Talk:Devi Bhagavata Purana
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Devi Bhagavata Purana article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Recent additions by IP
edit@117.209.211.251: Please discuss this edit here. Like I said earlier, you cannot use WP:PRIMARY sources on this subject. Your addition on animal sacrifice on WP:LEAD is also WP:UNDUE. WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁 15:38, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Can you add this?
edit"Then S’ûka Deva bowed down mentally to the Devî, Mahâ Mâyâ, who is the Creatrix of Brahmâ and the other Devas and who is the Controller of them all" - Canto 1, Chapter 15. Temp0000002 (talk) 20:11, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
editThe following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:22, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Devi Bhagavatam as a Mahapurana
edit@182.65.19.196 According to the sources of the article, this Purana is considered to be a Mahapurana. The article should not be changed based on personal beliefs. Also, in the article Puranas, Devi Bhagavatam is given as a Mahapurana with reliable sources.112.134.218.98 (talk) 05:03, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
- The source in the lead (Dalal 2014, p. 117.) says Devi followers believe it is a Mahapurana while others classify it as an Upapurana. I clarified both classifications in the lead. Jroberson108 (talk) 19:00, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
- In addition, the Mahapurana section had a lot of original research, primary sources, and misleading statements not inline with what the sourced authors' wrote. This too has been fixed and elaborated to encapsulate the authors' views. Maybe some more modern sources could be found? Jroberson108 (talk) 04:12, 16 November 2023 (UTC)