This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
I can’t help but feel that this entry is written for people who know the topic better than I do. From a know-nothing outsider’s viewpoint, there are so many unknown references initially that I fear many would give up before getting the gist of who Krishna is. Shouldn’t the first paragraph be broad general information that anyone can understand? Try to clear your educated mind and consider this phrase from the perspective of an outsider: “…and is also listed in the 24 Keshava Namas of Lord Vishnu which are recited and praised at the beginning of all Vedic pujas.” It is wonderful to delve into the very deepest most obscure detail but initially I believe you must deal with a broad spectrum, dictionary like definition which eliminates all other unknowns (not commonly known)– that is if this information is to be accessible to outsiders. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 15:46, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
These quotes are irrelevant to the section and have no required secondary source for interpretation. --NeilNtalk to me 00:56, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Agree. Copying reasons from my talk-page on why I too had removed those quotes:
The Literary sources section is to outline the main primary sources for the subject, and not go into details of what exactly those sources say (the current version of the section requires further clean-up to better match its purpose), and
Selective quotation is a bad way to explain the topic given the immense amound of primary and secondary literature on Krishna. There may a few instances in which including a quote from primary sources would be justified, but in those case we should provide enough context based on scholarly secondary sources to explain why that is the case (see WP:QUOTEFARM which discusses some of these issues). Even in those instances we should try to avoid sectarian translation of the quotes unless, again, there is a particular reason not to.
I just noticed that the edit also removed a commented out para about Krishna in IVC; I don't know when or by whom that particular quote were commented out and the cited website is a deadlink, and likely unacceptable as a source (my initial thought is that Krishna as an IVC diety is a fringe belief, although if it turns out to be popular fringe belief and is attested by reliable sources, it may be worth mentioning in the wikipedia article). If that para is an issue, it can be discussed separately. Abecedare (talk) 01:41, 19 April 2015 (UTC)