Krishna has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 13, 2008Good article nomineeListed
November 6, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
March 1, 2013Good article reassessmentDelisted
October 8, 2017Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on October 21, 2017.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Krishna is the Hindu god of compassion, tenderness, and love?
Current status: Good article

Contents

Krishna : GOCE ReviewEdit


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.

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.

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.

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.

(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)

─────────────────────────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)


Better sourcingEdit

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)

External links modifiedEdit

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:

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

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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)

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

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 SynonymsEdit

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)

Return to "Krishna" page.