Talk:Krishna/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Panduranga

"Panduranga" redirects here, even though there is no mention of the term "Panduranga" anywhere in this article. What gives? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.180.71.138 (talk) 14:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


Panduranga is another name for Krishna - there are so many of Krishna's names that they may not all be listed in the article. --Shruti14 t c s 22:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Panduranga is not just another name of Krishna but there seems some legends and stories connected with Pandari pur. For eg. Purandara and Sakku bai are great devotees of Pandu ranga.

Kosambi thinks Pandaripur has a historical and sociological significance thanks to the bi annual (twice a year) jataras.

Kishore patnaik —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kishorepatnaik (talk • contribs) 16:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Romance

It's already cited in the Bhagavatam (regional languages) that the gopis wanted to have Krishna as their husband. Krishna fulfilled their desire. There is nothing wrong in posting facts that are verifiable and are sourced. It is not provoking. People those who do not know can ask any Vasihnav and he/she will agree with the fact. content is here —Preceding unsigned comment added by Radha2008 (talk • contribs) 07:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC) --Radha2008 (talk) 07:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this issue on the talk page rather than repeated reversions. There are two problems with your edit:
  • It is unsourced - see wikipedia's policies on verifiability and reliable sources as well as the citation guide to see how to provide specific references. It is not sufficient to state that one can ask any Vaishnav etc.
  • Sourcing aside, your edit is undue in this article, which does not aim to provide an exhaustive account of all the stories associated with Krishna in the Mahabharata, Puranas etc.
Hope that clarifies the reasons for reverts by User:GourangaUK and me. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 07:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
(sigh) I'm afraid User:Radha2008 has chosen to edit-war rather than discuss and try to establish consensus regarding the content she wishes to include. However I don't plan to revert once more and will let other editors weigh in. Abecedare (talk) 08:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
In addition to the rule of material being verifiable, there are many other rules that would apply here. Among these are the obvious one that the additional material should not be redundant; there is already better written and placed material in the article on Krishna as God in 'monotheistic Vaishnavism'. The additional material should be of relevance, and that the article remains of a reasonable and concise length; this is a matter of judgement, and I agree with Abecedare that the Romance section it is not suitable here. The article has been stable for some time, and the new material in the 'Romance' section may be better placed in a new article. Reverting again. Imc (talk) 08:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Also note that the text being added by User:Radha2008 to this article and to Ras Lila (dance) was a copyright violation, being copied from Exotic India website. Abecedare (talk) 20:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion moved to Wikiproject talk page

Hello Govinda Ramanuja dasa and GourangaUK. I have added this discussion to the Vaishnavism Wikiproject talk page at, Vaishnavism's relation to Vedic religion. Please feel free to add any comments. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 16:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thelemic/Crowley section on the Krishna article

I wanted to ask who put the Alester Crowley section on the Krishna article? This section is just incoherent, philosophical bumbo-jumbo babble!!! I lived in austin texas and live in L.A. (these two places had the largest population of Crowley followers in america)..I have had almost 15 years of experience with these Thelemites! First off, Yes, they might mention Krisna...but, their practices, their philosophy are absolutely Adharmic and Avedic!! They have taken a mixture of Black tantra, Crowleys speculations on various spiritual traditions and made some kind of tama guna, asuric, speculative, concocted, IMMORAL form of so-called "Spiritual" practices that is definetly against the Vedic religion. He was a drug user and questionable sexual practices that involved so-called sexual "magical" ceremonies. Every one who is a practioner of the Vedas should be appalled by the disgusting practises and immorality of these "Thelemites". Their beliefs are absolutely against the Vedas. Some followers, I know for a fact, perform magic rites with sexual body fluids and try to commune with spirits and etc...not too Vedic! And, there is a qoute in our beautiful Sri Krishna article from their so-called "Aeon of horus" savior - Crowley?! Can we please take this out immediately. Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 01:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
See the comments on the WP:Hinduism Vaishnavism Workgroup talk page. --Shruti14 t c s 13:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

(indent restart) I've revised the recent deletion of the Thelema section. While I've seen the discussion in the Vaishnava article, it should be discussed here. The comments above by Zeuspitar suggest that this article should be about 'our beautiful Sri Krishna'. That may be appropriate for a website of a Vaishnava religion, but not for a generic English wikipedia article on Krishna. Imc (talk) 15:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Even if you think it is a "generic English wikipedia article on Krishna" this thelemic section is just NOT appropriate. They are not a bona fida religion. If any thing, their a cult,...with beleifs and practices that Adharmic and Avedic...period. Just study the Crowley and Thelema and proves what I am saying. I dont know why or the reason you insist on putting it in a religious article. Their are other sources that have said things about Krishna. Can we please take it out. Their practices are just not HOLY.Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 15:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


A few points:
  • As Imc has pointed out this is supposed to be a NPOV article on Krishna, and we do not exclude content simply because it is not "Vedic" or because goes against the teachings of Hinduism/Vaishnavism/ISCKON etc. The governing content policies on wikipedia are WP:V, WP:RS , WP:NPOV etc
  • However I agree with Shruti's comment on the noticeboard the relatively long section on Krishna in Thelema is undue, since the religion is relatively minor and Krishna's role in it is very minor too. Therefore I have trimmed the section to provide a reference to the connection, rather than the somewhat lengthy quote.
  • Noticeboards are meant to discuss issues that either span multiple articles or to bring issues to the attention of a wider community. They are not supposed to be the venue for reaching consensus on a particular article's content, especially when the article talk page is more actively watched, than the the Vaishnavism Workgroup talk page.
Abecedare (talk) 17:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


  • Comment There is not a section, or even a brief discussion, on the Thelma page concerning Krishna. There is no need to include Thelma information on the Krishna page that is of no significant important for Thelma itself. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 15:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
There is no section or mention of Krishna on Jainism, Buddhism or Ahmadi/Ahmadiyya Muslim Community pages either, but that fact is irrelevant since we should base our content on external reliable sources and not other wikipedia articles. By the way, the section on Krishna in Jainism is completely unreferenced and some of it reads like speculation; can someone add references and help improve the article ? Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 16:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
The scripture cited only makes a reference to Krishna. Aside from a few sentences, there is very little information in the source provided for this reference. I think that without secondary sources this is boardering on OR. Are there any secondary sources that you have come across to add weight to its importance? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 17:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Good point! I'll search for secondary sources. Can we do the same for the other sections too, which have the same problem ? Abecedare (talk) 17:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Done. I have added a secondary reference that supports both sentences in the subsection: Krishna being one of the Saints of Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica and his appearing in Crowley's writings. Abecedare (talk) 18:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Please Abecedare, in all due respect, with no grudges, no offenciveness what-so-ever,but, Let me ask you? Why are you soo insistant and adamant about keeping the Thelema section? I hope that your not a cryptic Thelemite trying to be a watered-down hindu. Even if you look for and find second refences, the fact still remains that that group...is immoral and dark. And, not in keeping with good taste and especially the Ancient principles of the Vedic religion. Truely devote Hindus, regardly of what denomination, would find that any thing with this group associated with KRISHNA is offensive to the Sanatana Dharma. An example, if Jews found some thing like this on any article representing the Jewish faith, they would insist that it be removed immediately....especially if the ADL comes in. Same thing with Muslims. So why is it different with Hindus? Are we not allowed keep up a desent image to the public? Are we not allowed to defend our Religion against "groups" like this being associated with us? They are not a bona fida religion. It is shocking that you scoured to find this quote. Even the name..."saints of ecclesia Gnostica catholica" should offend traditional Catholics. This name and thelemite in genereal are an affront to Religion. Hindus have a right to have a CLEAN image and Name in society. If this Thelemite section is not taken out, I will be contacting Wikipedia. NamaskarGovinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 23:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Please see WP:NPOV and WP:SOAPBOX for an explanation of my motivation. Other than that, I'll be disregarding your personal questions and insinuations. Regards. Abecedare (talk) 23:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
After searching for acceptable, accurate, and reliable sources on the subject, I am yet to find enough of them (or really any) to justify keeping the Thelema/Crowley section of the article. I only found one article even worth consideration for being considered a source - an article from a Thelema-themed wiki called Thelemapedia. And even this article is probably not good enough because most of the information was from the Wikipedia article about Krishna from the year 2005 (it hadn't been edited since then), containing almost nothing about the relation of Krishna to Thelema, or even Crowley's canonization. In fact, the article had been tagged by the wiki with "This article needs more information within the context of Thelema (i.e. Aleister Crowley, historical event, organization, text, or cultural aspect of Thelema). You can help by expanding it." Because of the lack of an established, notable connection between Krishna and Thelema from enough secondary sources, I think that the Thelema information on the Wikipedia Krishna article may not be notable enough to remain, until there are additional reliable documented secondary sources to justify its existence in the article. Additional searching can be done, but so far I have not found any good secondary sources. --Shruti14 t c s 23:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


This is a democratic web-site, right. three (Ism Schism, Shruti14 and Govinda Ramanuja dasa) out of five people (the other two being Imc and Abecedare)DO NOT WANT THIS SECTION on the Krishna article. The Majority of us have shown the reasons and sentiments for why this should not be on the article of Krishna. I think it is clear, without a shadow of a doubt, that this section should not be on the article. As I have written earlier, if this was a Jewish or Muslim article...this would have be taken out immediately because of the protest. For the past week or so, the three of us have shown such a protest, evidence and reasonable argument why this section should not be on. If Ism Schism and Shruti14 can please respond to also giving their word and thoughts on the stituation of deleting the section. The Majority of people want the Thelemic section gone.Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 18:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
No, wikipedia is not a democracy. Please read WP:5P since your posts display a gross misunderstanding of this project. Abecedare (talk) 18:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not the one who added the Crowley/Thelema sections to the article originally, but I did revert the Thelema deletion, for good reason. This is an article on Krishna. It is not an article restricted to bona fide religions, and Wikipedia policy says nothing about how cults, or practices that are Adharmic and Avedic should be excluded from articles on religion (italics for the PoV suggestions made in a post above at 15:22, 24 March 2008) . Again, to quote, Are we not allowed keep up a desent image to the public? Of course you are, build your own website presenting the image you want, and others can judge whether it is decent. This website, Wikipedia, is a compendium of knowledge of what is already present in the wider world. Thelema is listed in Wikipedia as a religion - List_of_new_religious_movements, and already contains references to Krishna. Removing it for the reasons given above is censorship. Imc (talk) 18:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with Krishna, this belongs on the Thelma page, if anywhere. Also, this is rather trivial information. The Krishna page does not need a trivia section. Thanks.Ism schism (talk) 23:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I removed the info under the heading Thelma as it was not a Thelema belief but a Crowley belief. The two are different. One is a practice the other a person. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 14:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Ism, I reverted with your edit, since it deleted cited content without any discussion on talk page, even though you know through the above discussion that such a deletion would be disputed. I have to sign off soon, but will reply to the latest reason you raise for deletion of the Thelema section in a few hours. Abecedare (talk) 15:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I deleted the Thelema section. This belongs on the Thelema page. It is trival information. And, it does not belong on the Krishna article.Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 15:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Please desist from edit-warring and deleting cited content, just because you don't agree with the inclusion of a viewpoint. I realize that you are new to wikipedia and may not be familiar with its content and user policies; that is the reason I had directed you to the WP:5P above. I again urge you to read WP:NPOV and WP:V, which will explain why the Thelema, Buddhism, Jainism etc. content is included on this page, even though some editors like you may think of Krishna as only a Hindu god. Abecedare (talk) 15:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Just to let every one know, Abdacare, has threat to bar me from editing the Krishna section, this is the warning below.Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 16:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Krishna, you will be blocked from editing. Abecedare (talk) 15:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

First, abadacare, do you have the authority to threaten me by barring me from editing? If not, let us contest it with every one else and Wikipedia! You dont have right to threaten some one, from editing. Are you an admin? No! All of us, especially you and me, must find resolution with Wikipedia. Then, if THEY say not to edit the Thelema section...I wouldnt. If they say it is ok, I am going to.Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 16:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The informatin is not part of Thelema, it is Crowley. They are different. Ism schism (talk) 16:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I dont think Crowley's personal views on Krishna are relevant to the Krishna article. It has yet to be proved that the Thelema community itself holds views of Krishna as a deity. There are two sources: one passage of scripture and a book that has yet to be quoted from to discern its relevance as a reliable source. This is still unreliable and unverifiable information that should remain out of the article until it is confirmed. Thanks.Ism schism (talk) 16:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
See my comment below, under Non-Hindu Views - Thelema followers themselves put so little weight on Krishna, and so it seems that the comments on the connection may be vaild for removal by WP:UNDUE. --Shruti14 t c s 22:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
After looking at the new changes...I think this is a some what good compromise on the Krishna article. But, the fact remains that this thelemic information should not be on a Hindu article, it is giving validity to this group. No matter how much sources or information to back it. Again, if this was a Jewish or Muslim article...it would have been taken out immediately by wikipedia. And, the insistance of pro-thelemite editors to try to keep this section is un-called for, and, to hide behind the procedures also. I do not appreiciate the threats and deletions of my messages and edits by abecedare. And, the idea that he is some webmaster on the article, reverting and re-editing other editors works. So, just like Ism Schism...I'll back off. And, Not because of some "little" warning icon left by Abecedare.Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 03:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Death of Krishna?

I understand that the person who put the information stating that Krishna "departed" instead of "died" is a suspected sockpuppet of of another user, and so those edits were reverted with that in mind. However, the fact certainly remains that Hindus believe that as a "full" avatar of Vishnu, Krishna did NOT die, but rather departed from this earth to return to Vaikunta. For this reason, I am changing the text back. If anyone disagrees, please let me know why. Thanks. --Shruti14 t c s 13:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I have made the edits, and also corrected minor grammar and style problems. --Shruti14 t c s 13:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Avataras, in English usage, are born, and they die. In the same way that Krishna is born, (he does not 'arrive'), he dies, he does not 'depart'. You could equally say that if Krishna departed the earth and did not die, then so did the Pandavas. The article should reflect general usage of English words. (Similarly, there are some other terms in the article which don't make sense in general usage; e.g. what does the word 'expanded' mean, in expanded forms of the goddess Lakshmi? Big?) Imc (talk) 15:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Agree with Imc; also note that such euphemism, instead of clarifying the topic, are likely to be misunderstood by readers unfamiliar with the subject. That aside, I like the copyedits made by Shruti14. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 16:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Abecedare. I had a question about one of the edits you made to the Krishna article. The article currently mentions Krishna's "death", an edit you had made to the article (according to its edit history). However, Hindus believe that Krishna did not die, but rather left the earth to return to Vaikunta without actually dying. For this reason, to reflect the beliefs of Hindus, I had changed "death" and "died" to "departure" and "departed" respectively. However, you had changed it back. Why did you do this? I just wanted to know your opinion on the subject, of whether it should be changed back or not. I did like some of the other edits you had made to the article. --Shruti14 t c s 19:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC) (Copied message from my talk page.Abecedare (talk) 00:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Shruti, I agree that Hindu literature often refers to Krishna's death as "departed from Earth", "gave up his body" etc, but I think this a matter of using polite euphemisms, rather than a theological denial of Krishna's death. So I don't agree that, "Hindus believe that Krishna did not die, but rather left the earth to return to Vaikunta without actually dying." (emphasis added)
  • Firstly, assigning any particular belief to "Hindus" is perilous given their diversity. It is easy to find religious as well as scholarly sources that use "Krishna died", "Krishna departed the Earth" etc. as synonyms. For example: The Bhagavad Gita by Swami Nikhilananda (compare page xi and 48) or H.H. Wilson's translation of Vishnu Purana (compare page 612 and footnote 613.3). Similarly Freda Matchett's article on the Purana's (see footnote in article) talks about Kaliyuga beginning with the death of Krishna.
  • That said, the euphemistic terms are certainly not wrong; however IMO while they are appropriate for a book/article written from a religious viewpoint, we should follow general English usage while writing an encyclopedic article directed at a wide and general audience. This point has also been made by User:Imc above.
  • It is possible that some sects of Hinduism believe that Krishna did not die, and do not simply use the alternate terms synonymously (for example, Sita's being swallowed by Earth, is not synonymous with "Sita died"). If that is the case, we can add references to such beliefs once we can find reliable sources for the purpose.
Regards. Abecedare (talk) 00:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
PS: If someone is looking for an article to work on, Sita can be greatly improved. Abecedare (talk) 00:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Shruti, Abecedare is right. There are so many euphemisms by different people and religions for dying, that common practice here is to say 'died', rather than 'mahasamadhi', 'left the body', 'kicked the frame', 'passed away', 'left the mortal coil', 'is not with us any more', etc. I understand that Krishna is a particular case, but it does have similarities with other particular cases. If there's a good reference, then it could also say something like "....Krisna died (although many Hindus believe he didn't die, but .....)", just for example. ~ priyanath talk 01:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Krishna article and avatar discussion

There is a discussion on Krishna's status as avatar at Krishna and Vishnu avatar discussion. Any comments you have would be appreciated. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Non-Hindu views of Krishna

These subjects should be in a trivia section, seperate article or a list. These topics are only as relevant as one ideology's view of another, and as there are thousands of ideologies, these topics should be placed in a trivia section, or a seperate list. Arguing that Thelma is relevant to Krishna is trivial. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 06:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree and if you like, please let me know how I can help. Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 06:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
it is WP:LAME to edit war about this. Try to find a reasonable compromise. Nobody claims this is terribly important. After all, it's just a brief sentence within the "non-Hindu traditions" section, stashed in right at the bottom of the article. The question is, is the mention as it stands WP:UNDUE. You can discuss this peacefully, but you should avoid revert-warring about it. Compare, if you will, the notability of stuff mentioned in Jesus#Other_views. --dab (𒁳) 16:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Non-Hindu views on Krishna is certainly encyclopedic and surely merits mention in this article. But from what little I have seen, the Thelma view of Krishna strikes me as greatly WP:UNDUE. The sect/cult in question itself is obscure and Krishna's role in their scheme of things seems even more so. Maybe someone could come up with a Role/view of Krishna in Thelma and then we can take another look and evaluate whether it merits mention in this article. The way it stands, I support removing the mention. Sarvagnya 18:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Sarvagnya, I agree with your analysis of the Krishna-Thelema connection (see my previous comments); even though I arrived at the conclusion that we should keep in a brief mention of the connection. I especially like Dab's latest revision which make it clear that we are not placing Thelema on par with Jainism, Buddhism and other "mainstream" religions.
I think a useful approach would be to see if there is a significant "usurpation" of Krishna by other New Age movements, and if there is we can rewrite the Other section to (again briefly) discuss this, rather than present Crowley's views in isolation. What do you think ? Any help with references would be helpful. Abecedare (talk) 19:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I must agree that the WP:DUENESS of Thelema here is open to debate. However, I don't see why a brief mention should be objectionable. As Abecedare points out, my edit was intended as a compromise suggestion avoiding the impression that Thelema is put on par with "world religions". dab (𒁳) 19:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec)imo, the best way to deal with situations like this is to create stubs about these obscurities. In this case, we'd have to dump anything we can find about Krishna's role in New Age movements in its own stub and see how it goes. Once that stub/article matures, we will be in a position to evaluate how or how much to bring over from that article to this one. Sarvagnya 19:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment - Interesting idea, but (just a thought) is there enough information from Thelema or another religion to merit the creation of a separate article? What I mean is, for example, in the Thelema religion, Krishna plays such a minor role. He was canonized as a saint and then nearly forgotten. It is my understanding that practicing followers of Thelema and Crowley know little or nothing about Krishna because the role played is so minor - no significant impact on the religion AFAIK. If we're having such a debate about whether to keep the information in the article in the first place, I'm not sure how many people would support a separate article on the subject altogether. However, if supported by a majority of those working on the article, a separate comprehensive article covering multiple or even all (current) religious views on Krishna would probably contain enough useful information to be worth creating it, although I personally think that may be unnecessary. --Shruti14 t c s 22:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I was originally thinking along the same lines as dab - putting Crowley in an 'other' section, and just mentioning him in one sentence with others. But then I looked at the Thelema and Crowley links and saw that Krishna is not even mentioned in passing in the 4 Crowley/Thelema wikilinks that are linked from the Krishna article. The mere fact that Crowley mentions Krishna in one of his books/prayers is not even notable enough for a trivia section here, in my opinion. Crowley also mentions Lao Tze, Mohammed, Christ, and others in the same context. If Crowley was extremely notable in World Religions, and his religion's worship focused on Krishna, then yes it should be here. I would remove on grounds of WP:UNDUE alone—I'm not opposed for other reasons. ~ priyanath talk 22:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Agree with priyanath here - Thelema is, first of all, a very minor religion. Secondly, Crowley (its founder) was the only one recognizing Krishna as a saint, and from my understanding this canonization was not widespread, well-known, or universally accepted among all Thelema followers. Thirdly and most importantly, Krishna's role (as a minor saint) is so small in the religion and has no significant impact on the religion whatsoever. The current links provided as sources are so weak IMO because they mention Krishna in passing, as a subject not too important to the religion. Also you may want to see something I discovered online - the Thelemapedia (wiki maintained by members of the religion and those familiar with it) article on Krishna - it has been edited only a few times, hasn't been touched since 2005, and is currently tagged for editing or deletion because the article and its subject (Krishna) lacks relevance "within the context of Thelema (i.e. Aleister Crowley, historical event, organization, text, or cultural aspect of Thelema)" (quoting the tag). If Thelema followers are dismissing Krishna as 'lacking relevance to Thelema' and may be removed from their wiki for that reason, then it is likely that many here will decide that the Thelema/Krishna information should be removed from our wiki under WP:UNDUE. --Shruti14 t c s 22:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Remove on grounds of WP:UNDUE, per priyanath and Shruti14. Thanks.Ism schism (talk) 23:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
The Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica, the ecclesiastical arm of Crowley's group, is hardly insignificant. I acknowledge that the number of members is not indicated, but Aleister Crowley and the system of thought he created, of which this is part, are anything but "insignificant". They may be less than familiar to many who are most familiar with Hinduism, but that is an entirely separate matter. It is significant to have several articles about it. The only possible objection I can see to it is that it might violate WP:Undue weight. However, I cannot remember a single case when a single sentence refernce such as this has ever been said to be a violation of undue weight. Also, it should be noted that, as only a B-class article, the article as it stands is far from being an ideal article. I personally believe that removal of any reference would be a clear violation of WP:NPOV. Similar refernces to Jesus, which has passed GA-status, can be found in that article, and there is no reason that I can see why they shouldn't be included in this article as well. John Carter (talk) 23:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
This is a minor scriptural reference by an organization who does not have a developed view of Krishna, of any kind. No POV is left out here. What secondary sources discuss Thelema's relationship with Krishna or their understanding of Krishna? I still believe that this is WP:UNDUE per the discussions above. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
It is not the minority of the Thelema religion itself that has sparked the bulk of this debate, but rather the minor scriptural reference, minor role of Krishna in the religion, and lack of universal acceptance within the Thelema religion (AFAIK Crowley is the only adherent of Thelema that firmly stands by the idea that Krishna is their saint - and a minor one at that). While I can understand how others state that WP:NPOV is violated by its removal, it's lack of significant relevance to Thelema is what I see as the primary violator of WP:UNDUE. --Shruti14 t c s 00:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Also, I'm not sure that the Jesus references are an equal comparison, as there are a long list of common views (accepted by most or all within the religion) from many major religions and sects (such as Mormonism, Buddhism, etc.) some of which even have whole articles dedicated to these points of view, and so are definitely notable in the main article. (See Buddhism and Christianity and Judaism's view of Jesus for example.) On the other hand, the Thelema view is NOT universally accepted by Thelema, or AFAIK, any major leader besides Crowley. The article resolves WP:UNDUE by grouping SEVERAL minor (for example, New Age) views into one tiny Other views section, and so the views are not prominently represented by themselves, as the Thelema view was in the Krishna article. However, as the article was named as a GA, it is a good idea to follow by example. --Shruti14 t c s 00:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
From what I have read, Thelema does not universaly accept these views. This boils down to Crowley's one reference to Krishna in a book. There are many references to Krishna in many books. Compare for example, Crowley's one reference to Krishna and the ISKCON leader's book on Krishna, Krishna book. Why try to fit such a small passage, which no community lives by, into the text? Ism schism (talk) 00:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Krishna is listed as one of the Saints of Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica, which is, as stated before, the church of the Thelema movement. Thus, clearly, that church recognizes Krishna as a "saint". Also, for what it is worth, Crowley more or less founded Thelema. On that basis, his opinion of Thelema is about as important as, say, Joseph Smith's opinions of Mormonism. And, please note I was referring to the references in the Jesus article itself. If that article, which has been recognized as a GA, which this article hasn't, can refer to his role in Theosophy and the New Age movement, as well as the opinions of Thomas Jefferson, Bertrand Russell, and Friedrich Nietzsche, and give each of them more space than is given Thelema in this article, then I cannot see how this shorter mention would qualify as violating WP:Undue weight here. John Carter (talk) 00:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
It is only on a list, that is why I believe it to be trivial. There is nothing developed about it. If it were an article it would be deleted for having a source that only mentioned it in passing. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
The above statement demonstrates a rather remakable failure to AGF on the part of all the editors who have ever looked at the article, and seems to be trying to denigrate the content. The fact that Thelema has had comparatively few editors involved in it is probably more than anything else why it hasn't been mentioned before. And if the above editor believes the article, which that list is, should be deleted, I would welcome him attempting to do so. I doubt very seriously the motion would succeed, however. I personally think the above argument is an attempt at misdirection, falsely indicating that articles do not have to meet the same verifiability and notability standards of any other content. If the above editor does not in fact know that even "mere" lists are counted as articles, and have to meet the same verifiability and notability standards of other articles, I suggest he review the standards of notability and verifiability. John Carter (talk) 01:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Please assume good faith. My point was that such a minor textual reference is trivial. I did not make any accusations against Thelema and for you to say so is a red herring. I have reviewed the list and made my decision. I have a right to that. Again, please refrain from such rhetoric such as, "an attempt at misdirection, falsely indicating that articles do not have to meet the same verifiability and notability standards of any other content." I do no appreciate you defaming my character. I have not insulted you personally, I would appreciate the same from you. Thank you. Ism schism (talk) 03:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I did assume good faith. As indicated, that list, which is an article, has to meet the same standards as any other content for separate inclusion. I am not myself a thelemite, and honestly hold the belief system in rather profound disdain, although I did go through and ensure that all the articles on the subject were at least assessed for Wikipedia:WikiProject Thelema. On that basis, I can personally attest that it has very little activity and that the current poor status of the article is probably, more than anything else, due to the comparative lack of interest in the subject from all editors. You had earlier indicated that you thought the list would qualify for deletion if it weren't a list. I indicated to you that you would be free to propose it for deletion, but that you would probably fail, as it meets the general notability guidelines for all contents, which lists have to meet as well. As such, I was responding directly to the comments you made, which struck me as being at best ill-informed, and, if well informed, then possibly an attempt at mis-direction. Again, lists have to meet the same notability requirements as all other separate articles. If at the time you had made your earlier statements you simply forgot to consider that, however, you have my apologies. John Carter (talk) 13:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
You misunderstood my statement. I am not argueing that Saints of Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica is non notable. I am saying that Krishna's role in Thelema is non notable. If your want to place items like this under the heading of "Others," then please do. It seems to be a good spot. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 13:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

(moved from section below)I still think that Crowley and his religion's minor worship of Krishna are not notable enough to be in this article, no matter how reliable the sources. Abecedare, if so, do you think that the same information about Crowley's views of Mohammed, Christ, Lao Tze, should be added to those respective articles (hypothetically only, since I don't expect you to do so even if it's included here)? ~ priyanath talk 01:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I do think that information can be added to those articles in the proper context. . Abecedare (talk) 00:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC) ... and btw you are right, I am not going to wade into the debates on Jesus and especially Mohammad article to insist that this information be included. Hinduism keeps me busy enough ! :-) Abecedare (talk) 00:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I find that just one article on Hinduism can keep one busy enough.... ~ priyanath talk 01:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Agreed - just look at the heated debate one single trivial section can cause! --Shruti14 t c s 01:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
(ec) Only Muhammad of all those you list is regarded as one of the Saints of Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica, the church of the Thelema movement, and his "sainthood" is mentioned in the Muhammad article. Please note that he is refernced in that article. On that basis, I would have to say, yes, it is relevant enough. Your hypothetical question regarding other figures is not particularly germane to the discussion. And please note that even Paul Gauguin, hardly a religious figure, has his inclusion in the group mentioned in his article. Again, if this were an GA, A, or FA article already, and these discussions were taking place in that setting, maybe this argument would have meaning. However, as only a B-Class article, the article is still recognized by all reviewers as being far from complete. Mention of his significance to a Western church body, however small, would be one way to help complete the article, as being one indicator of how the figure has become significant outside of standard Hinduism. John Carter (talk) 01:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
The canonization itself was, AFAIK, only acknowledged by Crowley, and I cannot find a single source that proves otherwise. The Thelema followers AFAIK appear to have little or no knowledge about Krishna, thinking the knowledge to be too trivial, as Krishna is only a minor saint. Also, I'm not sure the Mormonism comparison works here, as Joseph Smith's views are almost entirely accepted by Mormonism, a major sect of Christianity, while Crowley's views and practices (within Thelema) aren't always completely accepted (and as part of their "Do what thou wilt" philosophy, they are not entitled to accept them, unlike Mormonism). Also the 'Other views' section of that article (including New Age, etc) is quite small and includes a number of views, unlike our article which prominently displays Thelema as the only non-Abrahamic non-Dharmic religious view at current, although there are numerous other minor religions and philosophies that also respect Krishna with a similar or higher status. (Of course, this can easily be fixed with added information and proper references.) This has given more people the impression that the section violates WP:UNDUE --Shruti14 t c s 01:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Thanks, JC (oops, maybe that's not the best abbreviation in this context :-) ). It is indeed mentioned under 'others' with a very short sentence in the Muhammed article, exactly as I originally thought it should be here. ~ priyanath talk 01:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
A suggestion - should we enlist the help of members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Thelema for their opinions on the relevance of Krishna? They should be knowledgeable about Thelema's view. It seems to me that if they see Krishna as important enough, it may have a case for staying; however, if the opposite is true, and they do not see Krishna as important, I see no reason for it to stay in the article. (Of course, I understand that they may have a POV to keep it regardless just to have a mention of Thelema, but in any case their opinions may be valuable in determining the notability, or lack thereof, of the Krishna/Thelema link.) 01:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

- ::::I am not myself a formal member of the Thelema project, because my personal opinions on the subject are such that I do not think that I would be a particularly objective contributor, although as a non-member I did assess all the articles which were then within the scope of that project for the project earlier. Based on my understanding, Krishna is included as a figure of notability by that group because Crowley saw him as a religious/mythological figure who in at least a few instances engaging in behavior which was consistent with Crowley's own tendencies, which could be summarized as "do what thou wilt". That is in no way intended as an aspersion, just a statement as to why he is included. The Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica as indicated does include the mention of Krishna and all their saints in their Gnostic Mass, which is their official religious service. Unfortunately, given the very small size of that group, I doubt there actually is much reliable information available on the opinions of the members on any of the saints mentioned in the Gnostic Mass. However, mention in the central religious service of any religious group which is significant enough to have multiple articles in wikipedia is generally considered significant enough for inclusion in wikipedia articles. I can attest to that personally, as someone who has added mention of several parties, including John Donne, to their articles based on their being commemorated in the calendars of some Christian faiths. In every case I know of where I added that information, the information has remained in the article. John Carter (talk) 13:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

After looking at the new changes...I think this is a some what good compromise on the Krishna article. But, the fact remains that this thelemic information should not be on a Hindu article, it is giving validity to this group. No matter how much sources or information to back it. Again, if this was a Jewish or Muslim article...it would have been taken out immediately by wikipedia. And, the insistance of pro-thelemite editors to try to keep this section is un-called for, and, to hide behind the procedures also. I do not appreiciate the threats and deletions of my messages and edits by abecedare. And, the idea that he is some webmaster on the article, reverting and re-editing other editors works. So, just like Ism Schism...I'll back off. And, Not because of some "little" warning icon left by Abecedare.Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 04:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
"Again, if this was a Jewish or Muslim article...it would have been taken out immediately by wikipedia...." You may have missed it in all of the discussion above, but the Muhammad article does have a section called Muhammed#Other_religious_traditions_in_regard_to_Muhammad that does include Crowley's Saints of Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica. Yeh, surprised me too. P.S. And who knows, maybe some of those Thelemites will graduate to chanting Hare Krishna Hare Rama—due to putting their minds on the Lord, even in their dark rituals :-) . ~ priyanath talk 04:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
If Muslims were to know what kind of rituals and people thelemites are...they would flip!!!!I should inform some Muslims...but, I'm not, I am going to let this subject cool down. As for "chanting Hare Krishna"...I dont endorse ANY thing to do with ISKCON. But, I hope that they (or you guys) do chant this mantras for purification. Some of these pro-thelemites need it. Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 13:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I was a little surprised to see it in the Muhammad article too:

* Muhammad is regarded as one of the Saints of Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica.

Glad to see that we are finally beginning to reach a peaceful compromise on the subject, as opposed to the potential edit wars and blocks I had feared. --Shruti14 t c s 05:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Govinda Ramanuja dasa, I'm not a Thelemite (lol, not even close), and I don't think anyone else here is close to that either. Nor am I a follower ISKCON. My comment was partly humor, and partly expressing that nobody can exclusively 'own' an avatar—you could say He belongs to everone. And I'm also glad to see that good will and working together can prevail. ~ priyanath talk 16:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Content and references for the Others section

I propose that we collect references for content relevant to the section here. Once we have sufficient sources, we can decide what all information to include, the relative weight, and exact phrasing and whether to spin of another article. Abecedare (talk) 23:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Krishna is considered a Great Initiate by followers of Perennial Philosophy, and part of the pantheon by some occults. Sources:
    • Schure, Edouard (1992). Great Initiates: A Study of the Secret History of Religions. Garber Communications. ISBN 0893452289. (primary source)
    • Hanegraaff, Wouter J. (1996). New Age Religion and Western Culture: Esotericism in the Mirror of Secular Thought. Brill Publishers. pp. p. 390. ISBN 9004106960. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)
    • Hammer, Olav (2004). Claiming Knowledge: Strategies of Epistemology from Theosophy to the New Age. Brill Publishers. pp. p. 62, 174. ISBN 900413638X. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)
    • Harvey, D. A. (2003). "Beyond Enlightenment: Occultism, Politics, and Culture in France from the Old Regime to the Fin-de-Siècle". The Historian. 65 (3). Blackwell Publishing: 665–694. Biblical patriarchs such as Abraham, Moses, and Christ himself figure prominently in French occult texts, though they often share space in an eclectic pantheon with such figures as Orpheus, Pythagoras, Krishna, and Buddha. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |month= (help)
  • Krishna is considered a Master by Theosophists
    • Ellwood, Robert S. (1986). Theosophy: A Modern Expression of the Wisdom of the Ages. Quest Books. pp. p. 139. ISBN 0835606074. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)
  • Krishna was canonized by Aleister Crowley and is recognized as a saint in the Gnostic Mass of Ordo Templi Orientis.

More to be added later. Abecedare (talk) 23:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

IF the information is notable enough (see WP:NOTE) and the sources are appropriate (see WP:RS), these can be added to the article. However, if not, they should not be added to the article. If enough other religions and/or philosophies consider Krishna important, and the 'Others' section becomes extremely long, they may merit a separate article, as a previous suggestion was made. --Shruti14 t c s 00:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. By the way, all the above published books are reliable, and high quality sources. I am not including generic websites, such as,
Tau Apiryon and Helena. The Gnostic Mass: Annotations and Commentary.
even though they have relevant content. If you and others know of more reliable sources, feel free to add to the list. Incidentally, WP:NOTE is not the relevant policy to cite here since it deals with whether or not to have an article on a topic, and not an article's content per se. See WP:NNC . Abecedare (talk) 00:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
If, perhaps, the above views (and possibly others, which appear to be well-sourced) are added to the 'Others' section of the article, that section will appear more well-rounded rather then appearing as a reference solely to Crowley's views, and will better represent the views of other (non-Abrahamic, non-Indian) religions in the article. --Shruti14 t c s 06:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
That's exactly the intention. But since there are no emergencies on wikipedia, we can take a day or two to make sure we have made a somewhat comprehensive search for references, and then refine the content and phrasing to be added to the article. Abecedare (talk) 06:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
1. I'm glad that this is reaching a suitable and amicable conclusion. 2. While I'm going by memory and cannot provide any references to this, have not various Sufis treated Krishna as a saint? Imc (talk) 19:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Good point about the Sufis; I'll search for references. Any other group that may mey worth searching for before we work on the additional content itself ? Abecedare (talk) 00:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
There are a few sites out there which mention it, but I'm not sure any of them can be counted as reliable. This also raises the problem of how to define "Sufism", which can be a bit of problem in itself, as I don't think there is any particular definition all the people who use the work to describe themselves agree to. I think Gurdjieff might have made occasional references to Krishna as well, but can't right now find any particular references for that. John Carter (talk) 01:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I too searched and didn't find anything relevant. A few sources draw parallels between the emphasis on devotion in Sufism and the Bhakti movement connected with Krishna, but nothing about Sufis worshiping Krishna specifically. Abecedare (talk) 01:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I have found no relevant sources for the connection as well. It should not be included as of now. --Shruti14 t c s 17:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposed text

Here is a proposal for text that can be included in the Others section based on the citations listed above. I have ordered the other religions approximately chronologically, to avoid needless debate about which one is most important and should be listed first/last. You can open the text in edit mode to see the cited references (which are same as the ones listed above).

Krishna worship or reverence has been adopted by several new religious movements since the 19th century, and he is sometime a member of an eclectic pantheon in occult texts, along with Greek, Buddhist, Biblical and even historical figures.[1] For instance, Édouard Schuré, an influential figure in perennial philosophy and occult movements, considered Krishna a Great Initiate; while Theosophists regard him as one of the Masters, i.e. a spiritual teacher for humanity.[2][3] Krishna was canonized by Aleister Crowley and is recognized as a saint in the Gnostic Mass of Ordo Templi Orientis. Crowley also wrote about Krishna and associated Magickal formulae in a Liber Aleph section titled De Sri Krishna et de Dionyso and in the The Book of Lies.[4][5]

Comments and suggestions welcome. Abecedare (talk) 22:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Well done - it puts the 'others' in context. I would consider shortening Crowley to one sentence, since those books of his might not be notable enough to mention by name, but that's a minor detail, and I may be wrong. ~ priyanath talk 23:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I thought of doing that but couldn't phrase all the known information into one sentence. How about, replacing the last sentence with:

Crowley associated Krishna with Roman god Dionysus and Magickal formulae IAO, AUM and INRI.

It is still two sentences but (1) now we are telling what Crowley wrote rather than where he wrote it (that is in the references anyway) and (2) the mention of Dionysus and INRI ties up better with the first sentence of the section. Is that any better ? Abecedare (talk) 23:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
That's better - I'm still not sure whether the details (second sentence) are notable enough to include, but I'm really quibbling there.... ~ priyanath talk 01:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm with priyanath here - the paragraph is, overall, pretty good in summarizing the views of Krishna in other groups, but perhaps the Crowley section is a bit too detailed. Overall, however, the paragraph summarizes the information about other views pretty well. A suggestion about Crowley: perhaps the mention of the Saint should remain, but the details about what/where could be shortened or added as a note in a reference. That way the information can remain, but not too much weight is placed on Crowley's perspective, and more is places on the more notable part of the sentence - the fact that Krishna is canonized as a Saint. This is what has been done to the Muhammad article as well, a former good article (GA status removed due to censorship and vandalism). (Not sure if Saint should be capitalized or not...) --Shruti14 t c s 01:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, Priyanath and Shruti. As suggested I have moved the last sentence into the footnotes and updated the article with the new cited and expanded content. Abecedare (talk) 03:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Very well done - I think everyone can be happy with this. ~ priyanath talk 04:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. It is comprehensive without putting too much weight on any unimportant, non-notable subject. --Shruti14 t c s 05:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Dharmic religions

An admittedly minor topic compared to others discussed here, I propose the changing of the name of the section "Indian religions" to "Dharmic religions", as that is a more appropriate term for the religions, since India is not the only place where they are practiced. --Shruti14 t c s 00:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

See this debate where it was determined that the term "Dharmic religion" is a POV neologism with zero academic credibility. The term "Indian religion" is the correct Geographical Cateory of religions, as you can read at:
Adams, C. J., Classification of religions: Geographical, Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2007.
That is the reason I reverted you recent changes and addition. Abecedare (talk) 00:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
After looking at the new changes...I think this is a some what good compromise on the Krishna article. But, the fact remains that this thelemic information should not be on a Hindu article, it is giving validity to this group. No matter how much sources or information to back it. Again, if this was a Jewish or Muslim article...it would have been taken out immediately by wikipedia. And, the insistance of pro-thelemite editors to try to keep this section is un-called for, and, to hide behind the procedures also. I do not appreiciate the threats and deletions of my messages and edits by abecedare. And, the idea that he is some webmaster on the article, reverting and re-editing other editors works. So, just like Ism Schism...I'll back off. And, Not because of some "little" warning icon left by Abecedare.Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 03:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate your frustration, but I think you should realise that most editors here are not "pro-" or "anti-thelemite", merely trying to enforce our core policies of WP:NPOV and WP:V. I assure you that if this was an article about any other religious figure, there would be equivalent efforts on to enforce our core policies there. We don't care about whether Wikipedia gives validity to any group or not. If the real world gives them some validity, Wikipedia merely reflects that. I am afraid those are the constraints you must work under as well. I encourage you to continue editing, keeping that in mind. Relata refero (talk) 11:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
In response, to Govinda Ramanuja dasa, I would only say that that party's assumption that this is the Hinduism article is unfounded. This is the main article on the subject, which, as is required of all main articles, has to have at least a summary section of all significant information on the subject from all perspectives. Personally, I would myself have reservations about including this material if it were not required for the purposes of establishing the global perspective which all main articles are supposed to have. However, because of those requirements, we are obligated to include information on the subject from all perspectives. Unfortunately, outside of Hinduism, I myself previously knew of only two times the subject is even remotely significantly mentioned outside of fiction. Those are in Thelema and in Nicolas Notovitch's fraudulent "gospel" of Jesus, the "Life of Saint Issa". In the latter case, it is only a trivial mention when Jesus says he and the Virgin Mary were also Krishna and Radha, as well as several other characters from other religions. If anyone knows of any other, more significant, references to the subject in any other aspects of the world outside of Dharmic religions, I would personally welcome seeing them, and possibly be willing to replace the thelemite information if the other information were found to be more significant. Unfortunately, I don't know of any. It might be possible to add information to the effect that belief in Krishna is officially contradictory to the beliefs of Judaism and mainstream Christianity, but that holds for all the deities of Hinduism and is probably already stated somewhere else. And, although the subject has figured in several works of fiction, but I doubt very seriously that any of them are significant enough to merit direct mention in the main article. John Carter (talk) 13:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Shruti14, your comment comes as a waft of fresh air after months of gasping amidst noxiousness. However, there is NO use. From poisonously biased administrators to total buffoons, nobody will allow you to even think about this.

Gone are the days when the erstwhile Dharmic religions page used to have a general Hinduism template, and the section on "Legal status in India" (which I added) used to mention their legal status as all being under the Hinduism fold. Today, the page stands deleted because some European admin in all his wisdom, decided that "Dharmic" is not a word in popular use; never mind that one sixth of humanity residing in and around India is well-acquainted with the term. Then there are Jain editors, who have no idea of history, lest the ability to appreciate it, and who insist that Jainism is a totally orthogonal, parallel, untouched and independent faith than Hinduism. People will ask for a separate state tomorrow.....

End word. Forget it. It's no use. You will be asked for "sources" and "references" for even snippets of conventional wisdom that every street kid in the subcontinent knows and takes for granted. Consider yourself lucky that no administrator has blocked you yet. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 17:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

One-sixth of humanity is familiar with the word 'Dharmic' - love it! Relata refero (talk) 18:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't get your supposed humour, but Indian sub-con's population is 1/6 of the total. And btw, "Dharmic" means any following, (not necessarily religion) or material (like 'Dharmic Pustak' in common parlance) that is virtuous. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 12:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

That's right, random people on the street call religious books from Gita Press "Dharmic" pustaks. Relata refero (talk) 08:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Too bad, Gita Press has taken copyright and even IP for "Dharmic Pustaken". So about "Dharmic Granth" ? Besides, you do know that 'Dharma' IS the term for religion or faith. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 10:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Of course they have :) Relata refero (talk) 11:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't this be discussed at the talk of Indian religions and not here???? Propose move discussion to that talk.

--Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I suppose it should, although my original intention was to change it only in this article, not knowing that there were prior debates for other Wikipedia articles as well. --Shruti14 t c s 01:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Shruti, your actions were fine since they were clearly intended to improve the article. Be bold and don't let the fear of making unintentional errors keep you from editing this or any other article. WP:BRD is a good process to follow. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 03:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

'Expansions' of Lakshmi

Since my changes to this have been reverted before, I'm posting my reasoning on this fairly minor point here. Krishna's wives were described as forms of expansions of Lakshmi, and references were provided. The word 'expansion' may be appropriate in the referenced works when read with their explanation and their context. But that context is lacking here. Therefore I suggest that the word exansion is inappropriate here, and forms of Lakshmi carries sufficient meaning. Imc (talk) 19:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I think (though I'm not sure) that whoever had added the words "expansions of" was referring to the beliefs of certain groups that the forms were 'partial' forms of Lakshmi and not 'complete' forms. However, I suppose that the word "expansion" may make the sentence unnecessarily wordy and is probably unnecessary. --Shruti14 t c s 02:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Renaming of Category

Moved from the Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Hinduism/Vaishnavism talk page. --Shruti14 t c s 21:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe that most of this stuff should be categorized under the the heading "Western appropriations of Krishna." But, that is an highly unlikely as NPOV states that Krishna belongs to no culture, religion, region, etc... In light of this, the recent debate is not as insignificant as some have been stating. I feel that it is an important subject matter that editors will have to continually address. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 14:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
My only disagreement with that suggestion, other than the WP:NPOV standing on the issue, is that not all of these are practiced solely in the West (although the majority of them are). --Shruti14 t c s 21:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Red Links

I found several red links in this article. If their subjects are notable, articles about them should be created, but if not, the red links should be removed. --Shruti14 t c s 21:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Good point. According to WP:Redlink we should remove links which are either (1) irrelevant to the context, or (3) unlikely that an encyclopedic article can be written on the topic. As far as possible, we should create at least stubby articles for the current red links, but de-wikilink the topics that fail to satisfy either of these guideline criterion. Abecedare (talk) 22:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Here is a list of current red links in the article, with the sections in which they are found listed in parentheses. --Shruti14 t c s 01:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Line Refs

I just noticed multiple places in the article where line references to scripture were awkwardly inserted instead of tagged with <ref> with appropriate links and notes, and have fixed a few of them. Was this the right way to correct them, or should the line references have been left as-is in the article? --Shruti14 t c s 00:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Comprimise on Krishna/Vishnu

I really thank who ever wrote that Krishna is "a diety worshipped india" on the first line of the page. I think that it is a wonderful comprimise between Sri Sampradayam and the ISKCON/Gaudiya group debate. And, make the page very neutral. Thanks and Namaskar. Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 01:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Within Hinduism, Krishna is worshiped as an avatar of Vishnu (Vishnu is also considered the Supreme God by Vaishnava schools). Among the other traditions of the Vaisnavism, within Gaudiya Vaishnavism,[6] the Vallabha Sampradaya and the Nimbarka Sampradaya, Krishna is worshiped as the source of all other avatars (including Vishnu).[7][8][9][10] A distinguishing feature of the Vaisnava teachings is that God, Krishna or Vishnu,[11][12] is a real person and His variegated creation is also real.[12][13]

Please note that the above second paragraph is a compromise to allow for Sri Sampradayas views to be heard and to eventually arrive at NPOV. Thanks. --Wikidās ॐ 07:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Your ISKCON/Gaudiya are NPOV. What was put there before was very unbias. Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 16:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
The current revision of the paragraph in the article appears to be NPOV. (By the way - the Sri Sampradaya is certainly NOT the only sect that upholds the avatar status of Krishna. Many of them do. Just a note.) --Shruti14 t c s 02:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikidas's changes to Krishna page and Zeuspitar false allegations of sock puppetry

I have contacted the admin. DaGizza for the situation of re-editing the second paragraph of the page to an ISKCON/Gaudiya slant. I have made the reverts back to what it was before. Wikidas, please leave the second paragrah alone. Note to Admin: "Dear DeGizza, Can you please help with wikidas trying to write the Krishna page with an ISKCON/Gaudiya slant. The section was good without him slanting it towards an ISKCON slant. Can you please change it back and help with the situation with wikidas, can mediate between us". And, he left an anonymous/sock puppet post my discussion pageGovinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 05:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Since you are wrong, I will not take advantage of it and will just continue editing and discussing to arrive at the NPOV on this. ---Wikidās ॐ 07:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Considering that the Gaudiyas are a minority in Vaishnavism, and an even smaller minority in Hinduism but 2 out of 3 sentences in the paragraph are devoted to Krishna being "Supreme God" and higher than Vishnu, I would agree with Zeuspitar that there is a clear bias. However, I think the best solution would be to create another Krishna article from the ISKCON perspective. There are already articles like Ganesha outside Indian Hinduism, Gautama Buddha in Hinduism and Jesus in Islam, so I don't what will be the problem with Krishna in Gaudiya Vaishnavism article. The main Krishna article can therefore be representative of the entire Hindu population.
Note to Wikidas, the pletiful citations that you give only confirm the sentence's reliability. They don't support the notion that Gaudiya Vaishnava beliefs should be placed ahead of what and how other Hindus and Vaishnavas (and even non-Hindus) view Krishna. GizzaDiscuss © 09:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Support Gizza's proposal for a separate article - that would nicely solve the problem. I completely agree with Gizza here - that sources only confirm reliability and not superiority, and that the belief is still supported by a minority. --Shruti14 t c s 15:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
ImplementedGizza's proposal for a separate article was implemented and linked from the point of dispute. --Wikidās ॐ 19:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Dear DaGizza, It appears that you have got some time to read the current second paragraph of the article in question. References showed not only the fact that Krsna is the main deity of the Gaudiya Vaishnavas, they also show that the Vallabha Sampradaya and the Nimbarka Sampradaya are in the exactly same position. In fact anyone who accepts Bhagavata Purana without omissions should accept this fact, and that would be majority of Vaishnavas. Please read again this already compromised paragraph:
Within Hinduism, Krishna is worshiped as an avatar of Vishnu (Vishnu is also considered the Supreme God by Vaishnava schools). Among the other traditions of the Vaisnavism, within Gaudiya Vaishnavism,[6] the Vallabha Sampradaya and the Nimbarka Sampradaya, Krishna is worshiped as the source of all other avatars (including Vishnu).[7][8][14][10] A distinguishing feature of the Vaisnava teachings is that God, Krishna or Vishnu,[11][12] is a real person and His variegated creation is also real.[12][13]
I salute your wonderful idea to have a separate article that reflect the difference in the concept of Krsna being both svayam bhagavan and tad ekatma rupa as different from Him being a Hindu Deity avatara of Vishnu. Its hardly an 'only' the Gaudiya concept. Im aware of you being an administrator and have some knowledge and personal experience on the subject, but please see some further references below in the light of a question:
"significantly, the largest single Vaishnava community" -
Klaiman, M.H. (1983). "Religious tradition and religious revolution: The case of Vaishnavism in Bengal" (PDF). South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies. 6 (1): 33–43. Retrieved 2008-04-13.
Vaishnavism, the largest and most pervasive among all -
- (2004). "Hare Krishna Mahamantra". The Hare Krishna Movement: The Postcharismatic Fate of a Religious Transplant. Retrieved 2008-04-13. {{cite journal}}: |author= has numeric name (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
see also Table 2. Distribution of Foreigners in Vrindaban (Non-iSKCON)
Brooks, C.R. (1992). The Hare Krishnas in India. Motilal Banarsidass Publ. {{cite book}}: External link in |title= (help)
listed among the largest, the only 'Vaishnava' -
Sharma, A. (1986). "New Hindu religious movements in India". New Religious Movements and Rapid Social Change. Retrieved 2008-04-13.
The fact that majority of traditions are accepting the Krsna over Vishnu as the supreme object of worship please note:
Vallabhacharyas line -
Timm, J.R. (1991). "The Celebration of Emotion: Vallabha's Ontology of Affective Experience". Philosophy East and West. 41 (1): 59–75. Retrieved 2008-04-13.
Tirupati Balaji is accepted not only not Krishna but no aspect of Vishnu. -
Singer, M. (1963). "The Radha-Krishna" Bhajans" of Madras City". History of Religions. 2 (2): 183–226. Retrieved 2008-04-13.
Its clearly that besides Gaudiya many others accept that Krsna is the supreme deity, as they all accept Bhagavata Purana. Why views of one specific sampradaya/tradition namely Sri Sampradaya should shape this article and why we do not want to have a NPOV established? If the views of the Gaudiya, Oriya, Manipuri, Nimbaraka and Vallabhacarya traditions etc are not addressed this article should get a tag {{POV}}. Not only that, Govinda Ramanuja dasa also disputing the simple fact Krsna in his form of Balaji Talk:Venkateswara#Dispute is a supreme on a different page. Its his personal position and is due to his personal devotion to Vishnu and his particular tradition and training that I respect, but to which he can not provide any WP:Reliable facts. We should be very careful in this instances and do not let persons POV influence the articles.
Im not even starting to discuss his false allegations of me posting [yeah waking up in the middle of the night and flying to the states.[1]] of sock puppetry. Only a child can come up with it. In this light I think WP:BP should apply.
However, on the other hand I have no problem in keeping the above wording of the paragraph that keeps some balance to the issue and provides appropriate Krsna or Vishnu to make sure NPOV is arrived at. I will take it on and create an appropriate page that will deal with Krsna as the svayam-bhagavan across many traditions and link it back to the main article. Namaskar. --Wikidās ॐ 14:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Wikidās: Yes, other schools you have mentioned (Gaudiya Vaishnavism, Vallabha Sampradaya, Nimbarka Sampradaya) do hold that Krishna is the source of all avatars, but please note - these schools are in the minority compared to much larger schools (such as Sri Sampradaya and Madhva Sampradaya) that do not share the belief. These two majority schools, as well as other minority schools, hold the different belief that Vishnu is the source. Keeping the majority beliefs prominent is not "[letting] views of one specific sampradaya/tradition namely Sri Sampradaya ... shape this article" as you say, but rather stating the majority beliefs and helping to remove any NPOV issues. In any case, no one stated that the information should be removed completely (and in fact, it should not as it is reliably sourced, encyclopedic, notable, relevant information) but rather the paragraph(s) in question should rewritten to emphasize the majority view and mention the minority view, rather than "plac[ing] [the minority view of Krishna as the source] ahead of what and how other Hindus and Vaishnavas (and even non-Hindus) view Krishna" in Gizza's words. --Shruti14 t c s 15:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I would propose rephrasing the second paragraph to something resembling the following:
"Krishna is seen as an avatar of Vishnu by the majority of Hinduism, including the majority of Vaishnavism, who also see Vishnu as the Supreme God. However, there are groups within Vaishnavism, including Gaudiya Vaishnavism, the Vallabha Sampradaya and the Nimbarka Sampradaya, which hold that it is Krishna who is the source of all the other avatars, including Vishnu. ..."
I suggest this change because the current start of the paragraph, "In Hinduism, ...", gives the impression that the three groups mentioned above are not included within Hinduism, which does not seem to be the case. However, I do note that most of the articles cited above regarding how "Krishna-first" Vaishnavas outnumber "Vishnu-first" Vaishnavas are from ISKCON sources, which can hardly be said to be completely objective. Also, there is the fact that ISKCON seems, at least to me, to be among the few groups within Hinduism which has any success in recruiting outside of India. I personally would be willing and eager to change the proposed content regarding relative numbers in my proposal above if we could have hard numbers regarding the number of adherents within traditionally Hindu territory. Are there any reliable, verifiable sources out there which give such statistics? John Carter (talk) 15:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I too agree with the above comments that many of the recent changes and the sources are problematic. In general we should avoid the use of sectarian sources (such as ISKCON publications) to cite views that are ascribed to the whole of "Hinduism" or "Vaishnavism". Abecedare (talk) 16:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree with above rephrasing of the paragraph. --Shruti14 t c s 17:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Minor issue, but note: after someone had placed the above text on the article page, I had revised it with minor copyedits for style purposes. --Shruti14 t c s 18:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I propose that as to apply the suggested quantitative method before your draw the conclusions. We have already discussed it before here. And I insist that ONLY Wikipedia verifiable sources be used here. There are two members of a particular sects who consistently changing the presentation and go against the suggestions of the adimin. I would agree with our WikiProject_Hinduism/Vaishnavism admin above there is the fact that ISKCON seems, at least to me, to be among the few groups within Hinduism which has any success in recruiting outside of India. I personally would be willing and eager to change the proposed content regarding relative numbers in my proposal above if we could have hard numbers regarding the number of adherents within traditionally Hindu territory. Are there any reliable, verifiable sources out there which give such statistics? - therefore suggest the following informal survey before we even move forward:

Support of Krsna worship and understanding of him to be equal or original Godhead


  Sri Vaisnavas, Madhvas, and similar beliefs Tattvavadis Gaudiya Vaisnavas and similar beliefs: ISKCON, Gaudiya Math,
Gaudiya Mission, Ortodox Gaudiya,
Nimbaraka Sampradaya,
Vallabha Sampradaya, 		Non-traditional Hindus: Sikhs Svami Narayana, Gaudiya sahajiya, Satya Sai Baba


#s of full size temples with halls & congregation in India/Pakistan
          


# of shrines or temples outside of India
          


#s of full time initiates
          


#s of congregation
         


#s of publications distributed
          


Accept Bhagavata Purana(interpreted by some) Yes Yes Yes No Yes


Accept
Gopala Tapani Upanishad (interpreted by some) 		Yes Yes Yes No
 Yes


Worship predominately deity of Krishna Some Yes Yes No Some


Consider him to be source of impersonal Brahman No (only though Vishnu) Yes Yes No Some


Consider Him to be Original Personality – bhagavan svayam No Some Yes Yes Yes


Chant His names as part of the practice (mentioned without prejustice) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes


Accept Gopala gayatri or Kama gayatri mantras Some Yes Yes Not Yes


Based on the above (and ignoring the [2]) I will leave it with the Vaisnava group admin to conclude on quantities and representation and if one group or two groups that were (some hundred years back) representative of Vaisnavism, still have the majority. I personally do not see the difference between the concepts, as both Krishna and Narayana have all transcendental qualities and both are in the supreme position, however Bhagavata and Gopala Tapani Upanishad state that he is svayam - original or Himself, I can not deny it. Wikidās ॐ 17:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

There a few minor mistakes with the table above. (For example, Sri Vaishnavas do not "Consider [Krishna] to be source of impersonal Brahman" [emphasis added] but rather consider Vishnu to be, who is the source of Krishna.) There are also omissions. (For example the Madhva sampradaya, a major philosophical school, and Bhagavata, a minority school) In any case, I'm not sure exactly how some of the above mentioned items of the table actually support that the majority of Hindus accept Krishna as the source. For example, "Accept Bhagavata Purana", "Accept Gopala Tapani Upanishad", and "Accept Gopala gayatri or Kama gayatri mantras" would not work for the argument as each philosophical school interprets them differently - Sri Vaishnavas and Madhvas, for example, do not maintain that these support the belief that Krishna is the source of Vishnu and other avatars. "Chant His names as part of the practice" also has almost nothing to do with whether Krishna is considered the source or not - many sects and (in reference to a previous discussion about non-Hindus) even some non-Vaishnavas and non-Hindus worship and/or respect Krishna, but do not see Him as Supreme and/or the source. Also, "# of shrines or temples outside of India" and "#s of full size temples with halls in India" do not always adequately reflect the numbers of followers - as many 'full size' temples may not be frequently visited or have many regular followers. Because of these and other reasons, the table above will need changing before it can accurately reflect whether the majority or minority of followers accept Krishna as the source of all avatars. --Shruti14 t c s 17:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Shruti14,I have corrected the above table. Wikidās ॐ 18:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Different books are clearly given different levels of credibility and interpretations by different groups. The only place I have yet found which gives population statistics is [3], which doesn't differentiate between the various kinds of Vaishnavas, and gives a total of roughly 560 million total Vaishnavas. If anyone could produce reliable, verifiable evidence that "one side" or the other had numbers in excess of 280 million, or half that number, then I think we could state conclusively that "side" had more adherents. It seems to me, given the number of "Vishnu-first" groups, that it would probably be easier to find numbers for the "Krishna-first" groups, which aren't as numerous. Does anyone have any population statistics on those groups? John Carter (talk) 17:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
As far as the assumption of "Krishna-first" groups aren't as numerous I would first want to know the numbers of the followers of just two groups, ie Sri and those in Madhva line who do not accept Krsna (because all Udupi is centered around worship of Krishna and some there do consider the statement of the Bhagavata as the final truth). Just give us numbers of the two schools and you will see the difference of them to the rest! --Wikidās ॐ 18:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Note about Madhva beliefs: while Krishna-worship is a big part of Udipi, Krishna is still seen as an avatar of Vishnu although He is seen as a 'complete' avatar.A primary reason why Krishna worship is important at Udipi centers around a legend that Madhvacharya found a Krishna icon... (but that is an off-topic different story...) and in any case is largely irrelevant to the philosophy. Madhvas believe that worshipping Vishnu's avatars is given near-equal status to worshipping Vishnu, which does not change the belief in Vishnu as the source. --Shruti14 t c s 18:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Can our esteemed Sri Vaishnava friends provide just plain numbers of the populations of their particular tradition, and since they claim to be the biggest, we can see actual picture very quickly. Please. ---Wikidās ॐ 19:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Currently searching for the numbers... (BTW - I'm not a Sri Vaishnava.) --Shruti14 t c s 19:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Surprisingly it's much harder than I thought to find the numbers - the web appears to not have any reliable sources for them. Perhaps this may have something to do with the fact that no such census was (AFAIK) ever taken. In any case, I personally like the current compromise in the lead paragraph written by John Carter (with my minor copyedits) currently on the article page - it nicely avoids the numbers and mentions both points of view, so perhaps searching for the numbers would not be necessary. --Shruti14 t c s 19:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
First, this is not about numbers. this about what does the original scriptures say...and it says that Vishnu is first and Krishna is avatara. period. The ISKCON/Gaudiya group and others are cults and sects, and are not believed by greater Hinduism. Wikidas has said I can not verify, what I have said, but, it is historical, scriptural fact. The scriptures that he uses are for his group...not the rest of hinduism. This is evidence of the ISKCON/Gaudiya push for their cult.Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 16:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Wikidas is only using books that are used for ISKCON/Gaudiyas, There are quotes from the four vedas, upanishads, and many puranic quotes (epecially for the Bhagavata purana) that State that Vishn/Narayana is first and that Krishna is an avatara. Please everyone, dont fall for his quotes. Please remember the qoutes from Shruti or the original scriptures to counter wikidas ISKCON/Gaudiya and Shmriti qoutes. For them, please look at my userpage qoutes.His references are not worthy and bias. Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 16:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
As of now, the article is largely unbiased and devoid of "slants" - it acknowledges relevant points of view without any POV. --Shruti14 t c s 02:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Depictions First?

A (relatively) minor point compared to everything else discussed here, but it still bothers me - is there any reason why, in the lead paragraphs, depictions are mentioned first, before any mention of Krishna's significance or how He is seen by various schools? Again, it's minor, but something that struck me as a bit odd. --Shruti14 t c s 18:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Because first of all majority of Hindus, unless they were trained in Vedanta, do not associate concepts to images. --Wikidās ॐ 18:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I understand that, but still, why not mention Krishna's significance to the religion first, and then mention that "He is usually depicted as..."? Again, it's really a minor thing. --Shruti14 t c s 18:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Suggest: He is usually depicted as a young to be changed to He is the speaker of Bhagavad Gita and is usually depicted as a young - Wikidās ॐ 18:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

That's better, but for some reason I feel it's still not putting enough emphasis on what He is to the religion. (I might just be being a little too picky here.) --Shruti14 t c s 18:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


No, I don't think you are actually. Maybe something like this:
"Krishna is a deity worshipped in most of the traditions in Hinduism. In some of these traditions, he is seen as being the Supreme God and source of all the other avatars of Vishnu, including Vishnu himself. In most of the other Vaishnava traditions, he is seen as being himself an avatar of Vishnu. In all the Vaishnava traditions, however, the Supreme God, whether Krishna or Vishnu, is a real being, as is the universe he created.
Krishna is described and depicted as being a young black-skinned, man during his earthly incarnation, often shown playing a flute in the stories of the Bhagavata Purana, or as a young prince, as in the Bhagavad Gita.
There are a number of perspectives on Krishna within the numerous Hindu traditions of India, and the stories relating to him are referenced in a broad spectrum of Hindu philosophical and theological teachings. Though they sometimes differ in detail... ."
It places more emphasis on the theological aspect, and avoids the "numbers game" by placing more emphasis on the number of traditions which regard him as being Vishnu's source and vice versa, which is probably more relevant historically. Any opinions? John Carter (talk) 18:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
For the most part, I like this better. A minor copyedit might help, but the paragraph itself is pretty good in what it states, and certainly puts emphasis on theology rather than depiction. --Shruti14 t c s 19:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
We should follow Scripture or Shruti, wikidas ideas of "number superiority" is unfounded. Tradition, History, and older scripture SHOULD be upheld.Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 20:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Current Lead

Added most of above with few copyedits. Here is the entire text of the current lead:

Krishna (कृष्ण in Devanagari, kṛṣṇa in IAST, IPA: [ˈkr̩ʂɳə] in classical Sanskrit) is a deity worshipped across many traditions of Hinduism. Within some of these traditions, Krishna is worshiped as an avatar of Vishnu, who is considered the Supreme God by most Vaishnava schools. Among other traditions of Vaisnavism, such as within Gaudiya Vaishnavism,[6] the Vallabha Sampradaya and the Nimbarka Sampradaya, Krishna is worshiped as the source of all other avatars including Vishnu.[7][8][15][10] A distinguishing feature of the Vaisnava teachings is that God, Krishna or Vishnu,[11][12] is a real being and His creation is also real.[12][13]
Krishna is often described and depicted as having the appearance of a dark-skinned man during his earthly incarnation, often shown as a young cowherd boy playing a flute (as in the Bhagavata Purana) or a youthful prince giving philosophical direction and guidance to others (as in the Bhagavad Gita).[12]There are a number of perspectives on Krishna within a number of traditions in India.[16]
Krishna and the stories associated with him appear across a broad spectrum of Hindu philosophical and theological traditions.[17][13] Though they sometimes differ in details reflecting the concerns of a particular tradition, some core features are shared by all.[16] These include a divine incarnation, a pastoral childhood and youth, and life as a heroic warrior and teacher.[11]

--Shruti14 t c s 19:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I feel that the expression "who is considered the Supreme God by most Vaishnava schools." makes the impression that some do not accept him to be Supreme God. All Vaishnavas do. However some accept Krsna to be Original Personality - svayam bhagavan. Something hard to translate to English, except as by Original or Himself. It should read "who is considered the Supreme God by all Vaishnavas."

---Wikidās ॐ 20:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

You are technically correct - however that wording would imply that all Vaishnavas accept Krishna as svayam bhagavan, which is not correct. --Shruti14 t c s 21:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Here is my take in the attempt to arrive at NPOV. Any objections?

Krishna (कृष्ण in Devanagari, kṛṣṇa in IAST, IPA: [ˈkr̩ʂɳə] in classical Sanskrit) is a deity worshiped across many traditions of Hinduism. Within some of these traditions, Krishna is worshiped as an avatar of Vishnu, who is considered the Supreme God by all Vaishnava schools. Among other traditions of Vaisnavism, such as within Gaudiya Vaishnavism,[6] the Vallabha Sampradaya and the Nimbarka Sampradaya, Krishna is worshiped as svayam bhagavan, the source of all other avatars including Vishnu.[7][8][18][10] A distinguishing feature of the Vaisnava teachings is that God, Krishna or Vishnu,[11][12] is a real being and His creation is also real.[12][13]
Krishna is often described and depicted as having the appearance of a dark-skinned man during his earthly incarnation, often shown as a young cowherd boy playing a flute (as in the Bhagavata Purana) or a youthful prince giving philosophical direction and guidance to others (as in the Bhagavad Gita).[12]There are a number of perspectives on Krishna within a number of traditions in India.[16]
Krishna and the stories associated with him appear across a broad spectrum of Hindu philosophical and theological traditions.[19][13] Though they sometimes differ in details reflecting the concerns of a particular tradition, some core features are shared by all.[16] These include a divine incarnation, a pastoral childhood and youth, and life as a heroic warrior and teacher.[11]

--Wikidās ॐ 21:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me - I have changed the article to reflect this - with a few minor changes (wikilinked svayam bhagavan, fixed "worshiped" which should be spelled "worshipped" etc.) --Shruti14 t c s 21:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikidas saying that "All Vaishnavas accept Krishna as God" is wrong. The original Vaishnava believe VISHNU to be God and Krishna an avatara. Please, dont fall for his sophistry. Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 18:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Way before the groups that wikidas is trying to uphold; the term Vaishnava means "Vishnu worshiper". According Shruti or old original scriptures; Vishnu/Narayana is the first. He is using latter-day smriti books that have been written and translated with a "Krishna is first" agenda. The Gopala upanishad that he keeps on using was written in the 1600's and first put forth after the death of Ramanujacharya, some time around the 1200's. So, between the 1200's to 1600's, this book came around. During the time of the schism groups like the Gaudiyas came around. Please everyone, if you know even a little bit of sanskrit, please read the Bhagavata purana that wikidas is qouting from. It has been translated with a heavy ISKCON/Gaudiya slant and in alot of verses, it is mistranslated. (wikidas, to qoute all of the mistranslations would take to much time). Please every one, lets be careful in accepting ISKCON translations. Just go to amazon.com to see what some people think about the translations of ISKCON.Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 19:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Redirect?

I removed the redirect from Talk:Svayam bhagavan to Talk:Krishna because these are separate articles. --Shruti14 t c s 20:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Removed link

I have removed the following information which was placed directly after the introduction:

"

Further information: Svayam bhagavan

- the concept of Krishna as the Supreme Personality of Godhead."

Such a link in that location does not conform to WP:MOS, and is at best poorly phrased. I acknowledge that there should be a link to an article which discusses the controversy between Krishna and Vishnu between the Supreme Personality. However, it can and probably should be made as a normal link, and it should definitely not use language which could be seen as being POV, as this one did. Is anyone aware of an extant page which discusses this controversy in an NPOV manner, so it can be linked to in both this article and the Vishnu article? John Carter (talk) 21:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I also felt its placement was awkward, but wasn't sure where to put it. I have placed the link in the "See Also" section. --Shruti14 t c s 21:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the
Further information: Svayam bhagavan
- the concept of Krishna as the Supreme Personality of Godhead.
was not very successful. Maybe a section in this article and in the Vaishnavism article can address it and and then for a full article Vishnu and svayam bhagavan articles can be accessed.--Wikidās ॐ 21:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Svayam bhagavan is the main article where most of the information related to this subject should be written. --Shruti14 t c s 21:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I think that an article which discusses the dispute between Krishna and Vishnu being the Supreme God would probably be the best place for such content, with maybe links in the words "Supreme God" or suchlike. I also think that it might be a good idea to remind everybody of one of our more important behavioral guidelines regarding conflict of interest, which, basically, says if you cannot address the content of an article in a neutral, non-judgemental way, or does so to advance his own position, he should refrain from editing such articles, as doing so could ultimately lead that editor to engaging in disruptive editing, which can be grounds for an account being blocked. We are here not to advance any specific position, but to treat all subjects in a non-judgemental, NPOV way. I acknowledge that can be difficult regarding matters of deeply held religious belief, but because religious material is often among the most contentious material we have, it is all the more important that we do everything in our power to observe it. I also would like to thank all editors on this page who have to date refrained from such edits. John Carter (talk) 21:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Agree with John Carter here. --Shruti14 t c s 21:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with him as well as when he said: However, it can and probably should be made as a normal link, and it should definitely 'not' use language which could be seen as being POV. I suggest doing just that. As long as the introduction is reworded to reflect the simple fact that all Vaishnavas accept Vishnu to Supreme God and three schools accept Krishna to be svayam bhagavan according to Bhagavata Purana and Gopala Tapani Upanishad. --Wikidās ॐ 21:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Note: After moving Wikidās's edit of the lead to the article, I have wikilinked svayam bhagavan. --Shruti14 t c s 21:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Vaishnavas outside the three sub-groups, believe in the qoutes from Shruti; the Rig Veda and other Vedas, the main, older, established Upanishads, and other older, traditional scriptures. The Gopala Tapani Upanishad is very late book, and probaly created between the 12th and 17th centuries to justify the "Three" Krishna sub-groups. This has to be stated. And, most of the Hindu editors can back me up on this.Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 19:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Zeuspitar AKA Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA - please discuss this on Vaishnavism page talk. This page is about Krishna.Wikidās ॐ 09:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Way before the groups that wikidas is trying to uphold; the term Vaishnava means "Vishnu worshiper". According Shruti or old original scriptures; Vishnu/Narayana is the first. He is using latter-day smriti books that have been written and translated with a "Krishna is first" agenda. The Gopala upanishad that he keeps on using was written in the 1600's and first put forth after the death of Ramanujacharya, some time around the 1200's. So, between the 1200's to 1600's, this book came around. During the time of the schism groups like the Gaudiyas came around. Please everyone, if you know even a little bit of sanskrit, please read the Bhagavata purana that wikidas is qouting from. It has been translated with a heavy ISKCON/Gaudiya slant and in alot of verses, it is mistranslated. (wikidas, to qoute all of the mistranslations would take to much time). Please every one, lets be careful in accepting ISKCON translations. Just go to amazon.com to see what some people think about the translations of ISKCON.Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 19:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC) Wikidās ॐ 09:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC) Please refer to Shruti page. Note: Ramanujas definition of what is sruti and what is smriti is just one of a number, that differ among traditions. Also your dating is incorrect, not just by logic. Again discuss it in the relevant page of the Gopala Tapani Upanishad. Your constantly put down one particular group, Im afraid its against the basic wikiket, some may even suspect that you can not maintain NPOV:-) Wikidās ॐ 09:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

In any situation, NPOV must be maintained - a neutral point of view. As of now, I think from much of this article we have removed almost any questionable bias or "slants" in any direction - which is great. --Shruti14 t c s 02:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Minor Changes

I have made multiple copyedits and changes (mostly minor stuff such as correcting misspellings and rearranging the words of awkward sentences) and I think that more of these can be done. I really think that simple things like these can be easily fixed to improve the quality and clarity of the article. --Shruti14 t c s 02:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

RE:Etymology

"The term Krishna in Sanskrit has the literal meaning of "black" or "dark", and is used as a name to describe someone with dark skin." shouldn't this be "The term Syama in Sanskrit has the literal meaning of "black" or "dark", and is used as a name to describe someone with dark skin." or "The term Krishna in Sanskrit has the literal meaning of "the all-attractive One"" Syama (talk) 02:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The current meaning and text is correct. Look in any academic dictionary; e.g., online at [4] (search for kRSNa using their transliteration system). Shyama (search for zyama) has a similar meaning of course. There is no mention of 'all attractive' in the dictionary. I suspect that this recent meaning in the writings of some schools is born of simple colour prejudice. If so, people who follow these schools would be advised to do themselves a favour and stop referring to it. Imc (talk) 06:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Besides dictionary meaning of the word, there are quite a few meanings that are defined in the context of the religious understanding of this particular Deity. Hardly any use to list them all, unless there are verifiable sources to back it up. Wikidās ॐ 08:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Anyone with a basic knowledge of Sanskrit will agree the word "Krishna" means "black" in Sanskrit. 'all attractive' meaning needs a reference.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Reference of what kind? You just removed 2 references. Do you need Sanskrit lesson or what? I removed them right back. Since you asked for reference. Wikidās ॐ 20:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Wikidās, Redtigerxyz was referring to reliable sources, and not sources that do not meet the WP:RS criteria. Also, in Sanskrit, "Krishna" does mean "black" (or "dark") and the definition "all-attractive" is a Gaudiya-specific definition (AFAIK not supported by any other Vaishnava sect, including other "Krishna-first" groups, due to the original Sanskrit meaning). --Shruti14 t c s 03:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I also agree with Shruti and Redtigerxyz; the actual sanskrit translation is "Black". And, ONLY the ISKCON/Gaudiyas think it is "all-attractive". Alot of the Gaudiya dont know Sanskrit.Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 08:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec)
I have reverted this edit by User:Wikidas which added two references to the sentence, The Gaudiya tradition explains the primary meaning of the name Krishna as being “all-attractive”., because:

  1. The journal in the first citation was mislabeled, "Antimicrobial Resistance" instead of "Emerging infectious diseases"; it said nothing about "Gaudiya Vaishnavas"; but more importantly the CDC publication does not even close to being an authoritative source on this topic.
  2. The second source, which is acceptable as a source for the ISKCON viewpoint and makes a causal use of the phrase "Krishna, the 'all-attractive'", says nothing about the primary meaning of Krishna. (This deficiency can perhaps be remedied by rephrasing the sentence itself)

The only reason I am bringing this issue to the talk page, is because recently I have observed Wikidas add several questionable citations and citations that don't truly support the statements they are appended to (see above section for several examples). I hope that editors will keep an eye on his edits and referencing. Abecedare (talk) 20:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

this one was only on the topic of the meaning used (even in CDC publication) Wikidās ॐ
this one is the example of common use by Gaudiya Vaishnava.Wikidās ॐ
thanks for check them out, after 50 way here and there edits the references moved. I did not bother to comment because of it. Some of the references were removed mainly because of POV by the other editor. But its always good to check refs.
BTW I will add reference to Gaudiya Vaishnava source. Since you have asked please do not remove it. Thanks. Wikidās ॐ 20:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure what Wikidas is saying above, but he has re-added the mislabeled and deficient citations, as well as the citation to a ISKCON fortnightly email newsletter, which clearly fails WP:RS. I'll wait for some other editors to weight in. Abecedare (talk) 01:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

ISKCON/Gaudiya references (and others) are acceptable if and only if they are a) reliable sources, b) relevant to the topic, and c) the material derived from the reference is not original research. Any references and derived information that do not meet this criteria, ISKCON or not, must be removed and/or replaced with a better source. I'm afraid that most, if not all, of the re-added sources do not meet this criteria. If this information is to be added and cited, better references are needed, or else must be removed. --Shruti14 t c s 02:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I believe that Wikidās was stating that his refs were ISKCON/Gaudiya sources and did not want you (or anyone else, myself included) to remove them on this basis. However, the sources fail WP:RS (or in the case of the CDC publication, not authoritative on the subject) and will have to be removed. --Shruti14 t c s 02:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I completely disagree. The sources are reliable sources and are used on vast number of sites. Moreover they are reliable for the specific view of expressed - Gaudiya. There can be no doubt about it if one is Gaudiya. Wikidās ॐ 07:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Religious sources are reliable sources for religious viewpoints, so it's not uncommon for religion articles to use religious sources to explain the meaning of any religious title and nature of the role that religious leaders have in the religion or religious organization (which are, after all, religious matters). I wouldn't use them for non-religious or non-routine information. Please be reasonable. They are reliable sources, you know it. Wikidās ॐ 08:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I also agree with Shruti and Redtigerxyz; the actual sanskrit translation of Krishna is "Black". And, ONLY the ISKCON/Gaudiyas think it is "all-attractive". Alot of the Gaudiya dont know Sanskrit.Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 08:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
You just confirmed that Prabhupada is reliable source for the specific meaning as its interpreted by Gaudiya. I thus insist that his references were included. Wikidās ॐ 08:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


kṛṣir bhū-vācakaḥ śabdo
ṇaś ca nirvṛti-vācakaḥ
tayor aikyaḿ paraḿ brahma
kṛṣṇa ity abhidhīyate
SYNONYMS
kṛṣiḥ — the verbal root kṛṣ; bhū — attractive existence; vācakaḥ — signifying; śabdaḥ — word; ṇaḥ — the syllable ṇa; ca — and; nirvṛti — spiritual pleasure; vācakaḥ — indicating; tayoḥ — of both; aikyam — amalgamation; param — supreme; brahma — Absolute Truth; kṛṣṇaḥ — Lord Kṛṣṇa; iti — thus; abhidhīyate — is called.
This is a verse from the Mahābhārata (Udyoga-parva 71.4) as quoted and already referred in the discussion. ;http://vedabase.net/cc/madhya/9/30/en


--Wikidās ॐ 08:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC) (and reformatted by Imc (talk) 09:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC))
1. From the Cologne Sanskrit dictionary, already referred to; the root kṛṣ (kRS which btw is not kRSNa) has a meaning 'draw', as in draw a ploughshare. The meaning of 'attractive' is not mentioned in this text. The word bhū, from the same source, means to exist, to come into being, and many other things, but not 'attractive existence'.
2. Udyoga parva 71.4; see the Ganguli translation at http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m05/m05071.htm which cannot be said to support the suggestion.
3. Prabhupada is a reliable source for the texts written by him. There is no reason to take him as RS for anything else when it is contradicted by other obvious evidence.
Imc (talk) 09:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
You must off the wall to suggest that because a dictionary made in Germany gives a different translation, therefor Gaudiya Vaishnavas can not have any other translation as part of the cannon. There are so many translations of the name Krishna... btw http://vedabase.net/cc/madhya/9/30/en is part of the Gaudiya literature and is explaining in the context of other verses. Ganguli is not Gaudiya (even I know that). If you find any other Gaudiya evidence that translates this verse to mean something else, let us know. Wikidās ॐ 10:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Etymology (see a dictionary) is a branch of linguistic science concerned with word formations and development of meaning. Prabhupada was a religious leader or theologian; he was not a linguist. He does not give an etymology of Krishna, what he gives may perhaps be best described as 'folk-etymology', a term that is also in modern dictionaries. Gaudiya may put it own interpretation on the name, but that is not etymology. And Vaishnavism does not own Krishna.
btw, if you consider that the fact that the dictionary is 'made in Germany' is relevant, please also give your place of birth so I can consider its relevance to your arguments. The actual dictionary entries quoted are from Monier-Williams who despite his Christian evalengical beliefs was 'made in India' so presumably is an acceptable source. Imc (talk) 13:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
In this case Etymology presumes specific socio-religious context, within this context particular definitions remain. Otherwise you will be just left with is a dictionary definition and that is NOT entry for a biography as is the case here, this requires cultural context, that is clearly done by quotes from different traditions. Wikidās ॐ 13:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC) BTW It appears to me that original title ==The name== is better and reflects the elements discussed better. Wikidās ॐ 15:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
The meaning of "Krishna" as "all-attractive" is a specifically Gaudiya definition. It is relevant within a Gaudiya context, and should be labeled as such. It is not a mainstream definition or linguistic Sanskrit definition, as in Sanskrit "Krishna" means "black". --Shruti14 t c s 22:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I would not argue with that, as its the fact. However it spread out from 'just' Gaudiya to be even a definition used in a medical journal:-) Yes, yes it should be very clear that its a Gaudiya definition. Was it not clear? Wikidās ॐ 08:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

  1. ^ Harvey, D. A. (2003). "Beyond Enlightenment: Occultism, Politics, and Culture in France from the Old Regime to the Fin-de-Siècle". The Historian. 65 (3). Blackwell Publishing: 665–694. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |month= (help)
  2. ^ Schure, Edouard (1992). Great Initiates: A Study of the Secret History of Religions. Garber Communications. ISBN 0893452289.
  3. ^ See for example: Hanegraaff, Wouter J. (1996). New Age Religion and Western Culture: Esotericism in the Mirror of Secular Thought. Brill Publishers. pp. p. 390. ISBN 9004106960. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help), Hammer, Olav (2004). Claiming Knowledge: Strategies of Epistemology from Theosophy to the New Age. Brill Publishers. pp. p. 62, 174. ISBN 900413638X. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help), and Ellwood, Robert S. (1986). Theosophy: A Modern Expression of the Wisdom of the Ages. Quest Books. pp. p. 139. ISBN 0835606074. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)
  4. ^ See Crowley, Aleister. Liber Aleph. Weiser Books. p. 71. ISBN 0877287295. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help) and Crowley, Aleister (1980). The Book of Lies. Red Wheels. pp. 24–25. ISBN 0877285160.
  5. ^ Apiryon, Tau (1995). Mystery of Mystery: A Primer of Thelemic Ecclesiastical Gnosticism. Berkeley, CA: Red Flame. ISBN 0971237611. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  6. ^ a b c d Kennedy, M.T. (1925). The Chaitanya Movement: A Study of the Vaishnavism of Bengal. H. Milford, Oxford university press. Cite error: The named reference "Kennedy1925" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  7. ^ a b c d Delmonico, N. (2004). "The History Of Indic Monotheism And Modern Chaitanya Vaishnavism". The Hare Krishna Movement: The Postcharismatic Fate of a Religious Transplant. Retrieved 2008-04-12. Cite error: The named reference "Delmonico2004" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  8. ^ a b c d Ojha, P.N. (1978). Aspects of Medieval Indian Society and Culture. BR Pub. Corp.; New Delhi: DK Publishers' Distributors. Cite error: The named reference "Ojha1978" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  9. ^ Bhag.Purana 1.3.28 "All of the above-mentioned incarnations are either plenary portions or portions of the plenary portions of the Lord, but Lord Sri Krishna is the original Personality of Godhead."
  10. ^ a b c d See McDaniel, June, "Folk Vaishnavism and Ṭhākur Pañcāyat: Life and status among village Krishna statues" in Beck 2005, p. 39
  11. ^ a b c d e f G.G. Swami, A.C. Bhaktivedanta (2001, Fortnightly email mini-magazine from Gopal Jiu Publications). "Krishna OR Vishnu?" (PDF). Retrieved 2008-04-12. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |year= (help); Cite journal requires |journal= (help)...Similarly, if you love Krishna, that’s all right. If you love Vishnu, that is also all right. But you cannot derive the same result by loving Krishna and by Vishnu. Therefore it is your selection, whom should you love. Krishna is cent percent and Vishnu is ninety-four percent. So if you want to worship or love ninety-four percent, that is also almost Krishna. But Krishna is cent percent, pūrnam.(see: Bhakti-rasamrita-sindhu additional qualities of Krishna)
  12. ^ a b c d e f g h i j Elkman, S.M. (1986). Jiva Gosvamin's Tattvasandarbha: A Study on the Philosophical and Sectarian Development of the Gaudiya Vaisnava Movement. Motilal Banarsidass Pub. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  13. ^ a b c d e f Richard Thompson, Ph. D. (December 1994). "Reflections on the Relation Between Religion and Modern Rationalism". Retrieved 2008-04-12. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  14. ^ Bhag.Purana 1.3.28 "All of the above-mentioned incarnations are either plenary portions or portions of the plenary portions of the Lord, but Lord Sri Krishna is the original Personality of Godhead."
  15. ^ Bhag.Purana 1.3.28 "All of the above-mentioned incarnations are either plenary portions or portions of the plenary portions of the Lord, but Lord Sri Krishna is the original Personality of Godhead."
  16. ^ a b c d Mahony, W.K. (1987). "Perspectives on Krsna's Various Personalities". History of Religions. 26 (3): 333–335. Retrieved 2008-04-12.
  17. ^ Chaitanya Charitamrita Madhya 20.165
  18. ^ Bhag.Purana 1.3.28 "All of the above-mentioned incarnations are either plenary portions or portions of the plenary portions of the Lord, but Lord Sri Krishna is the original Personality of Godhead."
  19. ^ Chaitanya Charitamrita Madhya 20.165
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Krishna/Archive_3&oldid=1136264044"