to make sure other editors see it. I never revert minor edits if they are properly described in the edit summary. In fact I only reverted removal of large sections of text with references, which is a bad style. One may expand on the poetic device to 'praise their device'. No deletion, but expansion. There is mention of Kamadeva in the tenth canto of Bhagavatam, this is notable. Gaudiya interpretation is notable as it identifies him with Krishna. The Visvanatha has illustrated the ten stages of the effect of Kamadeva and how same effects can be applicable to both material kama and to bhakti. This section needs expansion, or probably a sub section on Gaudiya views on Kamadeva in Bhagavat Purana to be exact. Encyclopaedia of Indian Literature by Amaresh Datta, Mohan Lal uses expression "deity of Kamadeva" - clearly an acceptable British English - unless you consider that 'deva' means deity, which is kind of limiting and is a POV. Deva is deva and also more then that.Wikidās ॐ 13:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverts by [[user:Wikidas]] 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Kamadeva. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090114043227/http://digitalcommons.libraries.columbia.edu:80/dissertations/AAI9127814/ to http://digitalcommons.libraries.columbia.edu/dissertations/AAI9127814/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:21, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Am I the only one is bothered by the lead clutter? These alternative names are useless for the vast majority of the readers, and should probably be moved to "Etymology and names" section. utcursch | talk 16:25, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead clutter 

message: While I appreciate that students of the Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition have invested a good deal of time in adding the tradition's perspective to the article, as it stands, that particular perspective is all over the place and, in many cases, doesn't really contribute towards the coherence of this page. I'd rather read the whole Gaudiya exegesis in its own section, not interjected every in-between. As it stands, it clouds over and blurs focus on older sources and versions.
I've tagged the page with Undue Weight. Most of the Gaudiya-related material can stay, as long as it's referenced, but it should not be ubiquitously blended in. Additionally, other major perspectives and sources should be presented with more-or-less matching volume and focus. I may get around to this in due course, meanwhile please begin doing the needful. General clean-up also required; as with most Hinduism-related articles... Cheers! ~ Baba Bom (talk) 12:21, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gaudiya-dominated presentation: Page needs restructuring