Jump to content

Talk:Krishna

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleKrishna 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

Semi-protected edit request on 31 March 2025

[edit]
  • 15th Century South-Indian statue of Krishna carved from Granite
    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)[reply]

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

Section for Major temples

[edit]

I think this section for "Major temples" is unnecessary on this page. There is already a category for such details - Category:Krishna temples. I suggest that we remove this section from this page. Asteramellus (talk) 20:11, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Chariotrider555 (talk) 21:32, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image

[edit]

I believe this image [1] would be better as the representive image (WP:LEADIMAGE) as it accomodates cultural representation for that the art style belongs to the relevant religious tradition's art structure, while the contemporary image is of a post-modern religious art that does not represent well the cultural process of relevant religious tradition(s). —Krsnaquli || Contact - 15:30, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Due to possible copyright problems, I've uploaded this image [2] that is extracted from another image [3] without any possible copyright issues. Since no response was given, I will change the image now. I hope that works for other editors. —Krsnaquli || Contact - 14:39, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I personally do not think this image is a good choice for the infobox image. The image should be one that is non-sectarian and solely depicts attributes and not those associated with any form. Furthermore, I oppose what is the seemingly overwhelming,
Then why you didnt change shiva wiki page, remove shiva statue and add old img to shiva wiki page
Why differences to deities ?
@Krsnaquli 2409:408C:AE17:85CF:59AC:5B05:DABF:61B6 (talk) 02:44, 23 August 2025 (UTC) Socking comments struck, disregard. Zinnober9 (talk) 23:42, 23 August 2025 (UTC) [reply]
Hello, could you please further clarify your concerns? There is nothing sectarian about the image, in fact, It is a historical depiction within Krishna-related traditions and thus accomodates the authentic and traditional representation of Krishna. If the fact that the art is made to depict the Harivamsas concerned you, I could tell you that the lead image of Shiva is from a Shaiva-centric temple and there is absolutely nothing wrong with this.
Could you also elaborate on how the image couldn't represent Krishna "as a whole"? Which attributes the older image represented and the current one doesn't?
And lastly, I expect you to focus on the content, not the pages I've edited, for that is necessary to be constructive on discussions. I recommend you to take a look at WP:TPG. Thanks. —Krsnaquli || Contact - 07:21, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
so all hindu deities are in painting iconography depicts picture, expect shiva, why not? And also add image depiction of Shiva in Shiva wikipedia page.
@Krsnaquli
@Redtigerxyz
@Seyamar 2409:408C:AE17:85CF:C031:9E87:A89A:E54A (talk) 15:29, 23 August 2025 (UTC) Socking comments struck, disregard. Zinnober9 (talk) 23:42, 23 August 2025 (UTC) [reply]

Introduction tense

[edit]

What's with the tense of the introduction being in the past? Lots of wases even though hundreds of millions still worship him…? J F-T (talk) 00:05, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks - it would be misleading to use "was". I have reverted the edit. Asteramellus (talk) 00:31, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review

[edit]

Krishna

[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review
Previous peer review


I've listed this article for peer review because...I will be working on it for significant days and I am kindly requesting all interested editors to provide valuable feedbacks to improve the article as per all guidelines and MOS. I am requesting this PR for it's upcoming candidacy of Featured article, so it's very important to meets all quality standards and your feedback will be invaluable for me.

Thanks, ✓ortexPhantom (talk) 15:40, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@VortexPhantom, this is a really good article. I think you have a real chance of meeting your goal. One of the things that could still be improved is the inconsistent diacritics for Vasudeva, Mahbharata, lila, and other Sanskrit words. I appreciate this effort. Please let me know if I can be of any assistance. Hemmingweigh (talk) 16:33, 3 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your positive comment, I will definitely work on the inconsistencies. PhantomVorteX (Talk) 08:37, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by AdaCiccone

[edit]

Here's a few things from me after a quick read:

  • There's some inconsistency in naming and transliteration: Bhagavad Gita / Bhagavad Geeta, Bhagavata Purana / Bhagavata Puran, Dvaraka / Dwaraka. Is this deliberate, as in trying to place each difference in a certain context?
No, it is a standard inconsistency, due to its translation from Devnagri script, it is not done intentionally, for Gita both translate to same document and city and if one is to be choosen then it is Bhagavad Gita and Dwarka for the city, more standard and widely accepted spelling. It will try to fix this inconsistency, thanks for raising it. ✓ortexPhantom (talk) 08:32, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it possible to turn 'In popular pulture' section into a prose rather than a list? I mean at least it should explain Krishna’s representation in popular culture rather than just naming actors and productions.
It's a common feature that films with characters of Krishna have been based on the epics that involves him, I have added a paragraph just above the list, as it will be no need to rewrite it after every single item in list. PhantomVortex (Contact here) 14:51, 3 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • This one is a nice-to-have, but the article could be better if it pays attention to transitions between sections and sub-sections. Try to indicate why a certain topic appears at a certain location, so that readers feel they are guided throughout the article. Again, this is a nice-to-have, not a must-have. If you genuinely think each section can stand on its own, that's fine but inserting transitions for me is better.
    • One transition that feels abrupt is from “Role and significance in religion” to “Historical and literary sources”. There's nothing to signal to readers the transition from theological significance to the development of Krishna traditions in texts, inscriptions etc. If this is something you wanna work on, then all sections and subsections better have such transitions, not just one or two.
This suggestion I genuinely like to create a transition and try to connect all subsections and sections; this is what makes it standout from typical articles on wiki; but, since it is not a mandatory one and especially very time consuming; I have planned to cover it once I fill mandatory criterias for FA. PhantomVortex (Contact here) 05:10, 2 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still on Role and significance in religion, there's one sentence that stands on its own, sandwiched between two larger paragraphs. Same thing can be seen in 'Other sources', two paragraphs that are a few sentences long and sandwiched between two larger paragraphs. This risks looking like uneven coverage. Try spotting similar issues elsewhere in the article.
I will try to expand these kinds of paragraph and look for this throughout article. PhantomVortex (Contact here) 05:10, 2 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for now, maybe I'll add more later. AdaCiccone (talk) 05:14, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question: Does it meet WP:SIZE, I think it is very long article and needs splitting, can anyone share thoughts on that? PhantomVorteX (Talk) 08:36, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding the article size, I think people worry about the numbers too much. WP:SIZE is just a guideline and you need to evaluate article size in relationship to the topic. Some topics are just big topics and need a big article to cover them adequately. This is one of those. Compare it to Jesus, which is twice as long. I don't think there will be any issue about article size at WP:FAC. RoySmith (talk) 22:35, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your guidance. This allows me to expand the article with all necessary contents. PhantomVorteX (Talk) 11:23, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Drive-by comment. VortexPhantom, the article needs someone to carefully manage the references for consistency, accuracy, & reliability.
    By way of examples. The Bopearachchi references are not illuminating as to how they were published, and it's not immediately clear to me that there was any involvement with a reliable publisher. Why is it a "high-quality reliable source"? The Mascaró source emits a warning of ISBN / Date incompatibility. Some references use a citation style 1 template, some are citation style 2, others are {{sfn}}s, and others are handmade. Mani 1975 points to two different items, and one of those references is malformed with using the publisher and others parameters incorrectly. Some of the sources are old, such as Basu 1932, when more recent scholarship presumably exists. These are simply examples of problems and are not exhaustive. Urve (talk) 18:40, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for bringing this issue. I will take necessary step to maintain consistency and quality. PhantomVorteX (Talk) 11:57, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

RoySmith

[edit]

I'm doing some minor copyediting as I read through this, but here's some questions I have;

  • Why "Mahabharata" and not "the Mahabharata", like you have with "The Bhagavata Puran"? Also, it's not clear "The" should be capitalized.
    • Many reliable sources such as [4] and [5], place the before Mahabharata as it is name of a epic, while sometimes the is omitted, when we are just referring to title, not the literary work. Hence, it is accepted to place the before Mahabharata formally. The Wikipedia page of Mahabharata itself starts with "The". Additionally, it is general rule of capitalising "the" if placed after full stop and if used in middle, it is used in lowercase as the is not part of the title. For Bhagavad Puran, it is not yet confirmed, so I will research and update as soon as possible. PhantomVorteX (Talk) 09:38, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Text presents a spectrum of answers Perhaps "The texts present ..."?
  • Vāsudeva and Krishna fused to become a single deity, which appears in the Mahabharata going back to my previous question, why do you use "the Mahabharata" here but not in other places?
  • "storm gods, sun gods, bright gods", light gods, "and gods of ritual." Why is this broken up as two different quotes?
    • Fixed. -VP
  • This phrase, which means "To Krishna the son of Devaki", has been mentioned by scholars such as Max Müller[1] as a potential source of fables and Vedic lore about Krishna in the Mahabharata and other ancient literature – only potential because this verse could have been interpolated into the text,[1] or the Krishna Devakiputra, could be different from the deity Krishna.[2] this very long and complicated sentence should be broken up.
  • {{ For example, Archer states that the coincidence there's an extraneous pair of open-braces here.
    • Removed. -VP
  • In Ashṭādhyāyī, authored by the ancient grammarian Pāṇini (probably belonged to the 5th or 6th century BCE), Vāsudeva and Arjuna, as recipients of worship, are referred to together in the same sutra. Another complicated sentence.
  • in their legends about Tirthankaras. [citation needed] obviously, the citation needed will need to be resolved before FAC.
    • Hmmm, I see a bunch of these. They absolutely must be resolved, all of them, before bringing this to WP:FAC. They will be an automatic failure.
I have no intentions of nominating it now, article have notable issues that needs to be resolved, perhaps this is one of those. I will nominate once I believe it meet all required criteria. -VP
  • The tenth book of the text, which contains about 4,000 verses This is confusing. Previously you said versions had 16,000 to 18,000 verses, but this one has 4,000?
    • The prose mentions earlier that the Bhagavad Puran have 16000-18000 verses and after that it mentions specifically "it's tenth book have 4000 verses". Hope this clears the confusing. -VP

(I'll pick up the next time with Iconography)

  • I'm not a fan of the big slideshow at the beginning of Iconography. I don't know that it's strictly disallowed, but I suspect you'll get pushback about it at WP:FAC so be prepared for that.
    • Yeah, I already though that though. It's not added by me, so I am leaving it as it-is now. -VP
      • OK, but be aware that when this gets to FAC, reviewers there will expect you to be responsible for the entire article, regardless of history or who added a particular section. RoySmith (talk) 14:33, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I also think that the big slideshow seems a bit not ok...Any suggestions? maybe move to a section for Gallery at the end Update: I changed it to multi-image - seems ok, but feel free to change it.Asteramellus (talk) 21:55, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The multi-image looks a lot better. On the broader topic of images, you are fortunate that there are so many good images available for this subject, you have the freedom to pick and choose only the best, which means a combination of highest technical quality and relevance to the main text. For example, looking at File:ShyamRai Mandir Bishnupur WB Terracotta works Ras Leela.jpg, I'd consider dropping it because the big shadow running top to bottom is distracting. How is it related to the text? Is there some other image you could use which is higher quality? RoySmith (talk) 22:26, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes it can be removed - I used the existing images which were there in the slideshow. It is related because seems at the center, it is showing the rasalila. But I can replace with another better quality image. Asteramellus (talk) 23:24, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Shouldn't multiple images have a caption too? PhantomVorteX (Talk) 14:21, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • break open handis (clay pots) hung high in the air to "steal" butter or buttermilk, Why is "steal" in quotes?
  • Where you talk about Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada travelling to New York City, you might want to mention the Hare Krishna Tree.
    • Working -VP

(Next time, Outside Hinduism)

  • includes the twenty-four Tirthankaras (spiritual teachers) and nine sets of triads. You should explain what a "triad" is. I know you give an example in the next sentence, but when I got to the end of this sentence, I was confused.
    • Fixed. -VP
  • In each age of the Jain cyclic time is born this is an oddly worded phrase.
    • Fixed. -VP

Now that I've read through the whole thing, I'm not sure what to say. The writing is mostly good, but I feel like it could use some touching up to make it more idiomatic in places. It's entirely possible that it's just the difference between Indian English and American English, but I think this might benefit from having the folks at WP:GOCE go over it. RoySmith (talk) 21:11, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

RfC for replacing the lead Image

[edit]

Current image
Proposed image

This discussion has been initiated to determine whether the current lead image should be replaced. I support changing it with above-mentioned proposed alternative. I arrive at this decision due to several factors which I will discuss here.

Current image is heavily cropped, losing its detail at mobile view, due to which image appears as low quality. While, the proposed image depicts subject's widely recognisable form, instantly hitting the minds of viewers that they had arrived at correct article. It's already accessed as quality image at commons. It depicts a idol from a temple in Singapore. All these reasons likely contributes to greater encyclopaedic value than current image per MOS:LEADIMAGE. Art and painting is also used for Krishna's depiction however, Much of Krishna’s widely recognized iconography derives from murti-based devotional traditions rather than painted depictions. Krishna's devotion is very commonly expressed by murti-based worship traditions. Current image looks like merging into black background due to its dark colour, overall reducing contrast and subject-background separation. Images similar to proposed image is used for Krishna representation across devotional, educational, and iconographic contexts. The proposed image is accessed as valued image in relation to Krishna on Wikimedia Commons. These all reasons collectively appears satisfies the principles of MOS:LEADIMAGE. PhantomVorteX (Talk) 10:14, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose While the current image is a crop, the image is still of high quality (720 × 1,052 pixels) and does not lose any detail on mobile view. The current image is also instantly recognisable as Krishna. The proposed image is also not an idol as claimed, it is an statue on the exterior of the Sri Mariamman Temple, Singapore. The actual idol/murti of the temple is Mariamman, which as seen below actually conforms to traditional murti depictions of Hindu deities, whereas the proposed image belongs to the modern style of plaster sculptures. The Krishna statue in the proposed image receives no devotional worship as claimed. Krishna is known for being dark, thus the current image is appropriate. Overall, the current image satisfies the requirements of a lead image. Chariotrider555 (talk) 15:49, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The proposed image quality is of 1,964 × 2,620 pixels, significantly higher than current image. Subject-background separation is poor in current image. When it comes to statue and idol, both terms are used interchangeably, statue is more general term, while idol specifically murti defines devotion to the "physical form of Krishna" (murti), they are treated with same love and care like original living gods. To clarify, I haven't claimed that proposed image recieves devotional worship but I specifically mentioned Krishna's devotion is very commonly expressed by murti-based worship traditions. You may have misinterpreted my comment. You are right here "Krishna is known for being dark" even his name derived from darkness. However, today he is widely worshipped in form of murti with blue skin tone, just like in proposed image. Thus, proposed image remains a standard choice for lead image. PhantomVorteX (Talk) 10:21, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The proposed image is not a murti. See the lead of murti: "A mūrti is a symbolic icon representing divinity for the purpose of devotional activities. Thus, not all icons of gods and saints are mūrti; for example, purely decorative depictions of divine figures often adorn Hindu temple architecture in intricately carved doorframes, on colourfully painted walls, and ornately sculpted rooftop domes".
Notable Krishna murtis are not blue but black (Jagannath, Vithoba, Shrinathji, Dwarkadhish, Radha Ramana, etc.). He is depicted as blue moreoften in paintings but even in paintings he is often depicted as black.Chariotrider555 (talk) 17:03, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think as suggested by both, there's need of a murti from a renowned and popular temple of Krishna. Let me see if I could find a better option. PhantomVorteX (Talk) 12:49, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I am not suggesting a murti. Notable murtis (i.e. that receive active worship) tend to be heavily stylized, often over-adorned or too bare to have a balanced representation of features in the manner the current image already does. Chariotrider555 (talk) 00:07, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That's a sharp observation, I will choose accordingly. PhantomVorteX (Talk) 10:49, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Mariamman
Oppose Proposed image, as Chariotrider555 mentioned, does not seem to show the traditional murti depictions of Hindu deities. Maybe actual idol/murti from Krishna-related temples might be better - but in that case, e.g. if you take from a ISKCON temple, may need to extract Krishna only image because it might have Radha along with Krishna. And just a note, current image is extracted from this [6] painting. Asteramellus (talk) 20:17, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (summoned by bot): If the issue is the size and detail, wouldn't the easiest solution be to find a very high resolution image of "Krishna Holds Up Mount Govardhan to Shelter the Villagers of Braj" (such as this one by The Met) and crop a better version to replace it? DragonBrickLayer (talk) 10:26, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Krishna&oldid=1357031492"