Talk:Mathura

Mathura as the birthplace of Hindu deity Krishna in scripture

Hi Amit, Mathura's designation as the birthplace of the Hindu deity Krishna is part of Hindu mythology and should be conveyed as such. May I request that thus be included in the article for Mathura? Here's a possible edit for the second paragraph: "In Hindu mythology, Mathura is the birthplace of the Hindu deity Lord Krishna at the centre of Braj or Brij-bhoomi. It is, thus, also called Shri Krishna Janma-Bhoomi, literally: 'Lord Krishna's birthplace'." Thanks very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.56.7.95 (talk) 15:08, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for reaching out to my talk page, I would kindly disagree with your perspective here. This is a sensitive statement to make. No religion wants to call its gods a myth. I would try to remain neutral. Research lean on both sides and this is a kind of statement that can be made against any religion and any god's and it might end up being just called conspiracy theory. Amit (talk) 02:53, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Stating religious beliefs as facts is hardly "staying neutral". I would love to see the "research" that you feel exists for "both sides". It seems, therefore, that you're personally offended by this change. That, however, is not justification for undoing the original change. (And yes, I do in fact completely agree with you that stating religious beliefs held by ANY religion as factual information is incorrect.)192.86.100.79 (talk) 18:21, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Krishna having super powers fehfoeohfenbvpy4bv4t4bp79pt4ty4b[5or being a god is probably what you feel is questionable and i don't blame you or any one for that, but if there is a mention of krishna then mathura is his birth place.Are you saying Krishna is a myth?? - could be, but as i said research indicates both - I would like you to read the literary sources section in Krishna page which has some references and also some references such as , - thats why i said research leans on both sides (and i am being neutral because i dont see any research saying krishna is a myth from you??). I could also give you a thousand hindu leaning sites such as these , but you would just refute them as biased. Also ancient texts such as Mahabharata and Vishnu purana has details about mathura being his birth place. I did notice your change about Hindu's believe - i think not all hindus believe this and i would rather like to change it to a generic "It is believed". Hope that seems neutral enough. I would love to see the citations on the other side of the argument too - about krishna as completely being a myth. I would also suggest you to keep the discussion on the topic and not try to just fill the page assuming what my personal feelings are. Amit (talk) 19:27, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Also just FYI... this is the edit we are talking about here about mathura being mythological birthplace of krishna... as I mentioned above this has nothing to do with Krishna being god or having super powers. Amit (talk) 19:36, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

"It is believed"? By whom? Certainly not by the overwhelming majority of this planet's inhabitants, and certainly not by the vast majority of historians, Indian or otherwise. That's a weasel word and seeing as how you are so deeply involved in monitoring Wikipedia, you should know better. The confusion is evidently arising from some kind of conflict between your personal religious beliefs (where you, in fact, personally believe that the Hindu deity Krishna was a living, breathing factual person in history) and the general English of the word "mythology", which in that context refers to the collection of scripture and body of text that constitute a religion's narrative. An ideal NEUTRAL compromise would have been for you to change it to something along the lines of: "Hindu scripture indicates Mathura as the birthplace of the deity Krishna..." and NOT link to tabloid-format, non-peer-reviewed, non-academic sources focussed on INDIVIDUALS voicing their personal opinions. A good example would be "INDIA: A SACRED GEOGRAPHY" by Harvard Divinity School professor Diana L. Eck, a thorough and extremely nuanced piece of ACADEMIC writing that you would probably benefit from exploring. 108.56.54.21 (talk) 00:29, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

It is better to take this to the article talk page for further consensus if you feel that my edit is biased. Amit (talk) 00:33, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

References

Untitled

Bold textsuggestion

I would like more information. Especially Mathura's first ocupation and typical wares. There is a book of Doris Meth Srinivasan about Mathura, I would like passages from it commented or reproduced here.

Perhaps the section on the art of Mathura could be expanded and improved; Kapardin Buddha images should be shown. Information about the type of stone used in sculptures (Sikri Quartzite )should be includedHerlands (talk) 04:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Raghav 14:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC) Hi, I see this message on the top of the page asking for cleanup of the page. I would love to understand more about this, since I believe may be I can contribute towards the exercise. Being a native/resident of the city, I feel pretty close to this.

Fair use rationale for Image:StrikeICorps.jpg

Image:StrikeICorps.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

test —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.21.191.71 (talk) 14:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Wrong information

As habitual the info on the districte is quoted in the city page. Please move it because the district article is too short and lack many essencial information.

I suggest push in all the indian districts article a template of warning for the indian collaborators, explaining the difference between city and district, difference that seems that is near unknow in India, and then the convenence of write the article in the right site.--88.19.49.50 (talk) 14:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mathura. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081210080315/http://www.mssu.edu/projectsouthasia/history/primarydocs/Foreign_Views/GreekRoman/Megasthenes-Indika.htm to http://www.mssu.edu/projectsouthasia/history/primarydocs/Foreign_Views/GreekRoman/Megasthenes-Indika.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120205100849/http://www.india-defence.com/reports/3115 to http://www.india-defence.com/reports/3115

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 16:27, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090219192113/http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORCES/Army/Organisation.html to http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORCES/Army/Organisation.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 13:46, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Unsourced stuff in 'Religious Heritage' section

JayB91, you can't keep re adding unsourced content citing expansion of article as you did here. Not to mention WP:NOTADIRECTORY which doesn't allow this kind of listing. We are supposed to keep the notable ones having articles or atleast entries supported by references. Pinging @Arjayay: - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:20, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

And you can't keep removing the content without any explanation as to how you are improving the page. Please read the WP:NOTADIRECTORY, no where it is mentioned for any alphabetical order you seem to be continuously adding instead of the hisotrical/culturally significant order arrangement the names were in. See Jerusalem#Religious significance. As I said the section needs to arranged into paragrpah. So instead of annihilating the section just add expand tags till someone expands the section.JayB91 (talk) 06:11, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

I can very well keep removing unsourced stuff. And you don't seem to be converting this list into prose either. Two of your edits were only about re inclusion of unsourced entries into the list. Addition of unsourced content is against our policy. My point is if we have a list, we should maintain an alphabetical order per norm. And secondly, even if we have a prose, there's no room for unsourced content. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:12, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Vrindavan Temples should be mentioned

Removal of Vrindavan Temples from this page is not constructive. They all are part of Brij Bhoomi circuit. A paragraph in religious heritage section mentioning like "Notables Temples in and around Mathura are.." should be included mentioning notable Vrindavan and Govardhan Temples.117.205.193.12 (talk) 12:23, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

No reason to add redundant content everywhere, it will hog up space unnecessarily. Vrindavan has a separate article, so it is better to have those in that article. Besides, the 'Mathura district' article has it all. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:04, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia has enough space for listing., and a current pilgrimage circuit is certainly not redundant. I have said before it is integral part of Vrindawan-Mathura Brij Bhoomi pilgrimage and should be included.117.205.194.133 (talk) 16:09, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Prilgrimage circuit? Are we here to help people plan their pilgrimage? Wikipedia is certainly not a travel guide. There is simply no reason to add redundant religious sites in multiple articles. We can however merge all the religion specific things in a single article, probably in Brij Bhoomi circuit or the Mathura district article (which already has it). Mathura or Vrindavan are not only religious sites. There are things like demography, administration, infrastructure, economy etc which are inportant. Better to treat them as any other city/town and mention only the sites that are specifically located in the settlement. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:14, 13 September 2019 (UTC)