Talk:Krishna

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article 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.

Infobox[edit]

@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[1][note 1]"

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

  1. ^ a b John Stratton Hawley, Donna Marie Wulff (1982). The Divine Consort: Rādhā and the Goddesses of India. Motilal Banarsidass Publisher. p. 12. ISBN 9780895811028. 
  2. ^ Bryant 2007, p. 443.

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @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)

Krishna : GOCE Review[edit]


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)


Self published sources[edit]

@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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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)[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

  • "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[edit]

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[edit]

I have no problems with this section.

  • Ok. - MSW

Philosophy and theology[edit]

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)


Influence[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

  • 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[edit]

  • "...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[edit]

GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
    d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. 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:

Symbol support vote.svg · Symbol oppose vote.svg · Symbol wait.svg · Symbol neutral vote.svg

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)

Better sourcing[edit]

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)

External links modified[edit]

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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:56, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=note> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=note}} template (see the help page).