Talk:Krishna

Typo

ISCKON should be corrected to ISKCON 203.221.17.46 (talk) 13:08, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Fixed; thank you for pointing this out. Certes (talk) 13:25, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

lord krishna full name Lord sri vasudeva krishnavardhan in vedas bhagavat puran book 5 chapter 1 verse and Vishnu purana book 5 chapter 1 vedas like yajurveda tarttiya samitha 4.1.1 and rigveda 1.22.126 chapter and harivamasa purana chapter 1 book 5 24 Arth3008 (talk) 13:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Krishn

"krishn" which means dark , which also means attraction.

Krishn or krishna is the avatar of "Lord Vishnu"

Krishn - represents a figure in Hinduism, a personality of divine , love , growth, and spiritual.

As a spiritual and divine prince he plays the major role in Mahabharata, guiding humanity, teaching lessons of right or wrong.

According to Hindu mythology and traditions,krishn was born on a night called "Janmashtami",which falls on the eight day of dark half of the month of Bhadrapada(usually in August or September).

Krishn was born by Mata Devaki ( mother) and Vasudeva (father) but krishn upbringing and childhood were nurtured by Maiya Yashoda (mother) and Nanda(father, a cowherd chief of gokula)

Ndsjd (talk) 15:50, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Addition of the term Bhagavan uvach in the text for Sri Krishna referring as supreme lord

I am trying to add the term Bhagavan uvach in the text but @Hbanm seems quite biased with narratives and very adamant. Here is the talk page filled with similar complaints from other editors. I tried to discuss with him on his talk page to resolve but it seems he is acting like a barrier on wikipedia for new content, and always in the mood of edit war. Moreover he seem to have quite in a good relationship with the term "vandalism". You can see this word frequently in most of his reverts. He even used it for the on-going discussion on his talk page. Finally when he told me not to discuss further on his talk page I have opened a new topic in the article's talk page for resolution. I need other editors, mediators (hopefully more easy to talk to) to intervene and tell their pov. Mm0522 (talk) 14:26, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

I told you many times on my talk page that word "Bhagvan" doesn't mean "Supreme God" nor the word "Bhagavan Uvach" has anything to do with Supreme God as you stated in your edit. The word "Bhagavan Uvach" only means "Lord says" nothing else. And the YouTube Video link you provided as a source is also not a reliable source. You can't counter anything logically, so you started personal attack. I have a good relationship with the word "vandalism" because I am here to stop the same. And when I revert unsourced and POV edits, editors come to my talk page for clarification and I have provided that to them, if only you have read the talks on my talk pages. Sometimes when I was frustrated with their repeated questions despite of my best attempts to explain to them the reason for the reversion, I have used a little harsh tone, nothing else. Hbanm (talk) 14:53, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

@Hbanm I started this talk so that I can include others and get their pov. Of course your know-it-all behavior and forbidding me to discuss on your talk page was enough to stop over there. I don't want to go for an edit war like you. Please don't ruin the discussions over here. Let someone else sensible come and clarify. I don't mind dropping the edit if someone else says so, but except you. Please, now join this topic only if someone asks you to. Mm0522 (talk) 18:30, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

As if I want to join this discussion, I just clarified the personal attack you made on me. And stop bothering me by mentioning me again and again in your replies.Go bother someone else. Hbanm (talk) 02:34, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

No one is trying to attack you. That's just you contemplating everything, like your edit war and thinking wikipedia is your own property and others are trying to damage it. I see your this behavior with others as well. No, its not like that. Mentioning you was just a very civil way to let you know that I had acknowledged your denial to discuss the edit on your talk page. It was with a good faith. Wikipedia is an open wiki and even next generations will keep on editing and add new things which may be outside of your understanding. You need not revert every new thing. If you revert something be ready to explain and people will come to your talk page, mention you in article's talk page. If you feel bothered with the protocols, stop bothering others' edit. No one is interested in you.

Waiting for others to join the discussion with good faith... Mm0522 (talk) 11:17, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I explained you so many times on my talk page, no matter how many talks you start on the article's talk page, no matter how many editors you reach out to, you will be not be able to add this information without the reliable source. So I recommend you that instead of unnecessarily bashing me, please find a reliable source and you can add anything you want, no one can stop you. And if you think that you can add this information citing that "Hindi YouTube video" link or by starting the talk on the talk page of the article, you are very much mistaken and probably wasting your time. Hbanm (talk) 13:16, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

and you came again... Mm0522 (talk) 14:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I take silence from other contributors/editors as a consent to my edit. Mm0522 (talk) 10:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

@Dāsānudāsa @Chariotrider555 @Redtigerxyz @Joshua Jonathan @Chronikhiles will you please explain the "Wikipedia policies", "neutrality in articles" and concept of "reliable sources" to this user, I tried so hard to explain the same to him on my talk page[1] but he is not ready to listen to me, he is continuously edit- warring on the article to include his edits. Please look into the matter. Hbanm (talk) 12:15, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

See WP:RSPYT. Quite apart from the fact you have no consensus for this change, you can't use a YouTube video as a source. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 13:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

@Dāsānudāsa, thanks for participating in this discussion. I highly appreciate you effort with good faith. I read the link you sent and its not mentioned anywhere that a youtube link can't be accepted (on the contrary it can be accepted). It states about the copyright violated videos only. The link I posted is not a copyright violation and can be accepted as per the video links acceptance. The video I referred is summarizing some verses from various scriptures to establish the edit. The references of the video are copyright free and in public domain.

Hope you will consider the edit. Mm0522 (talk) 14:35, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

It's not just about copyright violations, it's about the fact anyone can make a video and say what they want in it. It's a self-published source. The relevant sentence is "Most videos on YouTube are anonymous, self-published, and unverifiable, and should not be used as a reference. Content uploaded from a verified official account, such as that of a news organization, may be treated as originating from the uploader and therefore inheriting their level of reliability." This video doesn't come from a verified official account from e.g. a news organisation.

You need to find a better source than YouTube, ideally a WP:SECONDARY one. Thanks, Dāsānudāsa (talk) 14:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

User:Mm0522, Youtube is not a reliable source. Please see Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources. Chariotrider555 (talk) 17:43, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Undue Yadava elaboration

I removed "(not to be confused with Yadav)" elaboration as that exact wording is already given when hovering over the Yadava link. Clarifying it multiple times is undue. Anyways clarificatory template saying "not to be confused with" is given at the top of articles or headings, not for any term in the middle of a sentence. Otherwise, the entire article would be overpopulated with such undue parentheticals.

Furthermore, "Kurukshetra War" is a proper noun just as "World War II" etc., so both words should be capitalized. Swirlymarigold (talk) 03:15, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Why are you so concerned about not mentioning the other title for removing confusion when the two are totally different but seem to be similar? The edit for Kurukshetra War is fine but the other changes are necessary for the readers to get a clear view of this article. HistorianAlferedo (talk) 04:02, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

I have explained multiple reasons above, but if other editors feel differently we can discuss. Swirlymarigold (talk) 18:34, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 March 2025

15th Century South-Indian statue of Krishna carved from Granite

I recently photographed a beautiful granite statue of Krishna which I believe would make a nice addition to the Iconography section of the page. वीरा (talk) 00:31, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

 Done Somajyoti ✉ 06:40, 31 March 2025 (UTC)