# Talk:Krishna

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

I believe this image [2] 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)

Due to possible copyright problems, I've uploaded this image [3] that is extracted from another image [4] 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)
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) 
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)
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)