Talk:Historicity of the Mahabharata

Notability
In 21st century Indology, no scholar (excludes Hindutva aligned people, by definition) bothers to interrogate the historicity of events in MBh - it has been a long established consensus that from the POV of a historian, the text provides some fragmentary glimpses about polities in iron-age India, at best. I can add a list of sources but don't think it will be necessary. That being said, Witzel and a few others have speculated on links with Battle of the Ten Kings—an article drafted by me—but that's all.

So, why do we need this article? About 90% of the information is irrelevant:-
 * Lead: The second paragraph of the lead describes the evolution of the text, authorship etc. - this is irrelevant to historicity.
 * First section: Synopsis of the epic. Irrelevant.
 * Second section: A copy of Battle of the Ten Kings.
 * Third section: Yet another irrelevant section about the production of a critical edition.
 * Fourth section: More irrelevant discussions about layers, evolution of text, manuscripts etc. Hardly a single decent source.
 * Fifth section: On Kurukshetra War
 * First sub-section: Not sure what is the end-goal. Irrelevant.
 * Second sub-section: Decent and relevant; duplicate to Battle of the Ten Kings, at large.
 * Third sub-section: A bunch of crazies peddling nonsense. I am hearing some of them for the first time.
 * Fourth sub-section: Hindutva aligned academics.
 * Sixth section: On Bhagavad Gita
 * First sub-section: Issues of authorship. Irrelevant.
 * Second sub-section: Details of variant manuscripts. Irrelevant.
 * Third sub-section: Dating of the text. Irrelevant.
 * Fourth sub-section: Whether a historical Krishna existed. Relevant but this belongs at Krishna.

Just redirect this to the main article on MbH. The historicity can be discussed in two/three paragraphs including the thrust of Hindutva arguments and a rebut. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:51, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirected by me. I don't think this subject needs any further coverage anywhere though. The main article already got enough details about it. Dear Debasish (talk) 17:02, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Note: redirection and deletion are controversial, as user:Nadiallah has contested this. If people here want to delete or redirect, please open an AFD discussion on the topic. My opinion is that the topic is notable, as I see there are books and academic writings on this topic. That does not mean that the content here is suitable though. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:59, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

OCP
does this sentence make any sense? OCP doesn’t belong to 4th millennium BCE. Then what is this connection being made to such antiquity? 117.206.0.84 (talk) 20:00, 19 July 2022 (UTC)