Talk:Krishna Janmasthan Temple Complex

Appeal
Aakash Chauhan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2406:5600:29:90FA:6CF1:C17D:2166:A563 (talk) 11:46, 4 May 2016 (UTC) This is a article of a historic place. Kindly also include in this section the mention of "Swatah pragat chhavi" (images of Radha Krishna that have emerged on the walls on their own). Kindly do the necessary research and include it in this section.

Thanks for suggesting it. I hope I'll be able to pry up some solid material to include it. If you're willing to help any further, it shall be highly appreciated. Thank you! Napsync (talk) 10:48, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Hoax
I have doubts regarding the article as no encyclopedic information regarding the temple is given. It looks like the article is written to promote specific site as a real place of birth of Krishna without reliable sources to support the claim. It says the volcanologist made temple popular!!? "some historians"!! It is generally believed that the Kesava Deo Temple is a temple at the site of birth of Krishna. There may be several other places or temples adjacent to the this temple claiming they are the "real" birth place temple. I think it is one of such temples. So please verify claims. Check Kesava Deo Temple article too as this article is included in it with some loop links and doubtful info. Based on Talk:Keshav Dev Temple it is clarified that the Janmabhoomi/"birth place" is a prison cell location while the temple is Kesava Deo Temple within the same campus. So it may be redirected to it. Also check large number of redirects too. Regards,--Nizil (talk) 17:12, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Both the prison/Shahi-Idgah mosque share a common wall. It is believed that Krishna was born in this prison and later on during Mughal conquests the mosque was built there. The Keshav Deo temple is at stones's throw from there; check maps. And I kinda agree on merging both or all related articles scattered everywhere into one. For more, refer Gita Press and the Making of Hindu India ISBN 9789351772316. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:17, 10 June 2016 (UTC)


 * There may be a bit of entanglement here but I do see reliable sources pointing directly to this structure - e.g. from the government of Uttar Pradesh, here; or a book on Krishna here or here. As for the claims made for the thing in the text - if they are extravagant or unsupported, they can easily enough be conformed to the sources.  Merger may be appropriate but only if the sources allow it - not based on, e.g., our own interpretation of Google maps.  And in that regard I'd note that the book cited above re the making of Hindu India has several pages devoted to "Krishna Janmabhoomi" but "Kesava Deo" doesn't (by my eyes) even appear in the index.  JohnInDC (talk) 11:23, 3 August 2016 (UTC)


 * The article looked horrible with that copyvio notice in the middle of it, and the remaining text did appear to be lifted pretty much straight from the source, so I swapped out the sources for ones that seemed a bit more reliable and wrote up some simple copy to reflect them. If the article is going to be considered for deletion, editors should at least be able to see what such an article might say (as well as being tied to useful sources).  JohnInDC (talk) 21:23, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * JohnInDC, please merge and redirect as discussed in deletion request.--Nizil (talk) 07:04, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Photography is not allowed inside the whole complex, they dont allow mobiles/cameras inside the gate, so not many photos on the web, that is why it looks like hoax. But it is not. Poems of borns (talk) 06:44, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Aurangzeb : Destruction of the Temple
Deleting the text portion that seems more argumentative than encyclopedic. This is not a preaching ground. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.248.0.68 (talk) 05:22, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

This section needs expansion, citations and a rewriting in an encyclopedic tone. Aditya Bawane (talk) 18:53, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Notes on rewrite and merge
Following Articles for deletion/Shri Krishna Janmabhoomi in August 2016, the merger of Shri Krishna Janmabhoomi and Kesava Deo Temple was suggested. Renaming, rewriting with references and better organisation of content was also suggested. After two years, I took up the work and created Draft:Krishna Janmasthan Temple Complex because improvement of the article would have been difficult. I invite top editors who have contributed in the articles and who have commented in the deletion discussion. . Please comment on the draft and improve it if appropriate. I will need help in merger too. Regards,--Nizil (talk) 07:25, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I had the opinion of merge, but having visited the place recently, i see a need to keep these two separate. Krishna janma bhoomi, denoting a larger region, is a debatable issue and the current Kesava Deo temple is considered one of the places. I have vernacular references, but actually dont find any solid one to prove the claim. The government website calls it Krishnajanmasthan temple. Ssriram mt (talk) 11:38, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅. I have merged the articles into the new one. The single temple complex houses both temples so better represented under one title which will avoid confusion and repetition of content/history etc. New article is written with references. - Nizil (talk) 06:52, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

rename
i had earlier renamed it but you changed its name back .So i want to have a formal and polite discussion. Hindus believe that place to be krishna janambhumi(birthplace like ram janmbhoomi) evan hindi wiki title page is कृष्ण जन्म भूमि. Even U.P government also calls it as( JANMBHOOMI https://mathura.nic.in/tourist-place/shri-krishna-janambhumi/) You would not be knowing hindu culture but hindus believe it so that is true.Also you deleated eidgah mosque page just because u want to hide truth and are biased.Whwn even congress historians are saying aurangzeb destryed the mosque.\ You are deleating it If you are a true deserving wiki admin donnt block me and wwrite the truth. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/astrology/religious-places/unknown-facts-about-krishna-janmabhoomi/articleshow/68206163.cms

https://haribhakt.com/truth-and-facts-about-shri-krishna-janam-bhoomi-mandir/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redmu3212 (talk • contribs) 16:34, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Janambhoomi and Janamsthan both are same. The official name is Shri Krishna Janamsthan Complex not Janambhoomi. If you don't believe go to Mathura and have a look YasharthSinha10 (talk) 09:24, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * As I said on my talkpage to Redmu3212, the official website of the temple calls itself Janmasthan. And anyway Janmasthan and Janmabhoomi means the same "place of birth". Krishna Janmabhoomi also redirects here. -Nizil (talk) 04:22, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Protect
I request the Admins to protect the page as it may go under vandalism because of ongoing dispute in Mathura District Court. YasharthSinha10 (talk) 10:45, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 22 December 2020

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Consensus to move (non-admin closure) BegbertBiggs (talk) 17:21, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Krishna Janamasthan Temple Complex → Krishna Janmasthan Temple Complex – I found a typo. Janamasthan is wrong, it should be Janmasthan. one a is extra. See spelling used on their official website. (Note: Shri is not used in title because WP:NCIN.) Regards, Nizil (talk) 04:56, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. The current spelling is inaccurate. --Ab207 (talk) 11:58, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Recent Changes
, your recent changes are not improving the article. You added a lot of text repeating what is already in the article under History section. The litigations listed without any references and which are dismissed by court (so have no importance here). Hindi titles in infobox are not allowed as per MOS:IS policy. I have kept some helpful changes in infobox but others are removed because it was unnecessarily cluttering the infobox (those things are already covered in article in detail). Regards,-Nizil (talk) 06:32, 19 November 2021 (UTC)



1. I have removed timeline and adhered to MOS:IS policy


 * == Conflict Timeline ==
 * === 1500 - 1600 - Destruction by Sikandar Lodi ===
 * Destruction of Mathura and its temples by Delhi Sultan Sikandar Lodi in 16th century.
 * === 1600 - 1700 - Renovation by Raja Veer Singh Deva and destruction by Aurangzeb ===
 * 1618 CE - Raja Veer Singh Deva Bundela of Orchha renovated a temple at the cost of Rs.33 (Thirty Three) lakhs at the birth place (Janmasthan) of Lord Shree Krishna at Katra Keshav Dev, Mathura.
 * 1669-70 CE -  Aurangzeb destroyed Katra Keshav Dev Temple and erected Shahi Eidgah.
 * === 1700 - 1800 - Renovation by Maratha Empire ===
 * 1770 CE- Maratha won battle of Govardhan against and became ruler of Mathura and Agra. Maratha restored Katra Keshav Dev Temple and removed Shahi Eidgah. The temple land (13.37 acre) was declared government (Nazul) land.
 * 1973 - The Civil Suit 43/1967 was decreed on the basis of compromise by Civil Judge, Mathura.
 * === 1800 - 1900 - Ownership transferred to Raja Patnimal by East India Company ===
 * 1803 - East India Company conquered Mathura and Agra by defeating Maratha Scindia Army. The temple land was kept as government (Nazul) land.
 * 1805 - East India Company auctioned 13.37 acre of Katra Keshav Dev Temple and it was purchased by Raja Patnimal of Banaras. Raja Patnimal and his descendent kept ownership of Land.
 * === 1900 - 2000 - Start and continuation of litigations ===
 * 1911 - The property of Raja Patnimal came under court of wards and compound Katra Keshav Dev Temple was administer by Collector of Mathura.
 * 1923 - Civil Suit No.76/1920 filed by Muslims was dismissed holding that the land in dispute did not belong to the mosque and Plaintiff was not in possession and Hindu- Defendant was building a temple upon the site of previously existing temple.
 * 1923 - First Appeal 236/1921 was dismissed against the judgment and decree passed in Suit 76/1920.
 * 1928 - Rai Kishan Das the heir of Raja Patnimal filled civil Suit No. 517/1928. Muslim Defendants filed written statement. The suit was decreed by Trial Court and First Appellate Court in favour of Hindus.
 * 1935 - Second Appeal No. 691/1932 filed by Muslims was dismissed with slight modification in the decree passed by Courts.
 * 1944 - Rai Kishan Das and Rai Anand Das the legal heirs of Raja Patni Mal executed sale deed of 13.37 acres land of Katra Keshav Dev Temple in favour of Madan Mohan Malaviya, Goswami Ganesh Dutta and Bhiken Lalji Aattrey on a consideration of Rs.13,400/- paid by Jugal Kishore Birla.
 * 1951 - Jugal Kishore Birla created the Shri Krishna Janmabhoomi Trust. He mentioned that entire land/property measuring 13.37 acres of Katra Keshav Dev Temple will vest in the Trust and it will construct a glorious temple..
 * 1953 - Shahi Eidgah filled civil suit 4/1946 against Madan Mohan Malaviya and others for pre-emption on the basis of sale deed dated 8.2.1944. The suit was dismissed by Hon’ble High Court would be binding on the parties.
 * 1958 - Shree Krishna Janmasthan Seva Sagh (not to confuse with original trust created in 1951 ) was formed by and after amendment made in U.P. 1977 the word ‘Sangh’ was substituted with the word ‘Sansthan’.
 * 1959 - Muslims filled civil suit 361/1959 against Shree Krishna Janmbhoomi Trust on the basis of sale deed executed by alleged Trust in favour of Shahi Eidgah. The suit was dismissed holding that the sale deed was executed without any authority and same was illegal.
 * 1964 - Suit 210/1964 was filed in the Court of Munsiff Mathura but same was returned to the Plaintiff for filing in proper court.
 * 1967 - Civil suit 43/1967 was filed in the Court of Civil Judge, Mathura to remove the super structure raised by Masjid Idgah Trust and others. It was filled by Shree Krishna Janmasthan Seva Sangh, Mathura also known as Shree Krishna Janmabhoomi Trust Mathura along with 15 members of the society. The society was not an owner and had any  right or power over the land of Katra Keshav Dev.
 * 1968 - Without any legal right vested in Shree Krishna Janmasthan Seva Sangh, a compromise was entered into between Shree Krishna Janmasthan Seva Sangh and Shahi Eidgah Mathura through representative in Oct 1968. In compromise, Shree Krishna Janmasthan Seva Sangh accepted some demand of Trust Masjid Idgah against the interest of the deity and the devotees.
 * 1993 - An application No.74/234/1993 was filed under C.P.C section 92 before District Judge, Mathura praying to remove six defendant from trusteeship.
 * 1994 - District Judge, Mathura rejected the application under Section 92 of CPC.
 * 1997 - First appeal 199/1966 challenging the order of District Judge was dismissed, reported in 1997. The Hon’ble High Court has held that entire property of Katra Keshav Dev vested in the Trust and Shree Krishna Janmasthan Seva Sansthan could not represent the Trust. Since the Trustees were not made parties, the application was rejected.
 * === 2000 - onwards ===
 * Devesh S N Bhatta (talk) 06:39, 19 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for understanding. Please go through infobox as well. Many things in it are inaccurate and unnecessarily added which is cluttering the infobox. No reference says that a temple was built in 1 CE. So "1 CE - As Vaishnava temple" is wrong. "1150 CE - As Vishnu Temple by Gahadavala Dynasty Destroyed by Sikandar Lodi" is inaccurate as well. It was built by Jajja who may have been a vassal of Gahadavala king. And we don't know that exactly the same temple was destroyed by Lodi in 16th century or a temple built after Jajja's temple as there is gap of 500 years between these two events. So linking these two events is also inaccurate. There is no information with reference regarding "1770 CE- Small Temple by Maratha Empire" anywhere in article. I will be happy to add it to history section if you can provide a reliable source as per WP:RS. So please cleanup infobox too. Regards,-Nizil (talk) Nizil (talk) 06:52, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2022
150.242.60.159 (talk) 11:03, 24 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Kpddg  (talk)  11:13, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

6th Century BC
The body states, The lead states, The body does not support the lead and, I am fairly confident that the line in the lead is a misrepresentation of source. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:20, 25 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Agree. Please change/remove as suitable.- Nizil (talk) 07:28, 26 May 2022 (UTC)