Talk:Krishna/Archive 6

Undue content

@Electriceag: Welcome to wikipedia. I have reverted your edits because they were unsourced and undue. Please see wikipedia's content policies and guidelines, particularly on WP:RS and WP:WWIN. We can summarize reliable, peer reviewed mainstream scholarship, that is verifiable. The few checks I made suggest that the free lance journalist Menon's book you cited does not meet this guideline. Further, you did not specify pages numbers (just vague chapters), which is not helpful for WP:V. Do you have a better peer reviewed sources with specific page numbers? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:55, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch:.Thanks,for advising.The info that i have added about the alternative tale from Bhagavata about reasons leading to destruction can easily be verified by just quickly perusing Mahabharata and Bhagvata (like he was not sleeping when hunter hit but was in (high yoga as by Kishana Ganguli ,his maintaing of four handed form and ascension to above)I will not be able to provide exact page no(I have amazon kindle version) but his content matches with Bryant in narrating the incident from chapter 30&31.I think its better to use the phrase "he ascended with four handed form" instead of "dies" as the former is what all the sources,Mahabharata and Bhagvata say (The Bryant source used here to describe that (he slept) is under extremely fringe view of a particular regional variation)and i think its better to use his other work (Krishna-The Beautiful Legend of God)

Also I think,the paragraph relating to docetism is important (constructed from Nicholas Sutton ) is important as it clarifies the apparent contradiction of his death and the continuing debate on the docetism backed by Bhagvata and .Whats your opinion?

And thanks for your work in streamlining this entire article.Earlier it was a mess.Please can you do this for Rama article. Thank youElectriceag (talk) 13:53, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

@Electriceage: Please see WP:EUPHEMISM. We need to respect the community consensus on this, since many wikipedia readers are not from South/Southeast Asia where Krishna has long been a part of the human heritage. Bryant's Krishna: The Beautiful Legend of God is a translation of Book 10 of the Bhagavata Purana. The subject of this article is Krishna, not a particular book within a specific Purana. On the rest, if you provide page numbers, I will take a closer look. Yes, the Rama and Radha articles need attention (@Tito Dutta: see, we are not the only ones concerned about some of these articles!). Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:14, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch:.I respect your good faith in preserving the integrity of article.As krishna is mythological figure with dubious historical presence The mythology described his death exactly so ,we are not bothered about its scientfic implications but myth should be preserved in describing so like his ascension in four armed form.Here are few examples straight from the Mahabharta and Bhagvata(two most authoritative works describing him).I have tried to match the source as closely as possible and referred both Bryant and Menon for help.

"A fierce hunter of the name of Jara then came there, desirous of deer. The hunter, mistaking Keshava, who was stretched on the earth in high Yoga, for a deer, pierced him at the heel with a shaft and quickly came to that spot for capturing his prey. Coming up, Jara beheld a man dressed in yellow robes, rapt in Yoga and endued with many arms. Regarding himself an offender, and filled with fear, he touched the feet of Keshava. The high-souled one comforted him and then ascended upwards, filling the entire welkin with splendour"SOURCE (http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m16/m16004.htm)

"Without in meditation on the fire burning in a mystic trance the object so auspicious for all concentration and meditation, viz. His body most attractive to all the worlds, He entered His heavenly abode"SOURCE(http://bhagavata.org/canto11/chapter31.html)

The docetism para is constructed from pg 173-179 (Sutton).Thank YouElectriceag (talk) 15:08, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

@Electriceag: Blogs and websites are not acceptable. Each Purana exists in too many versions, see Ludo Rocher's treatise on them, pages 25-28 and elsewhere for example. To push some website version violates wiki's NPOV and other guidelines. I do understand your concern, and will shortly add Diana L. Eck source which explicitly supports "Krishna died" from the deer hunter Jara's arrow. Eck is a Harvard University professor on comparative religion, known for her work on Hinduism. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:23, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch:Ok, i will try to restructure the subtopic by providing book resources.But i believe Ganguly version of Mahabharata is neutral in tone and the only available work in public domain.Eck no doubt is outstanding , but i will try to substantiate my edit with more references that wont contradict her but will add information of his departure that can also be independently verified by anyone in the primary texts of Mahabharata and Bhagvataa of any posited discrepancies.Please be generous of my edit.ThanksElectriceag (talk) 19:04, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Your effort is welcome. The real issue here is that the subject is Krishna, not a particular episode of the Mahabharata. Krishna's story is also mentioned in many versions in various Puranas, etc. We can't overload this article with one stage of Krishna's life (his death), nor unduly emphasize one version of a story, nor make this article into a quote farm. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:18, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch:.I now think the description and length is perfect and matches with the epic .I was reluctant to add the docetism para as you advised not to overload one stage.But can i go for the similar treatment for other stages to include the details.ThanksElectriceag (talk) 19:53, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch:Sorry to say ,but i dont know why you are so stringent and unflexible in wikepedia policies.I dont what makes it a reliable source(maybe a tag of any Ivy league would make it).All the details i have added can be verified from independent multiple source like i posted,Bryant, Ganguly Mahbharata .You are just reverting because (some godly refrence sources) have skipped to mention it even if the original books and other detailed snippets have mentioned it.Infact,my addition doesnt change the overall narrative and includes ascension details.And for undue part i myself have not mentioned the docetism para.But mentioning the alternate name of his death place is not undue.It appears you want the monoploy in presenting and controlling the textflow.I may be wrong ,but i except future coordination from ur side . My introductorty experience in wikepedia is letdown.ThanksElectriceag (talk) 20:42, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

There is no flexibility to allow WP:Copyvio in wikipedia, nor can you use blogs, websites, non-peer reviewed or other questionable sources. For the rest, see above please. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:56, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Later life

is there any verifiable basis for Gandhari's curse? If so, why does the later life not talk about this? 98.206.68.196 (talk)tkul....

Krishna belonged to Abhira (Ahir) Tribe.

http://books.google.co.in/books?id=P3uD22Ghqs4C&pg=PA197&dq=krishna+was+abhira&hl=en&ei=NTuQTdpSwp1xxJTVlQo&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CEsQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=krishna%20was%20abhira&f=false

Indian sociology through Ghurye, a dictionary By S. Devadas Pillaipage -197

Epilogue of Mahabharata http://books.google.co.in/books?id=fmzXAAAAMAAJ&q=krishna+was+abhira&dq=krishna+was+abhira&hl=en&ei=NTuQTdpSwp1xxJTVlQo&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CEEQ6AEwBA

http://books.google.co.in/books?id=voLXAAAAMAAJ&q=krishna+was+abhira&dq=krishna+was+abhira&hl=en&ei=NTuQTdpSwp1xxJTVlQo&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CFQQ6AEwCA Krishna Leela theme in Rajasthani miniatures

http://books.google.co.in/books?ei=aD2QTbWFJcLMcL7FnYYK&ct=result&id=qZvWAAAAMAAJ&dq=krishna+was+abhira&q=abhira http://books.google.co.in/books?ei=aD2QTbWFJcLMcL7FnYYK&ct=result&id=qZvWAAAAMAAJ&dq=krishna+was+abhira&q=abhiras Hinduism and Buddhism: an historical sketch, Volume 1 By Sir Charles Eliot

http://books.google.co.in/books?id=kMnOBpUy7P4C&pg=PA158&dq=krishna+was+abhira&hl=en&ei=aD2QTbWFJcLMcL7FnYYK&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CEIQ6AEwBTgU#v=onepage&q&f=false Hindu Gods and Heroes http://books.google.co.in/books?id=_r1buuxthXoC&pg=PA97&dq=krishna+was+abhira&hl=en&ei=VD-QTZagH8qycMXUmYsK&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCgQ6AEwADge#v=onepage&q=krishna%20was%20abhira&f=false

Ahir king Nand Baba and Vasudeva were brothers.

The cattle and the stick: an ethnographic profile of the Raut of Chhattisgarh

http://books.google.co.in/books?ei=VD-QTZagH8qycMXUmYsK&ct=result&id=wT-BAAAAMAAJ&dq=krishna+was+abhira&q=yaduvansi

Infobox

@Ms Sarah Welch: Can you please tell me the reason of template not matching with source text.In Krishna Consort section You have succinctly described the info.But my wiki is showing strange behavior and is displaying some alternate data in that section.THanks.And you were amazing in cleaning the mess on Rama article.Thanks and regret for my rude tone that day.I will present better sources next time.Dm51c (talk) 15:29, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind appreciation. I am glad you liked the revisions to the Rama article. No worries about being rude, that is pretty common in wikipedia! But yes, please do try to be nicer if your emotions allow (avoid saving your edit when you feel too upset or too happy)! Please provide the edit diff you are referring with consort-infobox. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:44, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch::: My source is displaying the following info "| consort = Radha,Rukmini, varies"

whereas Krishna page diplays Consort Rukmini, Satyabhama, Jambavati, Bhadra, Lakshmana, Mitravinda, Nagnajiti, Rohini. I am puzzled!ThanksDm51c (talk) 15:57, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

References

@Frietjes: something strange is going on with the infobox wrapper coding and this article. There is some issue with the "consort =" field, where strange text is displaying inside the infobox (you need to scroll down to see the strange floating text inside the infobox). This happens even if the field is empty! That carries over whether the field is "consort =" or "Consort =", regardless of what you write in there. It is not displaying what it should. Would you please take a look and fix this? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:17, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Ms Sarah Welch, I fixed the labels. the spouse information is being pulled from wikidata. I agree, there should be a way to disable this feature. Frietjes (talk) 16:45, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata is optional. It is activated only when there is no spouse or consort Param used. To disable simply add consort or spouse, with or without value as you please. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 16:59, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Indeed Frietjes, this linking of wikidata to infoboxes needs a rethink and a disable option! It can be a backdoor to vandalism and misinformation. @Capankajsmilyo: You are mistaken and being driven by your assumptions instead of empirical testing and real observations. That is based on the three test edits I made today, and linked above. Now, with whatever wizardry Frietjes did, the problem has vanished. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:29, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Frietjes, for fixing it. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 17:33, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Self published sources

@Dm51c: There are two problems. The article is about Krishna, not the book translated by Tapasyananda. Second, we can't use WP:SPS, blogs or other publications where there is a lack of evidence of a peer review. Do you have a peer reviewed source? and, why is this content you added appropriate? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:34, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch:I understand ur concern for rs sources.Although its a significant criteria to determine repuatation for articles.I believe it shouldnt be overused in religious or mythical content.""https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_source_examples"".The talk delineates this issue.Infact, I have mentioned the "text says and used a qualifier."ThanksDm51c (talk) 13:57, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Dm51c: That is a talk page archive of comments and failed proposals. Talk page discussions do not constitute wikipedia content guidelines and policies. There is a lot of peer reviewed, high quality WP:RS on Krishna, and if you can't find one that supports your content then we must remove it. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:29, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Ms Sarah Welch.It's not failed propasals,its a talk page on essay on Wikipedia:Reliable source examples.Please build consensus before removing it.Wikepedia is exclusively not about fastidious (peer reviewed Rs).Dm51c (talk) 14:53, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Dm51c: You need consensus to add something from a questionable source. You added Bryant's book as source, with page = 729. The book has only 608 pages. Perhaps you mistyped. Would you please check and provide the exact quote? Please do not edit war over this, as you did previously in other articles a year ago, using questionable sources such as hinduwebsite.com. Please see WP:3RR again. Let us discuss this. Ms Sarah Welch (talk). 16:59, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch:I apologise for a mistake in page no.I have a ebook,so pages may not be in accordance with printed text.i have gleaned over my past mistakes,at that time ,i was novice enough to quote hinduwebsite.com."Anyway in this context ,i'll remove Swami Tapasyananda version,and support it with a bryant version(i'll not be able to provide exact page no) and one another independent sources.Kindly cooperate.Thanks.Dm51c (talk) 17:22, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Krishna/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Katolophyromai (talk · contribs) 21:15, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

I will review this article. Since Krishna is an important topic that many people are likely to be interested in, I will attempt to review this article section-by-section, starting with the etymology section and working my way down to the bottom. Then, once I have reviewed all of the sections, I will review the lead. The reason I plan on reviewing the lead last is because I want to be able to make sure that it adequately summarizes the content of the rest of the article. --Katolophyromai (talk) 21:15, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

• @Katolophyromai:, @Shrikanthv: Thank you. I will be one of those who respond to the GA review comments. Sorry for my slow response, I was out visiting Asian monasteries for many weeks since August. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:02, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: It is perfectly fine. I am still not completely finished with the review and, after no one responded initially, I assumed that it was unlikely anyone would respond until after the review was fully completed. I am taking my time more than I usually would because I want to make sure the review is very thorough, since I suspect this article receives a great deal of regular traffic. I still have a few more sections to leave comments over. --Katolophyromai (talk) 18:03, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Names and epithets

Mostly good, but here are some criticisms:

• "Among the most common names are Mohan "enchanter", Govinda, "chief herdsman", Gopala, "Protector of the 'Go' – "Soul" or the cows"." The last part of this sentence should probably be revised. It may be better to say "Among the most common names are Mohan "enchanter"; Govinda "chief herdsman"; and Gopala "Protector of the Go", which means "Soul" or "the cows"."

• Done. - MSW

• "Some of the names may be regionally important as, for example, Jagannatha, a popular incarnation of Puri, in Odisha in eastern India." The wording is slightly confusing. It may be better to rewrite this sentence as "Some names for Krishna hold regional importance; Jagannatha, a popular incarnation of Puri, is often used in Odisha in eastern India." --Katolophyromai (talk) 21:28, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

• Agreed. I have reworded it along this line but added clarification (please check). See Jagannath Temple, Ranchi. I will add a second source shortly. - MSW

Iconography

Altogether, this section is in very good shape, but, once again, I do have a few criticisms:

• "...an amorous man..." It is unclear what you mean by this. Are you using the word "amorous" as a euphemism for "ithyphallic"? if so, you should just state it directly rather than trying to be decorous. If not, you should perhaps clarify what you mean by "amorous."

• No, not "ithyphallic". Will clarify. - MSW

I did not really think that was what the article was intending, but normally "amorous" is used to refer to an emotional state, not a physical condition and, since I frequently edit articles over ancient Greek religion, where phallic symbols are abundant, it occurred to me that this might be what the article was trying to imply. --Katolophyromai (talk) 18:09, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

• "Bāla Kṛṣṇa the child Krishna" There should probably be a comma between "Kṛṣṇa" and "the child." --Katolophyromai (talk) 21:39, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

• Indeed. I just took out the IAST because it is unnecessary given the Bala Krishna with comma is already wiki-linked immediately prior. It is there that IAST etc info should be. - MSW

Historical and literary sources (top section only)

This section seems to be very high quality. I have taken the liberty to correct the following minor errors:

• Mahabharata is the title of an epic poem and should always be written in italics.
• Max Müller should be written with an umlaut.
• Bhagavad Gita is also the title of an epic poem and should likewise always be written in italics. --Katolophyromai (talk) 01:53, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

• Indeed. Thanks. - MSW

Comment on citation formatting

I have noticed that, although the article is well-cited, the citations are not formatted very consistently. It would probably be better to have all of the citations follow a consistent formatting. --Katolophyromai (talk) 02:09, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

• Will work on this. - MSW

Indo Greek coinage

This section is good as it is. I have no criticism for it other than what I have already said above regarding the citations.

Heliodorus pillar and other inscriptions

• "For example, three Hathibada..." The words "for example" should probably be omitted. The paragraph would flow better without them. Besides, the reader already knows that the inscriptions listed are examples, so there is no need to tell them what should already be obvious.
• "The tenth book of the text, with about 4,000 verses (~25%) and dedicated to legends about Krishna..." This sentence is not grammatically coherent. It would be better to say, "The tenth book of the text contains about 4,000 verses (~25%) and is dedicated to legends about Krishna..."

Aside from these two criticisms, this section is fine. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:05, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• Agreed and done. - MSW

Life and legends

I will cover the whole section under one heading, sicne this section has very few problems and seems to be ready for GA without any major changes.

• The fact that the section begins by introducing the ancient sources on Krishna is very good.
• "Krishna's childhood reinforces the Hindu concept of lila..." It might be better to say "Krishna's childhood has been used as an illustrative example for the Hindu concept of lila..."

• Yes. I trimmed it a bit more. - MSW

• "the tyrant king and uncle Kamsa" It would be better to say "the tyrant king, his uncle Kamsa." This will clarify that Kamsa is Krishna's uncle (since I am assuming this is what the sentence is supposed to say), not just some random person's uncle.

• Agreed. Done. - MSW

• I have once again put Bhagavad Gita into italics in a few places.

• Thanks. - MSW

• The "Inconsistencies" section is mostly good, but the first sentence of the second paragraph has a POV problem. It says: "The tenth and eleventh books of the Bhagavata Purana are a poetic masterpiece, full of imagination and metaphors, with no relation to the realism of pastoral life found in the Harivamsa." Calling the tenth and eleventh books of the Bhagavata Purana "a poetic masterpiece" directly violates WP:NPOV because not all people will necessarily agree on this. If there is even the possibility that someone might disagree, that prevents you from stating it as fact. A better way to say this would be to state that "The tenth and eleventh books of the Bhagavata Purana are widely considered to be a poetic masterpiece..." Doing so would easily eliminate the POV problem and make this paragraph easily suitable.

• Yep, done. - MSW

This concludes my remarks on the "Life and legends" section. I will now move on to the next section after that. --Katolophyromai (talk) 18:56, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Proposed datings

I have no problems with this section.

• Ok. - MSW

Philosophy and theology

This section is very high quality and interesting, but the first paragraph is rather confusing. It mentions a whole bunch of people that I have never heard of, but gives very little explanation of who these people are or why their positions on Krishna are important. Also, the descriptions of these people's interpretations are extremely vague. The paragraph says:

Ramanuja presented him in terms of qualified monism (Vishishtadvaita).[130] Madhvacharya presented Krishna in the framework of dualism (Dvaita).[131] Jiva Goswami described Krishna theology in terms of Bhakti yoga and Achintya Bheda Abheda.[132] Krishna theology is presented in a pure monism (advaita, called shuddhadvaita) framework by Vallabha Acharya.[133] Madhusudana Sarasvati presented Krishna theology in nondualism-monism framework (Advaita Vedanta), while Adi Shankara in the early 8th century mentioned Krishna in his discussions on Panchayatana puja.

You may want to add more description of who these people are and what their interpretations mean. Aside from the first paragraph, the rest of the section is very good. --Katolophyromai (talk) 19:07, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

• Done! Shrikanthv (talk) 08:58, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Influence

I only have one problem with this section, which is that there is a "citation needed" tag at the end of the last paragraph of the "Indian subcontinent" section. All information in a good article is supposed to be verifiable. Either find a citation to support the information in this paragraph or remove the uncited paragraph altogether. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:57, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

• Done!, added citation Shrikanthv (talk) 09:10, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Performance arts

The third sentence of the second paragraph in this section has a few problems. Firstly, the whole sentence is really long and should probably be broken up into several separate sentences. Secondly, the last part of the sentence contains the phrase "while saving the world from all sorts of troubles," which is bizarrely non-specific and just leaves the reader feeling confused. What sort of "troubles" is it talking about? It almost feels like the phrase is phrased to be purposefully evasive. I recommend either deleting the phrase or revising it to make it less confusing. Other than this sentence, everything else in this section is fine as it is. --Katolophyromai (talk) 21:04, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

• Changed, Found the sentence is trying to be in an "artistic" mode and was unable to check the source for correctness of the statement, so have removed the long sentences and added new text from different source. Shrikanthv (talk) 11:41, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Other religions

• I corrected a minor capitalization error in the first section. The word "Religion" was incorrectly capitalized.
• You may want to define the word "Tirthankara" because I did not know what it meant until after I clicked on the link.

These were the only issues I found with this section. Now I will return to the beginning of the article and review the lead. --Katolophyromai (talk) 02:12, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

• Added a defn for Tirthankara. - MSW

Lead

• "...known by numerous names, such as Govinda, Mukunda, Madhusudhana, Vasudeva, and Makhan chor in affection." I would recommend removing the words "in affection" because I think it is fairly obvious that these titles are intended affectionately; they certainly are not insults.
• When the article states that Krishna is sometimes worshipped as Svayam Bhagavan, you should add a wikilink to the article Svayam Bhagavan because I had no clue what the phrase was supposed to mean when I read it.
• "These sub-traditions arose in the medieval era Bhakti movement context." I would rephrase this as "These sub-traditions arose in the context of the medieval era Bakti movement," which I think would be a more logical way of phrasing it.

Aside from these issues, I think that the lead does a good job of summarizing the rest of the article. From what I have seen, this article appears to be GA-worthy material, but I will postpone promoting it for a few more days to give you some time to address the new comments I have added here. --Katolophyromai (talk) 02:25, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

• Done. - MSW

Since all my criticisms have now been addressed, I will go ahead and pass the article. Congratulations. --Katolophyromai (talk) 18:28, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Overall review

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Comments

1. I think that this article certainly meets the writing quality standards for GA, especially after the last few of my criticisms are addressed.
2. The article is well-cited and all "citation needed" tags have been removed and replaced with citations.
3. The coverage of the article is very impressive; it covers all aspects of the subject, ranging from the god's origins in antiquity to his present-day veneration.
4. The article does not contain any obvious bias and all POV issues have now been resolved.
5. I have been following this article for about a month now and it does not appear to have any stability issues.
6. The article contains many relevant and useful images. --Katolophyromai (talk) 02:41, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

• @Katolophyromai:, @Shrikanthv: Thank you for the hard work going through line by line, the review comments and revisions to what is a long but important wikipedia article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:29, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
• @Corinne: Thank you for the GOCE effort on this article a while ago. Your diligent copyediting and suggestion were a huge help too in improving the article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:39, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Krishna. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/65DKpKa9B?url=http://www.philtar.ac.uk/encyclopedia/hindu/devot/vaish.html to http://philtar.ucsm.ac.uk/encyclopedia/hindu/devot/vaish.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:56, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Krishna. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150518172553/http://krishna.com.br/krishna:quem_e_krishna to http://krishna.com.br/krishna:quem_e_krishna

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:33, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Krishna. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110104040530/http://content.iskcon.com/icj/1_2/12thompson.html to http://content.iskcon.com/icj/1_2/12thompson.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:28, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Better sourcing

I have added and replaced some content on "proposed dating", because last paragraph only discussed reliability and processes of Puranas and the sources themselves doesn't mention Krishna. Also I agree with the recent edit that removed some portion of "Ahmadiyya" section, we should keep this relevant to Ahmadiyya and Krishna's relationship. Aliislam is not a reliable source, I have replaced it as well. Capitals00 (talk) 03:11, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Capitals00: Why do you consider a newspaper as "better sourcing" than scholarly publications? I am referring to this edit summary of yours, where you deleted scholarly sources and replaced it with something from the Times of India? The Mahabharata books and the Puranas do mention Krishna, and the reliability of these texts is relevant. I have merged in two of your sources which looked okay. The issue with your Ahmadiyya edit is that you imply Ahmadiyya is a part of Islam. That is highly contested, and adding "Islamic" qualification is not NPOV. I support you removing blogs, websites and other non-RS, fwiw. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:21, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Needed caution with newspapers as source for history/ anthropology/ religion/ medicine/ something other than news

Journalists virtually never have scholarly training in history/anthropology/ethnography/etc. — they're generalists as far as this kind of thing goes, not knowing more than what's needed for background purposes, and as such we mustn't consider them reliable sources for such fields. Exceptions can exist, of course, and we can't discount a journalist merely because of his job (e.g. he could be an avocational anthropologist so dedicated to the field that he's a member of a learned society), but even then we should only trust his writings if they've gotten reviewed by other experts; the most scholarly journalist will have his newspaper writeups reviewed by nobody except the newspaper's editors, whom again we can trust to know a lot about news reporting but we can't trust to know much of anything about "olds" reporting. We can take newspaper reports as authoritative if we're writing a middle school report for our teachers, but encyclopedia writing demands better sources: whether they're written by professional academics, journalists with a lot of experience in scholarly work, or anyone else, they need to have gone through a scholarly review process. (Originally posted by Nyttend, copy-pasted here)

Ahmadiyya is an Islamic sect, also read the Ahmadiyya article, it says "Ahmadiyya is an Islamic religious movement founded in Punjab, British India, near the end of the 19th century." Before you changed the article[1] the article was not using such WP:UNDUE rebuttal. According to Wikipedia policies and official census of Muslim population, Ahmadiyya is an Islamic sect. We should not interpret opposition's belief everywhere, otherwise Shia are also "rejected as apostates of Islam" by most Muslims. Orientls (talk) 10:45, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I am going to point out here that the article Ahmadiyya defines the religion as "an Islamic religious movement founded in Punjab, British India, near the end of the 19th century" and has quite a few sources to support that statement. --Katolophyromai (talk) 10:48, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: this discussion. It is clear that Ms Sarah Welch used personal opinion about Ahamdiyya, which is irrelevant and added WP:SYNTH/WP:OR about Puranas that has to do nothing with Krishna. I haven't checked whole article but I feel that misrepresentation is wider than what we had suspected here. Orientls (talk) 06:55, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

This discussion indeed. You removed sourced info which questions the use of the Puranas as a historical source, and instead try to present Krishna as a historical pefson. Obvious pov-pushing. If your problem is with the Ahamdiyya-section, then you should edit that section, but not use it as an excuse to remove sourced info in another section.Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:59, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

But first you didn't even checked talk page and restored problematic edits of a sock. You agree that edits about Ahmadiyya were problematic but not about dating? Do you understand what is an WP:OR or WP:SYNTH? You clearly don't. Only because it is sourced it doesn't have to be added here. It is same as saying that we need to argue over the biographies of the people that we have used as source on this article that, but no, we can't! Unless the source connects Krishna with the credibility of the source and since it doesn't you can't make connection only because you feels to. Orientls (talk) 07:06, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

I have partially self-reverted; I can't judge the Ahmadiyya-part. But I do know something about the discussions regarding the dating of Krishna. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:09, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm using a cellphone now for editing now, which is quite inconvenient, but I'll take a closer look later. MSW's contribution in this regard could be trimmed indeed. I've done some editing on Krishna's dating before, but I don't recall where; I'll make use of those edits too, when I can use a laptop. But be sure that the usage of astrology for the dating of mythological figures is not within mainstream scholarly bounds. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:21, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

I am using a mobile myself. Whole second paragraph of Krishna#Proposed datings is cherrypicked synthesis. I don't see any discussion that supported such WP:OR, and misrepresentation was of a higher degree. I don't see a single mention of "Krishna" in the entire book of Ludo R, and Hazra [2] where they have provided varied views about Puranas, not the cherry picked ones that were used here. I didn't wrote the dating version, it was one of the subsequent edit when I had edited back in last year. But I can style emphasize that If astrological and mythological datings are supported by a reliable source (certainly Times of India is) then the views can be attributed. Not much of a issue if they are credible. Though I am not certainly in support of that, but traditional dating is scholarly supported as important enough for a mention. Maybe we can just omit the second paragraph. Its up to the source to make the connection between two different things, per WP:SYNTH. Orientls (talk) 07:35, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Puranic chronology contains a similar section on dating. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:14, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Guy Beck is usefull; actually, in your preferred version he's better represented than in the present version. Based on the material we've got now, best would be to start with Beck, than an overview of what Indian authors state, and then, maybe, the Jain dating. Part of the second paragraph could be moved into a note. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:29, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

I have merged the two contested versions. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:58, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Krishna born July 18, 3228 BC, died February 18, 3102 BC

This article needs... the date of Krishna's birth, known as Krishna Janmashtami, is 18 July 3228 BCE and he lived until 18 February 3102 BCE. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krishna_Janmashtami 2601:580:103:BB72:69D8:BE10:3F9D:A5D0 (talk) 02:00, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

1st Millennium "Literature" of Krishna Synonyms

In section 1.2 in this article, it says, "The synonyms of Krishna have been traced to 1st millennium BCE literature.[15]" Note 15 cites "Hein, Norvin (1986). "A Revolution in Kṛṣṇaism: The Cult of Gopāla". History of Religions. 25 (4): 296–317. doi:10.1086/463051. JSTOR 1062622." As far as I know, the pre-Hindu Vedic/Brahmic "literature" was strictly ORAL, or "oral literature." I think most people, like myself, consider "literature" to mean a WRITTEN book; as such, written books are often given a higher level of credence. Should the article be amended from "literature" to "oral tradition" to reduce or prevent inaccurate perceptions of the Gita's historicity?

While I personally believe Krishna lived (and exists), I question claiming there was written literature about Krishna when the writing of 1000BCE India has yet to be translated.

Thanks,

C. Lee

Citation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oral_literature — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.147.196.5 (talk) 00:23, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2020

Krishna is ninth avatar 67.8.104.5 (talk) 02:27, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. GoingBatty (talk) 02:34, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Lord Krishna with flute.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:23, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 July 2020

Please change the line "He is worshipped as the eighth avatar of the god Vishnu and also as the supreme God in his own right." to He is worshipped as eighth avatar of god Vishnu according to Vishnu Puran and as Supreme God according to Srimad Bhagvat Puran which explains that in 16 kalps diffrent gods are worshipped as supreme god but Krishna is the Ultimate supreme god who created the universe. Bhakta stavik (talk) 08:42, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 12:11, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Merge Vāsudeva

Consensus to not merge. to give closure!--RegentsPark (comment) 15:06, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Vāsudeva is same as Krishna so I suggest to merge the two into Krishna. Capankajsmilyo(Talk | Infobox assistance) 11:27, 4 April 2020 (UTC) Leaning to Oppose. Krishna as we known him is an amalgam of several earlier historical traditions. Vāsudeva is one of these early traditions, appearing as an independent deity in epigraphy until at least the first centuries CE.पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 14:58, 4 April 2020 (UTC) Oppose both figures are different here with some overlapping. -Nizil (talk) 12:47, 8 May 2020 (UTC) Oppose In the historical development of vaishnavism vasudeva represent an independent figure. It should be kept as such, otherwise it would be digression and unneessary swell up the article.Dm51c (talk) 20:54, 14 May 2020 (UTC) No, krishna should not be merged with vasudev as vasudev was father of krishna. Therefore, both are different personality so no mergence. Deokalimuskabad (talk) 16:40, 6 June 2020 (UTC) This page should merged with Krishna. Because this is the historical persons who later got the name Krishna. This is already part of section "Historical and literary sources". So another article is unnecessary. Ratan375 (talk) 15:10, 18 June 2020 (UTC) No MergeDifferent historical developments for the two --Lena Virginia Birse (talk) 15:51, 6 July 2020 (UTC) Lord Krishna's father's name was Vasudeva. Hence Krishna is known by his father's name Vasudeva. He is called Vasudeva.It should be mixed. Thank you N8 15:46, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 August 2020

I would request to not use mythology as a context with lord Krishna. It will hurt the sentiments of millions of practicing Hindus. Neesmom (talk) 02:04, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 02:43, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 August 2020

mentioned in many Hindu philosophical, theological, and religious texts. Neesmom (talk) 02:06, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 02:44, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 August 2020

AAZZBBYYCCXX (talk) 06:29, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I want to edit the page

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Thjarkur (talk) 08:10, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Replacement of words

"The anecdotes and narratives of Krishna's life are generally titled as Krishna Leela. He is a central character in the Mahabharata, the Bhagavata Purana and the Bhagavad Gita, and is mentioned in many Hindu philosophical, theological, and MYTHOLOGICAL texts"

As mentioned above the word in Block Letters "Mythological" I request you to replace the word Mythological with "Religious" because this is creating a objection against Wikipedia. The word Mythological is used for a MYTH but according to Archaeological Survey Of India the there are many proof proving the existence of Lord. Please change it.

Regards VHP, INDIA YasharthSinhaOfficial (talk) 17:11, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done You need to provide reliable academic sources that show that Krishna existed. --RegentsPark (comment) 17:38, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

'Theological' and 'Religious' are synonyms. - MrOllie (talk) 12:38, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 November 2020

In Telugu, it is 'కృష్ణ' Bala Jitendra (talk) 00:30, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

•  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. -ink&fables «talk» 09:12, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Meaning of Krishna...

The meaning of Krishna's name in this article are not accurate, they are very vague and are not actually reflective of His holy name.

His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada provides the closest and most accurate purport and meaning to the name of Krishna. It is because of Srila Prabhupada we have a scientific way of understanding Krishna and the complete science of God - let's utilise his expert understanding in favour of so called scholarly interpretations who railroad Vaisnavas and miss the essence in its totality thereby creating a deviated idea of the real thing.

The meanings given in the current Wikipedia page are god of protection (Raksha), compassion, tenderness , yogeswara, etc.

Whilst these are nicely describing Krishna, they do not capture the spirit of His name.

Srila Prabhupada explained many times in his purports and translations that Krishna means 'the all attractive one' and Rama means the 'source of all pleasure'.

Please enter these definitions as the primary meaning of Krishna and remove the vague definitions.

If in doubt about such important matters, please contact an authority in 1 of the bonafide institutes: VIHE, The Mayapur Institute, ISKCON, Bhaktivedanta Institute or OCHS.

In Krishna's service,

Vaisnava das Vaisnava das (talk) 22:08, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Vedanta

I had re-structured the first part of this sentence, but I did not touch the second half of the sentence, and that part is not clear to me:

...the Vedantic view emphasized in the Bhagavata is non-dualist described within a reality of plural forms. "is non-dualist described within a reality of plural forms"? What does that mean? Only an expert would know what that means.

Rewrote it. This one is a tough one. As a reference resource, this needs a mention with sources, which I hope the rewrite accomplishes. Explaining it will overwhelm the article. I will meditate on this a bit more. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:35, 22 May 2017 (UTC

The above confusion appears because of a lack on understanding of Krishna's philosophy as presented in Bhagavad gita As It Is.

His Divine Grace Srila Prabhupada comments that a clear understanding of of dvaita (duality) and advaita (oneness or non duality) comes when we hear from the bonafide source ... i.e Krishna or His pure devotee.... this is also mentioned in Bhagavad gita.... evam param para praptir..in Chapter 4 of Bhagavad gita as it is.

Therefore, Krishna is explaining and the Gaudiya Vaisnava sampradya is also responsive by not changing the message but accepting he message as it is.... that is why they are known as pure devotees since they do not change the message of Krishna according to their whim ... please read the purports by Baladeva Vidyabhusana, Visvanatha Chaktavati and Narotamma dasa shakira and you will be able to clear and distintively understand the actual philosophy of Krishna is summarized as Achintya Bhed Abhed Tattva which means inconceivable oneness and difference... i.e. that we are qualitatively the same constitution as Krishna as spirit souls but quantitatively different to Him .... the example is given as a large fire (Krishna) and the small bright sparks around the fire as the jivas or the individual spirit souls.

When the jivas become envious of Krishna, they fall from the spiritual sky like embers from the fire and the fiery quality of Krishna consciousness is diminished and they enter th material atmosphere (which is the inferior energy of Krishna) just like when the embers of a fire fall away from the fire and fall to the wet ground.

On account of being in contact with material nature and desiring to enjoy without Krishna we forget our real identity as eternal parts and parcels of Krishna ...

mamaivamso jiva-loke jiva-bhutah sanatanah manah-sasthanindriyani prakrti-sthani karsati The living entities in this conditioned world are My eternal, fragmental parts. Due to conditioned life, they are struggling very hard with the six senses, which include the mind. Bhagavad gita as it is 15.7.

Please changes references to duality and non duality or advaita and advaita to achintya bhed abhed tattva translated as inconceivable oneness and difference to the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Krishna.

In the service of Krishna.

Vaisnava das Vaisnava das (talk) 10:09, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 January 2021

The word "Consorts" should be replaced with "Spouse"

One cant call these religious dieties as consorts as they are spouses. 45.112.146.87 (talk) 15:04, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Chariotrider555 (talk) 15:21, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

The meaning of consort is "a wife, husband, or companion, in particular the spouse of a reigning monarch." What's the problem. .💠245CMR💠.•^👥📜 15:50, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Good wikipedia Vaishaliborse (talk) 08:27, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Avatar_birth and Avatar_end instead of Born and Died

i think the info box title like avatar_birth and avatar_end are more true, suitable and 'neutral for main deities in hinduism' like rama and kirhsna instead of born and died which are used for mortal. as this article central focus is Krishna as a deity instead of krishna as a historical person. and religious or deity article doesn't has to necessary check for the scientific plausibility. as following this line of reasoning even abodes like Vaikuntha, or most of the things related are not historical, and are myth/belief or non-falsifiable. but, since clearly the central thrust of this article is krishna as major hindu deity so infobox should reflect the almost universal position of wider Hinduism,and in my last edit i haven't removed any sources. also i want to change the structure in the line where its mentioned that ramdev pir is an incarnation of krishna to something 'like there are lot of personalties througout history who are considered by their followers to be an incarnation of divine such as ramdev pir.' as its sourced from news article.

Dm51c (talk) 10:57, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Dm51c Well...I don't mind using avatar_birth or avatar_death, but I would like to add some points.

• First of all, most of the elements of infobox is about the avatar not the Omnipotent Krishna (who incarnated as Vishna, as per Krishnaism).
• For eg, his parents are Devak........ but if we take the more divine veiws, he is self born. .💠245CMR💠.•^👥📜 11:53, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

User:245CMR thanks for your concern. of course this belief is not shared by just krishnaism but by wider vaishnavism and even hinduism as a whole. even taking into Advaita (i have affinity to it) or wider Hinduism like shakta and others , the belief is exactly same. भवामि जात इव आत्ममायया आत्मनः मायया न परमार्थतो लोकवत्। (adi shankaracharya commentary gita 4.6)C ., that the birth taking is illusion using atma-maya not like real birth(parmarthato) of common people . जन्म मायारूपं कर्म च साधूनां परित्राणादि मे मम दिव्यम् अप्राकृतम्(adi shankaracharya, commentary gita 4.9), that the birth and actions are with help of his maya and are divine(alaukik and) not of prakriti. this belief is common point even in wider Hinduism, so i think 'avatar_start' and 'avatar_end' captures this better. and its also representative of Hinduism as a whole, and are not going much into Krishnaism. i dont think there mentoiong krishna parents,consorts,sons is in contradiction its mentioned in text, but its also mentioned several times that its not a regular birth but start of avatar. so in building a wikibox of major hinduisms deity ,this would be a perfectly neutral term. i think you will agree with it . thank you.Dm51c (talk) 16:47, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

@Dm51c: Ok, before you change any thing, wait for some other users. .💠245CMR💠.•^👥📜 16:59, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

@JRDkg: Please share your opinions .💠245CMR💠.•^👥📜 06:44, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

@245CMR: I don't think this is needed as according to many historians (and also according to the source which is attached with died parameter) Krishna was an actual person. Hence the born and died parameters. As Wikipedia is more concerned with facts, I think it is more appropriate to leave it as it is. I agree with your point though that most of it is already talking about avatar. JRDkg (talk) 07:19, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: Would you like to provide some insights on this? JRDkg (talk) 07:19, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

JRDkg@Dm51c: The article is more about the deity rather than Historical views. A more historical Krishna is mentioned in the Vāsudeva article, but that article focuses more on the cult than the person. According to me, birth and death are easier to understand, but I don't mind using the alternate proposal if the consensus supports it. .💠245CMR💠.•^👥📜 07:54, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

@245CMR:

@JRDkg:

i have already told that this article focus in on krishna as a hinduism deity, that why in the main intro its not mentioned of historain view, or view of another religiion ike jainism on krishna which will clutter infobox. i have already givern reason that mpt only all vaishnavs sects but this is a near-unanimous belief of wider Hinduism, as i have given shankracharya bhasya on bhagvata gita. so infobox should relfect the tenents of what hinduism considers of a deity. that why he have abode mentioned , weapnos mentiones, or other things mentioned,which would be non-historical strictly. all primary sources are in agreement , i can use tons of it, and here is a secondary source.

""Although its primary meaning is descent; , the world avatara s often translated into english as incarnation. This is misleading because it suggests too strong a resemblance to the incarnation of christian theology. The latin incarnation ,lke the greek ensarkois which it transaltes, implies that what is important to the Christian concept is that the divine personage should be in the flesh.ie totally real in human tersm, all of a piece with the rest of huaman history. Whereas Christians have been reluctant to use words like appearance,or manifestation of the incarnate lord , such ideas are implict in term sf avatar since it has association with the theatre(rangavatra, entering on stage is a word for the acting profession). the avatar is God appearing up the world stage , having descended from the highest level of reality to that of trailokya in order to perform beneficial actions. It is not simply a question of the transformation of any celestial being into another shape."" Freda matchet krishna a lord or avatar page 4.

so avatar_start or avatra_end captures this perfectly better as its, wider Hinduism belief, and is accurate. Dm51c (talk) 12:03, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

JRDkg: Infobox is difficult to maintain in wikipedia. Best practice would be to keep whatever is supported by the scholarly sources, avoid questionable sources and avoid blogging. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:29, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

@Dm51c: please don't change for now, wait for atleast 1 week for other users to join the discussion. You can advertise this discussion .💠245CMR💠.•^👥📜 08:21, 31 January 2021 (UTC) @Redtigerxyz, MRRaja001, Fylindfotberserk, and Chariotrider555: you can join the discussion, if interested.

 Not done @245CMR: Dm51c is currently blocked for edit warring and disruptive editing on Krishna. If anyone wants they can still share their opinions. JRDkg (talk) 09:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

JRDkg: Restoring my text above, likely an innocent or accidental change. WP:TPNO : do not alter others' comments. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:28, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry that was accidental JRDkg (talk) 19:29, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

It is best to leave it at born and died. Terms like "avatar birth" and "avatar death" are confusing and not used by reliable sources. User:Dm51c has not provided any reliable sources to back up their claims, but rather is relying on original research. Chariotrider555 (talk) 22:44, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

@Chariotrider555:

@245CMR:

Hi,I have quoted freda matchet reference here and other source in my edits in the main article which agrees with my proposal implicitly. Its not my original research as all primary sources support have consensus. And secondary refernce I added corroborate the primary source. And for confusion i belive ,original terms should be used as in the case of illuosory world is mentioned in the advaita article which is technically wrong as world is mithya , not illusion. Here terms like born and died are inappropriate and for this avatar_start and avatar_end will shed more light as according to hinduism given freda source and other source its not a real birth and death like mortals but done using maya and so is technically called descent of deity or appearance or manifestation. Right now the terms used doesnt convey this perspective or distort this and are biased . "Traditionally however there is unanimous evidence that avatar originates in heaven not on earth" "incarnation in Hinduism and Christianity The Myth of the God-Man|author=Daniel E Bassuk. freda matchet hints that "Christian are reluctant to use terms like appearance or manifestation " which are used for hindu deity. i can add many other secondary sources. and for a primary source, i can add tons of it.

i accept that avatar_birth can somewhat confusing and can be redundant, i now propose 'avatar_start' , manifestation' or 'descent' ,' appearance'(anyone of the four) ,similarly in the case of died. as current term are not a correct translation and not representative of what is conidered in Hinduism.Thanks Dm51c (talk) 06:14, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Dm51c: I have checked your purported source and your claim that page 4 of Freda Matchett directly supports the change you are making. I am sorry, but I do not see where Matchett mentions "avatar_birth" at all on that page or chapter 1. It is chapter 3 where she discusses Krsna's birth per Harivamsa, and that supports one of the scholarly interpretations and viewpoints that this article has long summarized already (see her book's p. 46 onwards, see this review by Peter Schreiner on her interpretation). Wikipedia's content policies require that editors refrain from OR–Synthesis, that the scholarly source(s) should directly support the summary or change an editor makes. Your recent edits in this article don't. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 10:27, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: i aceept that many secondary source doesn't directly use word avatar_birth or the recent new words i have proposed. i said that according to all hinduims traditions and major source, that was the technically wrong as you have the major role in making krishna good article, i think you must be aware of the primary sources like gita and others subtraditions which go on explains that its not a birth etc per se. as freda alluded in the line that Christians are reluctant to use word like 'appearance' or 'manifestaion' which hints that its not a regular birth. as i know that their salvific doctrine depend on jesus to be fully human also. i know that wiki has more emphasis on a secondary source, and many sources have themselves are in this direction of not real birth/manifestation etc like humans,but even then choose to use 'born' and 'died' as more academic suited language. but i think if one is more informed about the primary sources which are used by various subtraditions and how they use alternate words, there can be liberty of picking the secondary sources or words that corroborate what is the traditional hindu belief, or a note can be provided for clarity .as there are many Sanskrit words which don't have an exact representation, eg mithya , illusion.Dm51c (talk) 18:44, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Correction...Krishna is The Supreme Personality of Godhead ..

The 1st paragraph mentions Krishna as a major deity.

This is incorrect. The above terminology undermines Krishna's supreme position above and beyond any other living entity.

In both Bhagavad gita and Srimad Bhagavatam we hear about Krishna as the Bhagavan, Paramatma, and Brahman.

Krishna is also the source of all Svamsa avatars. If you imagine a line of candles each one being lit by the previous, then the original is Krishna and not Visnu or Narayana.

All the evidence in the revealed scriptures especially Srimad Bhagavatam explain this in great depth but unfortunately Hindus make a muddle of this. Krishna is the source of all incarnations. This is often and greatly overlooked by those who have not engaged in hearing the teachings of His Divine Grace A.C Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada.

Krishna has been taken very cheaply and that is why this wiki page is full of errors as it does not accord with the Bhakti revealed scriptures which is the cream of all Vedic literature.

Actually his wiki page should be redrafted and the Bhaktivedanta Institute and BBT should be consulted to re-write this wiki page as there are major blunders on such an important topic!

We also find Krishna as being the source of everything... aham sarvasya prabhava.... in Bhagavad gita amongst other citations that can also be quoted.

To consider Krishna as a major deity is an insult to Krishna and grossly misguides anyone who reads this article on wikipedia about Krishna.

Please correct this terminology as Krishna being the Supreme Personality of Godhead.

In Krishna's service.

Vaisnava das Vaisnava das (talk) 21:38, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Krishna when he appears in this world, unlike other incarnations he does not take birth. In other words He comes as He is and this is corroborated in Srimad Bhagavatam. The other avatars are avatars of Krishna like Lord Kapila, Lord Rama, Lord Nrsinghadev etc.

When Krishna appears in the material world, he appears as the original 2 armed Krishna in the spiritual world or Goloka Vrindavana. He therefore never has a material body unlike the mortal conditioned living entities in the material world and therefore does not take birth or does not die and this is also mentioned in chapter 4 of Bhagavad gita as it is.

Vaisnava das (talk) 22:30, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

He isnt krishna isnt even mentioned in vedas its all puranic and iskcon nonesense Vaisnava das — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.106.196.235 (talk) 07:39, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Puranic nonsense what? 950CMR (talk) 12:54, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2021

On Line 2 where you describe what he is the god of, you forgot to put that he is also the god of protection. I just noticed because the information on top of the photo of Krishna said he was the god of protection. Just a minor edit but I'm sure it will help :) SupremePotato (talk) 15:22, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

All set. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:30, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Typo

There's a typo under the 'Life and Legends' sub-page, it says "Kansas'" instead of "Kamsa's". The page is protected so I couldn't edit it.

Thank you for spotting this. Corrected! पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 06:49, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 April 2021

I just want to add some famous names of Sri Krishna. Nothing more! Thankyou, I hope you accept my humble request :) Radharani888 (talk) 17:09, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:51, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 June 2021

There in the paragraph before the Title "Bhakti-Yog". Lord Jaggannath has been mentioned and there the word "Lord" is misspelled with Lird in the braces.

"Change Lird to Lord"

Radhey Krishna 2409:4052:808:3D19:A01D:4181:E580:2065 (talk) 08:04, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done.245CMR.•^👥📜 08:08, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 June 2021 (2)

After the title- Early traditions there is a misspelled word Lord mentioning the Lord Jaggannath, please correct the mistake..

"Change Lird to Lord"

Radhey Krishna 2409:4052:808:3D19:A01D:4181:E580:2065 (talk) 08:09, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

 Already done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:03, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Siblings

As per sources, Vasudeva had many wives other than Rohini-Devaki and had many children from them. Should we mention these step siblings of Krishna in the infobox?.245CMR.•^👥📜 14:35, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 July 2021

The note 2 in infobox is written like this "Radha is seen as Krishna's lover. On the other hand, Rukmini and others are married to him. Krishna had eight chief wives, who were referred as the Ashtabharya...". There is one grammatical mistake, please add to after 'referred'. 2405:204:1213:8F9:0:0:94D:A4 (talk) 17:58, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:08, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Draupadi

How is there nothing about Draupadi in here? 99.48.52.29 (talk) 02:31, 22 July 2021 (UTC)JILKYWAY2837

Semi-protected edit request on 6 August 2021

Hi can you give me access? I know one name of Krishna. 27.7.3.97 (talk) 03:26, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 03:31, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Vrishnis and Yadavas were separate tribes and had separate hero-gods called Vasudev and Krishna, who later were fused together, is totally wrong.

King Vrishni was an ancestor of King Yadu (the ancestor of Yadavs). Vasudev Krishna is a single hero-god of the Vrishnis and Yadus, who are not separate from each other. Lak0610 (talk) 16:14, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Megasthenes and Indian Religion A Study in Motives and Types

Added based on Megasthenes and Indian Religion A Study in Motives and Types which is thesis work/academic Allan Dahlaquist states as per Ruben the Ahir are related to Krishna — Preceding unsigned comment added by CountVlars (talk • contribs) 23:40, May 1, 2022 (UTC)

@CountVlars: Thank you for raising this topic on the talkpage instead of repeatedly adding the same content to the article. That said, I reverted your addition because Allan Dahlquist's 1962 book is not a reliable source on this or any other subject as this utterly scathing review by F.B.J. Kuiper will show. Abecedare (talk) 23:50, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Actually Allan Dahlquist is merely quoting another famous indologist Ruben in his book, It is the words of Ruben which Allan is quoting. Allan has such has not made any inferences, Allan is merely quoting Ruben Also the fact that Kuiper has critiqued his book means that Megasthenes and Indian Religion A Study in Motives is a academic work I think Ruben is reliable and could be used. Abecedare Respectfully I leave the case to you. once again I appreciate answers and very much grateful ThanksCountVlars (talk) 03:46, 2 May 2022 (UTC)CountVlars

For such a claim you need good WP:RS, not single mention here and some random mention there because it is well known that Abhira tribe is mentioned quite distinct in Mahabharata from Yadava and Vrishnis. Also there have been sharp increase in random socks who are everywhere adding Ahir, Yadav and other related things without context and with help of random google books results. Sajaypal007 (talk) 07:18, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Sajaypal007, I respectfully request you to read all the 1410 pages of Mahabharata, there are numerous mention of ahir used interchangeably with Yadav, but also there are enormous amount of academic works which state ahir and yadav are same word. MSA Rao in Social Movements and Social Transformation , page 19, states semi-historical and historical evidence exists for ahirs and yadav being same. MSA Rao is WP:RS. Also Ruben is well established Indologist. CountVlars (talk) 16:48, 2 May 2022 (UTC)CountVlars

References

Krishna

Krishna is a major deity in Hinduism 103.165.20.63 (talk) 00:35, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Krishna

Krishna ia a major deity in Hinduism. He is worshipped as the eighth avatar of Vishnu. 103.165.20.63 (talk) 00:40, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Krishna shows Arjuna his universal form (bazaar art by C. Konddiah Raja, c.1950's.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:51, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 November 2022

Why didn't you add Krishna's birth period in the article, 3228 BEC — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prashanta Chakraborty (talk • contribs) 11:15, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

@Prashanta Chakraborty: What reliable sources support that? —C.Fred (talk) 16:38, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Krishna : GOCE Review

Hello, Ms Sarah Welch - I have completed the copy-edit of Krishna that you requested. I hope you approve. I will be adding a few questions and concerns here in a few minutes.  – Corinne (talk) 00:09, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

1) In the second paragraph of the lead you have this sentence:

• His iconography shows him in different stages of his life, such as an infant eating butter, a young boy playing a flute, a young man with Radha or surrounded by women devotees, or a friendly charioteer giving counsel to Arjuna.

and then a few sentences later, this sentence:

• They portray him in various perspectives: a god-child, a prankster, a model lover, a divine hero, and as the Supreme Power.

I wonder whether these sentences are not similar enough that they could be consolidated. If you agree, you'll have to decide the best place to put the new sentence. Alternatively, you could leave off the details that follow "in different stages of his life" so as not to repeat them.

• I moved the sentence, rather than consolidating them. One context summarize the scope the legends, while the other the iconography. There is value in retaining them. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:35, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

2) In the second paragraph in Krishna#Names and epithets is the following sentence:

• Based on his name, Krishna is often depicted in idols as black- or blue-skinned.

You'll see that in this edit, I added a hyphen after "black", so that it means "black-[skinned] or blue-skinned". But after I saved my edit, I noticed that in the Krishna#Iconography section, it says:

• His iconography typically depicts him as black or dark, reflecting his name, or with blue skin like Vishnu.

This sentence seems to make a distinction between the quality of being black (or dark) – somehow different from being black-skinned – and the characteristic of having blue skin. That's all right, and I realize there may be a reason behind it. Shall I remove the hyphen I had added to the earlier sentence so that the earlier sentence more closely parallels this later sentence?

• The black-, blue- etc makes more sense. Fixed. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:35, 22 May 2017 (UTC

You only need hyphens when it is two adjectives before a noun, or an adjective and a past participle functioning as an adjective: "a black- or blue-skinned man".  – Corinne (talk) 20:04, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

3) In the second paragraph of Krishna#Historical and literary sources, I made a few small edits to improve clarity. Read slowly, everything makes sense until the last part of the last sentence. This paragraph is pretty dense stuff, but expressed clearly, it does progress logically and make sense, but it becomes unclear (to me, anyway) with the second half of this sentence:

• Other scholars such as Archer state that the coincidence of both names, of Krishna and Devika, appearing in the same verse cannot be dismissed easily, and that this Krishna may be the same as one found later, such as in the Bhagavad Gita. [italics added by me for emphasis]

If you could somehow add just a bit to make it a little clearer for the average Wikipedia reader, I think that would help. In other words, clarify "this Krishna" and "as one found later". (The word "later" is used quite a bit in this paragraph.) No need to make the sentence a lot longer, just clearer.

• Rewrote it. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:35, 22 May 2017 (UTC

Here are the sentences as they are now:

• Other scholars disagree that the mention of Krishna and Devika in the ancient Upanishad may be unrelated to the later Hindu god of the Bhagavad Gita fame. For example, Archer states that the coincidence of both names, of Krishna and Devika, appearing in the same verse cannot be dismissed easily.

The first sentence is still not clear. What follows "Other scholars disagree that" must be something that has just been stated, and that would normally be what one or more scholars have claimed. Thus, the tentative "may be unrelated" is inappropriate. It needs to be a more definite verb, something other scholars have stated is true, or probably true. I suggest something like:

Other scholars disagree that the mention of Krishna and Devika in the ancient Upanishad is unrelated to the later Hindu god...,

or, slightly more accurately:

Other scholars disagree that the Krishna mentioned along with Devika in the ancient Upanishad is unrelated to the later Hindu god...

(If you prefer the phrase "the Krishna and Devika mentioned in...," you'll have to change "is unrelated" to "are unrelated". Also, since "the later Hindu god" is singular, it is better to use a singular noun before the verb: "the Krishna...is unrelated to the later Hindu god".)

Also, the second sentence could be smoothed out a bit. I think "of Krishna and Devika" can be left out. If you add "Upanishad" before "verse", it will be clear that the two names are the two names mentioned in the previous sentence.

• For example, Archer states that the coincidence of both names appearing in the same Upanishad verse cannot be dismissed easily.

or:

• For example, Archer states that the coincidence of both the two names appearing together in the same Upanishad verse cannot be dismissed easily.  – Corinne (talk) 19:59, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Don't know if you saw the above suggestion for further revision.  – Corinne (talk) 18:01, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

• {ping|Corinne}} I split that sentence into two and changed it to, "Other scholars disagree that the mention of Krishna and Devika in the ancient Upanishad may be unrelated to the later Hindu god of the Bhagavad Gita fame. For example, Archer states that the coincidence of both names, of Krishna and Devika, appearing in the same verse cannot be dismissed easily." Please feel free to reword further to improve it. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:06, 23 May 2017 (UTC

I know. I had copied your new sentences, above, for easy reference, and added further comments and suggestions. If you have no objection to the following revised sentences (indicated separately, just above), I'll make the changes:

• Other scholars disagree that the Krishna mentioned along with Devika in the ancient Upanishad is unrelated to the later Hindu god of the Bhagavad Gita fame. For example, Archer states that the coincidence of the two names appearing together in the same Upanishad verse cannot be dismissed easily.  – Corinne (talk) 18:14, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

• @Corinne: My bad and a big "oops" on my part! sorry, I missed it two times! Yes, please, your comment makes sense. Please change it. Thanks for following up and pardon my oops!, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:45, 23 May 2017 (UTC

4) More in a few minutes.  – Corinne (talk) 00:40, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Corinne: you are awesome! I will work on these this week. Please keep the comments coming, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:50, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Well, it wasn't a few minutes. I got distracted by television. Here are a few more:

4) At the beginning of the Krishna#Indo-Greek coinage section, you have these sentences:

• Around 180 BCE the Indo-Greek king Agathocles issued some coinage bearing images of deities that are now interpreted as being related to Vaisnava imagery in India. The divinities displayed on the coins are interpreted as being related to Vishnu's avatars Balarama-Sankarshana with attributes consisting of the Gada mace and the plow, and Vasudeva-Krishna with attributes of the Shankha (conch) and the Sudarshana Chakra wheel.

I thought I had worked on at least the second sentence, but now I can't find what I did in the revision history. I think grammatically it is better than before I worked on it, but now I see that the second sentence repeats the structure of the first sentence: "are...interpreted as being related to". I know sometimes things get repeated because each sentence is from a different source, but when this happens, it is usually possible either to consolidate the sentences or to use alternate wording. I wonder if the "now", in "are now interpreted", in the first sentence is there to emphasize that the interpretation is relatively recent. I also notice that the first sentence uses "deities" and the second uses "divinities". Is it important that these two sentences remain separate? If not, I think they can be consolidated. If you agree, we need to select which word is better: deities or divinities, then remove the unnecessary words and add the remaining material, perhaps after "..., with Vishnu's avatars Balarama-Sankarshana displaying attributes..." (or some other wording). If you prefer to keep the sentences separate, then we need to select alternate wording for the second sentence to avoid repeating "are interpreted as being related to". Perhaps that could all be dispensed with, and we could write, "The divinities displayed on the coins appear to be Vishnu's avatars..." or something like that.

• Indeed. Rewrote it. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:35, 22 May 2017 (UTC

5) In the first paragraph of the section Krishna#Heliodorus pillar and other inscriptions, you have as the second sentence:

• Using modern techniques, it has been dated to between 125 and 100 BCE, and traced to an Indo-Greek who served as an ambassador of the Greek king Antialcidas to a regional Indian king.

The second paragraph begins:

• The three Hathibada inscriptions and one Ghosundi inscription, dated by modern methodology to the 1st century BCE, mention Samkarsana and Vasudeva, also mention that the structure was built for their worship.

The first sentence above is about the pillar, and the second sentence above is about the inscriptions. Is it important to mention the dating twice, once for the pillar and once for the inscriptions? I suppose it is possible that a pillar can be erected at a certain point and inscriptions added later, but did that happen here? Weren't the inscriptions added when the pillar was constructed and erected? I believe the date in the first sentence, "between 125 and 100 BCE", and the date in the second sentence, "the 1st century BCE", is the same. Do you really want to mention the dating twice? (Just by the way, you also have the same date in the next paragraph.)

• They are all different, in three different regions/states there, so different dates make sense. I clarified this and added the locations. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:35, 22 May 2017 (UTC

O.K. I understand. The addition of the locations is good. Here are two sentences as they are now:

• The Heliodorus inscription is not an isolated evidence. For example, three Hathibada inscriptions and one Ghosundi inscription, all located in the state of Rajasthan and dated by modern methodology to the 1st century BCE, mention Samkarsana and Vasudeva, also mention that the structure was built for their worship.

First of all, "evidence" is an uncountable noun – it has no singular and no plural form (but it takes a singular verb) – and we don't use the indefinite article a/an with an uncountable noun. You could just take out "an":

• The Heliodorus inscription is not isolated evidence.

or add "piece of":

• The Heliodorus inscription is not an isolated piece of evidence.

However, since this is starting a new paragraph, and, for the non-expert reader it may not even be clear what point was being made in the previous paragraph, instead of starting with a negative statement ("is not"), it would be helpful to kind of re-state the point that this evidence seems to be supporting. Something like this:

• Another piece of evidence for the.... is found in four inscriptions – three Hathibada inscriptions and one Ghosundi inscription – all located in the state of Rajasthan and dated by modern methodology to the 1st century BCE. These inscriptions mention Samkarsana and Vasudeva, and indicate that the structure was built for their worship.  – Corinne (talk) 20:27, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

6) In the Krishna#Legends section, the tales from the different parts of Krishna's life are told in various sections. I notice that the verb tense differs in different sections. Since I had seen some present tense, I did change some past tense verbs to present tense, but then later saw some past tense and decided to leave it alone until I could ask you which tense you prefer. When writing about fiction, we often use present tense to describe events in the plot. When telling the events of a legend, I'm not sure which tense would be better. On the one hand, some people probably believe that the events in Krishna's life really took place, in which case past tense would make sense. On the other hand, telling the events in present tense makes the events have an exciting immediacy. In any case, the tense – at least for the parts that re-tell the events – should be consistent throughout these sections. Right now, Krishna#Birth is in past tense, Krishna#Childhood and youth is in past tense, Krishna#Adult (perhaps should be Adulthood to parallel Childhood) is in present tense, Krishna#Kurukshetra War and Bhagavad Gita is in present tense, and Krishna#Death is in present tense. Read through these sections and decide which tense you prefer (for the re-telling of events in Krishna's life, not for other things). Let me know, and I'll make them consistent. (Present tense is also used to describe events in the legend in the Krishna#Jainism and Krishna#Buddhism sections.)

• Indeed. The mix came from leaving the historic contributions of other editors unchanged. My bad, I should caught and fixed it. Made the first two consistent. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:35, 22 May 2017 (UTC

7) The second paragraph in Krisha#Proposed datings begins:

• Other scholars state that the Puranas are not a reliable source for dating Krishna or Indian history, because the content therein about kings and the history of various peoples, sages, and kingdoms is highly inconsistent across the manuscripts, and likely based in part on real events, in part on hagiography, and in part on expansive imagination or fabrication.

I feel this sentence needs work. It's a little long, but let's focus on two places:

(a) I think this clause: "because the content therein about kings and the history of various peoples, sages, and kingdoms is highly inconsistent across the manuscripts" is a bit wordy, particularly the middle part: "about kings and the history of various peoples, sages, and kingdoms". Why are "kings" separated from "people" and "kingdoms"?

(b) "Likely" is really an adjective ("a likely story"), not an adverb (even though it is often used as an adverb, particularly in the U.S.). Here, it is used as an adverb, modifying the verb "based on" ("it is likely based on" is the passive form of "someone likely bases it on"). It would be better to substitute "probably". But besides that, I can understand the content of the Puranas being based partly on real events and partly on hagiography, but something doesn't sound right when one says the content is based on imagination or fabrication. Perhaps the content is embellished by imagination, or modified by imagination, or expanded by imagination, but not based on imagination. Unless this actually reflects a source, in which case we should leave it alone, I recommend modifying the last part of this sentence so that "[based] in part on imagination or fabrication" is changed to something else.

• Agreed. Revised. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:35, 22 May 2017 (UTC

8) In the course of copy-editing the article, I made a few small edits to Krishna#Philosophy and theology to improve clarity. I hope you'll check those edits to make sure I didn't introduce any material errors. However, I still think this section could be made a little clearer for the average Wikipedia reader. I am concerned about the repeated use of the verb "present/presented". Sometimes, it is not completely clear what is meant by that verb.

(a) The first four sentences of the first paragraph are clear enough, but the fifth sentence is not:

• Krishna has been presented in a pure advaita (shuddhadvaita) foundations by Vallabha Acharya.

"Has been presented in a pure...foundations"?

(b) Right after the quote is the following sentence:

• While Sheridan and Pintchman both affirm Bryant's view, the latter adds that the Vedantic view emphasized in the Bhagavata is non-dualist described within a reality of plural forms.

I had re-structured the first part of this sentence, but I did not touch the second half of the sentence, and that part is not clear to me:

• ...the Vedantic view emphasized in the Bhagavata is non-dualist described within a reality of plural forms.

"is non-dualist described within a reality of plural forms"? What does that mean? Only an expert would know what that means.

• Rewrote it. This one is a tough one. As a reference resource, this needs a mention with sources, which I hope the rewrite accomplishes. Explaining it will overwhelm the article. I will meditate on this a bit more. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:35, 22 May 2017 (UTC

(9) I notice that several times throughout the article, Krishna is referred to as a "supreme being" or "supreme God". However, sometimes both words are in lower case, sometimes "supreme" is capitalized and "being" is not, and sometimes both words are capitalized. Unless it is a direct quote, in which case we shouldn't change the capitalization, I think the capitalization (or lack of capitalization) should be more consistent. If you do a search with the "Find" tool, you will be able to see all of them at once.

•  Done Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:35, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

(10) In the third paragraph in Krishna#Performance arts, there is a sentence that I struggled with. You can see the changes I made here. Here is the sentence as it is now:

• Krishna-related literature such as the Bhagavata Purana accords a metaphysical significance to the performances and treats them as religious ritual, infusing daily life with spiritual meaning, thus representing a good, honest, happy life or as Krishna-inspired drama serving as a means of cleansing the hearts of faithful actors and listeners.

Structurally, the sentence is pretty much all right, but conceptually, I wonder.

• Krishna-related literature accords a metaphysical significance to the performances...or as Krishna-inspired drama?

There is something that doesn't make sense here. Performances are drama. Drama is a form of literature.

• The sentence was long and confusing indeed. I split it into two, hopefully they are more clear. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:35, 22 May 2017 (UTC

Can you work on this sentence a bit? Well, that's all for now.  – Corinne (talk) 15:45, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

• @Corinne: I embedded my replies above. Thank you for the detailed comments, it made my task so much easier! you are amazing! When you have a moment, please check the changes I made. Did they address the points? @Kautilya3: the wiki-wizard you are, is there a way you can display this discussion here as well as on Talk:Krishna, without the crude cut-paste? Would help future editors appreciate and understand Corinne's efforts. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:35, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I have no idea. Normally, the admins know this kind of stuff. NeilN, SpacemanSpiff, can you help? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:21, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

How about just leaving a comment on the Krishna talk page – something like, "If anyone is interested in reading comments related to a recent GOCE review, see...", and providing a link to this section?  – Corinne (talk) 19:29, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

::::@Corrine: Will do. @Kautilya3: I was thinking of WP:TRANS, but the instructions there are much too complicated for me, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:12, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In the second paragraph of the section Krishna#Childhood and youth, you have re-written a sentence. The sentence as it is now is:

• These love stories are central to the metaphor-filled development of the Krishna bhakti traditions worshiping Radha Krishna.

The phrase "metaphor-filled development" is not the best wording. It is the stories that are "metaphor-filled", or by a stretch, possibly traditions, but not the development of traditions. You could move "metaphor-filled" to before "love stories":

• These metaphor-filled love stories are central to the development of...

You'll notice that the previous sentence starts, "These stories". It would be better style to avoid repeating that structure: "These stories...," "These love stories...". You could consolidate the two sentences:

• Other legends describe him as an enchanter and playful lover of the gopis (milkmaids) of Vrindavana, especially Radha. These metaphor-filled love stories are known as the Rasa lila and were romanticised in the poetry of Jayadeva, author of the Gita Govinda; they are also central to the development of the Krishna bhakti traditions worshiping Radha Krishna.  – Corinne (talk) 20:25, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

• Indeed. Revised. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:06, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I saw your "Oops" comment above. No problem! I'm glad you approve of the revision I suggested. I already added it. (If you ever see any problem with a version I suggest, please don't be shy about telling me; together we can tweak the sentence until it says just what you want it to say.) May I make a few suggestions regarding the formatting of your replies to my various comments? First, I don't think you need to indent your reply so much. One more indent (made with one colon) than the previous comment is sufficient. Second, I do appreciate your effort to make your reply stand out by using the bold font. It is one way of doing that. I'd just like to mention two other ways I've seen editors use. One is just to use the regular font but set your reply or comment off with a bullet. In that case you don't necessarily have to indent if you are replying right after a numbered comment; you can, but the bullet might be sufficient. Another is to put your reply in a different color text. See User talk:William Harris#Dire wolf - Copy Edits. See Web colors and you can put {{Web Colors|state=collapsed}} on your user or talk page (in edit mode, with a heading such as "Text colors", then save) for easy access to the colors. Also see User talk:William Harris#Dire wolf copy edits, continued and User talk:William Harris#Dire wolf, more copy-edits, where William Harris did not always use color or bullets; when he did not use color he left a space before his reply and indented one space more than the previous comment or material. Just some ideas.  – Corinne (talk) 00:55, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Corinne. Since your replies were so excellently detailed, I was wondering how to make it quicker for you and others to find my response. I didn't know that replies on the talk pages could be colored! at will, and I much appreciate the above guidance. You taught me something useful today, just like Bishonen, JJ, Kautilya3 and others have in past. I will study William Harris' edits, and improve me further! BIG thanks again, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:18, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

You are most welcome. You might want to place this in a handy place. It's the formatting you need to put text in a color: <span style="color: purple">Text goes here.</span>. Of course, you select the color you want.  – Corinne (talk) 02:04, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

gods of blue skin

i believe the blue was more of a description of the eyes not the skin 174.84.162.56 (talk) 21:12, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

To correct a mistake

So , the name of the tyrant brother of Devki was Kans or Kansa not Kamsa if said in English I don’t know this was a writing mistake or the writer just forgot the name and wrote Kamsa Please Correct this mistake 2402:3A80:1EA8:6D4F:9854:DDBE:1989:BE20 (talk) 11:18, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Mentioning died is offensive

krishna is God. Mentioning died in Wikipedia is offensive 2601:249:8281:1470:80F7:50FB:AF59:7F6E (talk) 04:56, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 May 2023

Can you change the picture of krishna statue from the Singapore one to an Indian one? 122.173.29.180 (talk) 03:45, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Callmemirela 🍁 03:54, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Article split

Is there consensus for the recent split of this article into separate pages for each religion? If so, what should be the target of new redirect Krishna, or should it become a disambiguation page? If a dab, how do we plan to fix its 6,015 incoming wikilinks? Certes (talk) 10:10, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

There's no consensus. I'd take it as a WP:BOLD edit and reverted. If @Mian Singh believes the article split is warranted, they can achieve consensus here — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 11:20, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Infobox image

The I believe image Sri Mariamman Temple Singapore 2 amk.jpg is a better image for the infobox, rather than VenugopalKrishna-CGRamanujam-RaviVarmaPressOleographPrint-IndianPainting 976d929e-9cb4-472a-94a2-9dfd59cff9b2 (1).jpg by Raja Ram Varma, as the Singapore picture depicts one of the most important aspects of Kr̥ṣṇa iconography, that being his dark skin. In the iconography section, the fact he is typically depicted in two-dimensional non-structural art as dark skinned (whether blue or black) is mentioned first. Additionally, in nearly every two-dimensional image on the page Kr̥ṣṇa is depicted with blue or black skin, except perhaps Jagannath (hard to tell) and another painting by Raja Ram Varma. Even in the etymology section it is stated that Kr̥ṣṇa's name means "dark". Given that is sourced in the page that Kr̥ṣṇa is typically depicted with dark skin (blue or black), and that the articles images itself attest to its popularity in 2D iconography, I believe the Singapore picture is better. If Kr̥ṣṇa sitting is an issue, I am sure the infobox image could also be an alternate image of Kr̥ṣṇa standing which has all the typical forms of his iconography. Pinging User:Narayanan Iyengar. Chariotrider555 (talk) 05:19, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Change ‘Krishna to ‘Shri Krishna’

Shri Krishna was, is, and will remain a respected person. Thus change it to Shri Krishna Aarav Shah coffee (talk) 11:14, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done Please see WP:HONORIFICS.RegentsPark (comment) 13:29, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Broken Link in References

Reference 38 ( Hiltebeitel, Alf (2001). Rethinking the Mahābhārata: a reader's guide to the education of the dharma king. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. pp. 251–253, 256, 259. ISBN 978-0-226-34054-8. ) seems to point to a website that has moved. Someone please either replace it with a suitable link or remove it. EverydaySpiritualityOnline (talk) 20:46, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

The link has been fixed. rethinkingmahabh00hilt -> rethinkingmahabh0000hilt Reconrabbit 21:29, 11 January 2024 (UTC)