Talk:Kurukshetra War/Archive 1

Edit history
This article was split out of Kurukshetra in a cut-and paste move without acknowleding the source in July 2005. Edit history and contributors for this article from before July 2005 are at. Kusma (討論) 01:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Unfinished "The War" section removed
This article had a sizeable unfinished section, including 11 empty subsections. I have removed this. The removed text follows. This leaves the article with a single section: "Introduction". Of course, this is still Not Good, but at least now we don't have lots of headings hanging around with no associated text. &mdash; Nowhither 18:28, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

==The War== ===Before the War=== The Pandavas appointed Dhrishtadhyuma the Supreme Commander of their Army, while the Kauravas gave a like honor to Bhishma. Bhishma ordered that as long as he be Supreme Commander, Karna would not fight in the Kaurava army. He secretly knew Karna's identity, but he officially gave several other feeble excuses. ===Day One=== Day one of Kuruksetra war was when both the armies of Kauravas and the Pandavas stood face to face. Pandava army had 7 Ashauhinis while the Kauravas had 11 Akshauhinis including the armies of Dwarka which Duryodhana got from Lord Krishna. In lieu of the Dwarka army Pandavas got Krishna, who vowed not to pick up any weapon during the war.So he became the charioteer of Arjuna ===Days Two to Nine==== ===Day Seventeen=== ===Day Eighteen=== ===After the War===

Removed the sentence "(Modern World, especially Western World, Please Take Note)"..Western wars may be fought dishonourably but the main article is not the right place to air these grievances (Saurabhb 15:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC))

Size constraints
I am adding the details on each day of the war. Now i have added details upto day 3. Day 1 is 8 kb, day 2 is 6 kb and day 3 is 3 kb. Now the size is growing. If there is common consensus, I shall create separate pages for each day of the war and link it at this page.

--Jijithnr 15:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I will add a bit realating to roles of the Kambojas, Sakas, Yavanas, Tusharas and other participants from north-west for each and every day of the war. Other contributors can add relevant material on other participants.

Satbir Singh 17:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I think, it's better to create a seperate article Kurukshetra War and the Kambojas. So the other contributors should continue this article the way they intended. I'm reverting it back to it earlier version. Satbir Singh 06:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Why was so much information removed in this edit? And what is supposed to be the difference between this article and Kurukshetra War and the Kambojas? If anything, I think separate pages should be created for each day, but I'm confused as to what is going on right now. --Musicpvm 19:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The reason I created a seperate article Kurukshetra War and the Kambojas was to pinpoint the specific role of the Kamboja Kshatryas in the Kurukshetra war. Since the Kambojas were only one of many Kshatrya tribes who participated in the battle, this Kurukshetra war article therefore can be kept as a broad-based article which may contain limited information but for as many of the various participant tribes as feasible. Thanks

Satbir Singh 02:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's all admit that Jijithnr is doing a wonderful service in researching on ancient Indian History based on Mahabharata. Credit must be given to him since he is the one who rightly deserves it. Satbir Singh 02:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

There were many tribes and having Kambojas as one special kshatriya tribe with importance is not fair. Yes they would have been the most feirce fighters in the history but the tribes of Gatotgacha and others are not to be forgotten. Kambojas should have separate topic and should not be included as main scale. One more thing, why is there a mention of "Punjabi Warriors" separatly ? is this to thrive them out of other warriors ? or give them a special significance indicating racisim.

Summary style
At present this article contains long lists of the various kings,etc. To fit within the WP:MOS for a summary article, we will need to rewrite this to make it more readable. I will attempt to copyedit the various lists into readable prose. I don't believe we need to go into the minutest details of all the participants of the war. It will be suffice to summarise the eighteen days into paragraphs of readable prose. - Parthi 00:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * See Trojan War for example of a similar mythical battle - Parthi 00:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I have moved the detailed text for each day under the War heading to a new page Kurukshetra war - day 1. We can create similar pages for details of each day and convert the main article into a more manageable summary article - Parthi 21:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

PAGE MOVED, because "Kurukshetra War" is a proper noun. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Requested move
Kurukshetra war → Kurukshetra War — proper noun —Espoo 15:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Survey

 * ''Add  * Support   or   * Oppose   on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~.

Discussion

 * ''Add any additional comments:
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Historically accurate"
Without getting into the argument whether the battle itself was history or myth, there has been no large scale engagement in recorded human history coming remotely close to 99.9999 etc % casualties, nor has there been a human in recorded history who's come remotely close to killing 200,000 humans with his bare hands in his lifetime, let alone in a single day, which would've required Arjuna to have slain just under three enemies a second, every second of every minute of every hour for 24 hours straight. This turn of phrase would be like suggesting that were Ragnarok historically accurate it'd be the most destructive battle in history, or were the Star Wars movie historically accurate, an Imperial Star Destroyer would be the most powerful warship built by man. They aren't, making this speculative POV and impermissible.  Ravenswing  12:55, 29 May 2010 (UTC) trrt this battle was a history it is supported by archaeological discoveries, mahabharata mention many places and river which has the exact geography as mentioned in mahabharata, you can take the example of sarasvati river which root is mentioned in mahabarata and this geographical description about the river exactly matches with dried up course of ghaghar hakra river which was dried up by 1700 bce.

now how did arjuna killed 2,00,000 army men, its answer is that he killed them by using powerfull weapons, like nuclear weapon which can destroy the whole earth in a single day, mahabharata describes such tye of weapon. so it may be true--115.242.37.210 (talk) 18:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * LOL, i haven't heard a funnier statement in the recent past. Your statement starts by stating that the battle is part of history and ends up saying "so it may be true". Can't help myself from laughing  Arjun  codename024 19:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * friend, history is a subject of laughing for them who have very less logical power, historical events can't be said 100% accurately, it depends upon the thinking of scholars of that time. like in 500 ad arybhat who was a mathematician calculated 3000 bc as a probable date of mahabharata, but 100 yr ago all western scholars rejected the authenticity of mahabharata and introduced aryan invasion theory which was not known to any indian in a long span of 4000-3000 yr hinduism history.but all scholars supported that theory due to lack of evidence.but now many archaeological as well as linguistic analysis have supported authenticity of mahabharata.like sarasvati river, submerged city of dwarka and and many archaeological sites.

so my dear friend history can't be watched by our own eyes, it can be predicted only behalf on some facts available at that time, so keep laughing if you understand history made by today's scholars as a 100% correct estimation--115.242.119.76 (talk) 12:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The title - War or Battle
I'll suggest that the correct title in English for this event is battle, not war. The battle was one incident that covered 18 days, at the same place. Even if it was the only significant event in the war, these events are normally called battles in English, not wars. The war (insofar as it can be clearly defined) was a wider event, and started before the first day's fighting at Kurukshetra. Imc 20:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Definition of War - Compact Oxford English Dictionary : • 1 a state of armed conflict between different nations, states, or armed groups. 2 a sustained contest between rivals or campaign against something undesirable: a war on drugs.

Other dictionaries give similar results. I feel that the event described in this article fits within the definition easily and clearly, thus I vote not to change it. Chopper Dave 20:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Long time since my original comment, but I will stick with my opinion. The dicdef does not contradict it, in fact it supports it. The war is the state of conflict, not an episode in the conflict. As in the Norman Conquest (the actual war) and the Battle of Hastings (the major military event in that war). IMO, the war would be the war for the throne of Hastinapura; the battle was at Kurukshetra. Imc (talk) 09:16, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. It's obviously a battle and needs to be labelled as such - the article even describes it as a battle at a number of points, and the same is true in the Mahābhārata article. Knyght27 (talk) 10:16, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Contradiction in Wiki article on proposed dates
"The Kurukshetra War is believed to date variously from 6000 BCE to 500 BCE" is stated at the beginning, yet the actually list of Proposed dates included none more recent then the 9th Century BC? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.92.229.89 (talk) 14:13, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

The whole historical context section is badly written. I request someone more knowledgeable on wikipedia practices of linking and references to please edit this part. There seems to be too much Original Research as well as synthesis.

History and mythology
This articile states that the battle went for 18 days as fact, very improbable considering the level of technology and man power avaliable to nations back 5000 years ago, is this articile presenting religious beliefs as verified facts?

Re:

1) According to the Vedic war conduct fighting is allowed only during daytime. 2) Kurukshetra war is a battle between several kingdoms from all over India. 3) There are astronomical references from the beginning through the end of the war.


 * It's not impossible for this "battle" to last 18 days because interpretations of what "battle" meant was most likely different back then from modern battles and numbers of loss merely means that it was a huge confrontation rather than a factual representation. If you check "Rules of Engagement", notice it codifies individual conduct rather than the conduct of a group. Thus, it makes more sense to assume that engagements were completely like a tournament with only few duels each day. It's not even ridiculous to assume that only one duel was fought each day because necessary religious preparations probably took hours, if not days. Meaning of everything changes with time. --Revth 09:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, with the numbers presented in this article, this war would have cost the lives of about 1/5 of the entire human population on Earth. And why is it presented as a fact that only 11 people from the armies survived, when that is quite obviously not true, even if the only source we have of the war says it is? 210.154.111.15 (talk) 11:52, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

These are not really techincal arguments. firstly as the above user has stated the batlles between heroes could have taken a long time true but even so 18 days is not much. after all no one considers that the trojan war was fought with much less numbers over 10 years! the arguments over fact v/s myth are vaild but in the case of a page devoted to a myth, constantly saying it is believed and possibly becomes unimportant it is understood that all 'facts' are derived from quasi mythological books and thus may or may not be true. however we cannot assume the numbers to be unrealistic because no one can accurately determine populations and considering india's fertility it is highly probable that humainty's numbers burgeoned. also the epic states that 11 heroes survived and implies that many common soldiers also survived as referenced by a line later when when arjun leads an akshauni of kurukshetra veterans when he hear's of Krishna's demise. so please dont assume it to be blind myth just a historical battle where numbers may be exaggerated. a argument is that poets may have changed definitions to reach the number 18. so a day where only skirmishing may have happened or a single duel is reported as a battle. and the number 18 appears many times in the text Tca achintya (talk) 20:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

When critically reviewing the count of people involved in the war there seems to be reference to number of people in the whole planet during those days as being mentioned in Wikipedia. But I want to ask one question, how sure are you of the population count given in Wikipedia. One should not be surprised if some day another theory proves this count to be wrong and peg the value at something else. Hence just holding one value true and trying to argue that another is false is not scientific I believe. --Swakiran (talk) 17:14, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

historical context
I'm not an expert on wikipedia guidelines but the following lines seem to be POV, or atleast badly contructed. The findings in Dwarka and archeological evidence found are compatible with the Mahabharata tradition and removes the lingering doubt about the historicity and positions the Mahabharata war date to around 1500 BCE[11] also see [12] Am changing it to read archaeological evidence at the dwarka site seems to suggest a date for 1500 BCE. And i will then add the two sources. I do however believe that the sources do not seem to fulfill the criterion for reliability but will not remove them or the statement they support, because i fear that may prove overly controversial and i wish to build some consensus first. Moreover as stated above i am not an expert in Wikipedia Guidelines so i could be wrong about the quality of the sources. If somebody with experience could state their opinion about the two sources numbered 11 and 12. Tca achintya (talk) 10:25, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

So called controversal statement
If you're going to argue that the war didn't happen, wouldn't it be wise to edit say, the rest of the first line, where it states the word evidence, as in, evidence of when the war actually took place? Dwayne Kirkwood 11:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * But I'm not saying it didn't happen, just that whether it happened is open to question. The second line implies an alternative opinion is possible.Dejvid 13:26, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Arguing whether the war actually happened in the article would make the article POV and arguements are for the Talk page. Armyrifle 11:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no scientific evidence to prove whether the war took place or not. Just finding the remains of Dwaraka city is not sufficient enough to prove the war took place.

by that logic there's no proof that the Trojan War happened yet it is acknowldged as having happenedTca achintya (talk) 13:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Tca achintya - are you arguing for following the practice of the Trojan war page? 87.115.13.77 (talk) 23:01, 11 May 2014 (UTC) Ian McDonald (talk) 23:04, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

The comment was four years ago :). The point was to show that the saying that the War "did not happen" is a misleading statement. I have no objection to stating both sides of an argument, like the Trojan War Page. But a flat out dismissal of the possible historicity of the event is NPOV. Categorically stating that the War is real would also be NPOV however. I would recommend simply stating that the war in an event in Indian mythology, believed to be real by the Ancient Indians. Modern Historians are divided, with some arguing that it is a fictional event, others arguing that archaeological remains at the sites such as Dwarka and Hastinapura indicate the War may have been a real event. So yes, i think we should follow the structure of the Trojan War PageTca achintya (talk) 12:18, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

"The Kurukshetra War is a mythological war" needs to be changed
Looking through the page i see that a editor has given information detailing findings via "astronomy" and "archaeology" which are supported via wiki, To write that it's a myth and then have a list of well known indologist and historians claiming it to be based on a real war seems to be enough reason to strip the line "The Kurukshetra war is a mythological war" out of the top leading text.

If its a Myth then take out the historical context section, but if it has content which is proven by people which relates to real factual events which Archology and Astronomy can prove then it should be reverted.seems strange to write something as a myth and then go into a section on it being not a myth92.236.96.38 (talk) 21:19, 15 December 2014 (UTC)Caplock

This article needs to be massively shrunken
There is way too much non-essential information on this page. Focus on the war. A little bit of background, but that is it. Bhishma's description of the prowess of the warriors (coming from Chathura's interpretation) can go on their respective pages. Pinkfloyd11 (talk) 08:02, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Fact vs Fiction
The lead paragraph reads as if there is conclusive proof that this war happened. This is open for debate. There has been no archealogical proof found so far. While we must treasure epics such as Mahabharata as invaluable cultural icons, we should be careful in taking it as the literal truth. I have slightly modified the lead para to reflect this.

Cheers Parthi 03:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The "date" section reads as if it was fiction. This is also POV. You have to be careful about beliefs. Armyrifle 07:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Please put this under section of "mythology". I think mythology encompasses everything that doesn't have archaelogical evidence. Which is why this should be in there. Also it's inclusion in the list of "Battles before 301" is both misleading. "Mythological battles before 301" more like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.15.208.23 (talk) 23:06, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Date of Occurance
I hope i dont screw this page up in my contribution, but the date posted "P. V. Vartak calculates a date of October 16, 5561 BCE using planetary positions." seems highly unlogical, because the number of participants would be greater than half of the world's population at thetime period, as stated in the wikipedia site, 6th century B.C. "World population is essentially stable at circa 5 million people, though some speculate up to 7,000,000." I would appreciate some insight here. Ghost9420 (talk) 23:54, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Krishna passed away in 3102 BCE which marks the beginning of Kaliyuga. Long after the Kurukshetra war when both Arjuna and Krishna were older men, Arjuna went to Dwarka to see Krishna and Dwarka was about to be run over by the waters of the ocean and all the people including Arjuna and Krishna evacuated Dwarka and were going east. At this time Arjuna was not able to keep his bow and arrow steady because of the old age. And during a conversation Krishna told Arjuna that Dwapara Yuga is coming to an end and Kaliyuga is about to begin. The correct date of Kurukshetra war is 3139 BCE as explained in (note 1) in the main article.

Kingcircle (talk) 04:18, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Dating by B. N. Achar
An IP re-inserted this piece of info at the incorrect place:
 * "Physicist Narahari Achar used planetarium software to argue that the Mahabharata War took place in 3067 BCE "

Stating that Narahari Achar is a physicist is a claim from authority. The fact that he is a Professor Emeritus is irrelevant to the status of his calculations, which depart from the scholarly concencus. This is underscored by the contents of Origin of Indian civilization, which is a fine collection of fringe-theory: "The papers examine the events that gave rise to the Aryan invasion theory and debunk the theory as a myth and present evidence and arguments supporting the theory that the Rigveda was composed in its bulk in the fourth millennium bce." Ergo, his dating, which was already included, does not belong in the "Scholarly datings" section. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   12:29, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You clearly outline the issue with biased western historians and editors on wikipedia trolling around reverting edits by South Asian editors to dates that are dismissed in that article but upheld on Wikipedia removing it is a deliberate act racism and cultural revisionism in my view.--175.157.204.29 (talk) 12:37, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Talk page guidelines: "Talk pages are for improving the encyclopedia, not for expressing personal opinions on a subject or an editor." See also WP:TPNO:


 * ''"Please note that some of the following are of sufficient importance to be official Wikipedia policy. Violations (and especially repeated violations) may lead to the offender being blocked or banned from editing Wikipedia.
 * ''* No personal attacks: A personal attack is saying something negative about another person. This includes:
 * * No insults: Do not make ad hominem attacks, such as calling someone an idiot or a fascist. Instead, explain what is wrong with an edit and how to fix it."


 * Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   13:12, 28 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment Looking at that IP address edits he did provide edit summaries and you kept reverting them and you also removed the citation tags when the debate of archaeological evidence (Witzel) is questionable as discussed in this work by Vishal Agarwal, Richard Meadow, Martin Huld, Edwin Bryant, D. P. Agrawal, Asko Parpola, Stefan Zimmer, J. P. Mallory, Elena Kuzmina 11 August 2003 A Reply to Michael Witzel’s ‘Ein Fremdling im Rgveda’ those dates in the scholarly section should be properly cited anyway you chose not to insert citations when you reverted and why should they take you word for it? If you don't agree add the citation and not keep adding fuel to the fire.--Navops47 (talk) 14:19, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Navops47, have you any clue what this is about? ":'''In 2002 Kazanas was allowed to publish in 'The Journal of Indo-European Studies', probably the only publication by an 'Indigenist' in the JIES Mallory, editor of the Journal of Indo-European Studies, and emeritus professor at Queen's University, Belfast, and a member of the Royal Irish Academy, introduced this with an explanation, in which he stated:
 * The "information" this IP provided was already in the article; the dating by Narahari Achar is not a scholarly dating, and does not belong in the section with scholarly datings.
 * The removal of the citation-tag was a mistake. The intention was to rollback the addition on Narahari Achar; unfortunately I also removed the citation-tag, which was indeed rightfully placed there. Anyway, I provided a citation by Michael Witzel.
 * The pdf you linked to is not by "Vishal Agarwal, Richard Meadow, Martin Huld, Edwin Bryant, D. P. Agrawal, Asko Parpola, Stefan Zimmer, J. P. Mallory, Elena Kuzmina", but solely by Vishal Agarwal, in response to Michael Witzel, which was a response to Kazanas' original article in the JIES. Please read RfC: the "Indigenous Aryans" theory is fringe-theory to get a grip on the value of Kazanas' publication. From that thread:
 * 'Many regard the scholarship of the Indigenous Indo-Aryan camp so seriously flawed that it should not be given an airing [...] I indicated that I thought it would be unlikely that any referee would agree with [Kazanas'] conclusions.'


 * ''Michael Witzel, Wales Professor of Sanskrit at Harvard University, commented:
 * 'It is certain that Kazanas, now that he is published in JIES, will be quoted endlessly by Indian fundamentalists and nationalists as 'a respected scholar published in major peer-reviewed journals like JIES' -- no matter how absurd his claims are known to be by specialist readers of those journals. It was through means like these that the misperception has taken root in Indian lay sectors that the historical absurdities of Kak, Frawley, and even Rajaram are taken seriously by academic scholars.' (Wiztel (2003), Ein Fremdling in Ṛgveda, JIES vol 312003, p23, §5 end))"

Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   14:59, 28 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Oh right, you misread this sentence from Nicholas Kazanas: "His [Nicholas Kazanas] work was criticized by M Witzel, Richard Meadow, Martin Huld, Edwin Bryant, D. P. Agrawal, Asko Parpola, Stefan Zimmer, J. P. Mallory, Elena Kuzmina and others."  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   15:14, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Also note that "(Journal of Indo-European Studies, Vol. 31, No.1-2: pp.107-185, 2003)" refers to Witzel's publication, not to Agarwal's reply, which was not published in the JIES, but only added to the website.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   15:18, 28 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The issue they seem to have is being lectured to by westerners as to what is their history and what is not I suggest they have a far better understanding of their own history than either I do you do or Witzel does "The most widely accepted date is 10th century BCE or 950 BCE, according to archeological evidence" says who? Not referenced sufficiently in the section to make that claim and should be there. ''Basham considers the beginning of the 9th century BCE as a more plausible date for the events. Again where is the source link? also your repeated use of scholarly as justification for reverting http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/scholarly. Michael Witzel (born July 18, 1943) is a German-American philologist and academic. Professor Achar scientist and academic received his early education in India earned his MS and PhD degrees from the Pennsylvania State University research Ancient Sanskrit texts of India I would suggest he reads its as does Witzel excuse me BOTH are scholars one is no better than the other and what ever they publish is scholarly that's a ridiculous assertion stating one viewpoint matters the other does'nt.--Navops47 (talk) 15:35, 28 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Says who? Upinder Singh who is clearly not a Western historian. As the article now states, she has written that "Whether a bitter war between the Pandavas and the Kauravas ever happened cannot be proved or disproved It is possible that there was a small-scale conflict, transformed into a gigantic epic war by bards and poets. Some historians and archaeologists have argued that this conflict may have occurred in about 1000 bce." It looks as though you haven't read the article carefully. And we should never try to decide that one nationality must be the source for their own history - that's not the way we work at all. In any case it's easy to find examples in most countries of authors, even professionals, who put forward a nationalistic agenda that overrides the evidence. This is a problem in India at the moment, it was a serious problem in Japan where a prominent archaeologist faked finds to make them look older, in happens in the US, the UK, etc. Achar's postgraduate work wasn't in ancient texts - this is outside his speciality. You can be a scholar in one field and an amateur in another. Barry Fell was a prominent US professor of marine biology at Harvard who wrote books of nonsense on Celts, Ogham, etc. He was also both a scholar and an amateur. You ask where the Basham source link is? It's at the first mention of Basham - again you missed it. Maybe we need to condense these but we don't need to source the same statement twice. By the way, I changed the description of Achar to read 'physicist' because the wording before seemed to be an argument from authority, while 'physicist' to me at least suggests he's an amateur when he writes about this. Physics isn't astronomy or history.  Doug Weller  talk 15:54, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Final word on the matter physics one of the oldest academic disciplines, perhaps the oldest through its inclusion of astronomy (assume then older than philology) that involves the study of matter and its motion through space and time (dates) that's what is important here!. Upinder Singh wheres the citation I can't see it also states the wide range of views (absolute, sweeping unconditional, overall, all-inclusive) they still need to be cited when I have made that statement in articles I cite it substantially. I also don't agree with the fact that a scientist who can prove it (date) through mathematical equesions is less important than the study of languages does not stack up in my book. I also looked a lot at Joshua's revert history he appears to revert a dis-proportionate high number of users from South Asia quite a lot whats that all about then?--Navops47 (talk) 16:39, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I can't help it if you can't find the citation to Singh, I can guarantee it's there. Search for it, it's in the section 'Historical context'. Note that Singh is mentioned twice and the citation is in the first mention. Astronomy is not physics, and what Achar has done isn't really astronomy, it was using texts with planetarium software. Not physics. Achar's work in physics is nothing to do with the physical aspects of astronomy. Doug Weller  talk 16:58, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * And you really can't prove the date with just mathematics, you have to interpret the texts for a start. In other words, it's subjective, not objective. So not 'proof', not like carbon14 dating of artifacts and even then there are other issues. Doug Weller  talk 16:59, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Mathematics is the absolute study measurement so your wrong there I won't change my opinion and don't agree as for Singhs citation is not exactly in the section were TALKING about its in the lead she also does not state definitely the date "may have occurred in about 1000 bce" one view point ONLY not widespread view as stated we have 6 references ONLY not very widespread or substantial in my view when you see articles with 000's  of references that's widespread sourcing I am for a balanced argument from both sides of the debate equally given not one way traffic and I'm sure I could find many Indian academics that would argue against Singh's hypothesis the reverts are being done on the basis of unsubstantiated sources in that section we are talking about and if some other scholar University Researcher does not agree with that hypothesis include it in the scholarly section otherwise that is misleading the average reader.--Navops47 (talk) 17:47, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Her citation is not in the lead. I can see where it is and it hasn't been moved. It's clearly given as her opinion. Mathematics an exact science until you start to apply it, then it is no longer exact. "Garbage in garbage out" applies to mathematics as well as computing. It doesn't matter if you don't understand this. Doug Weller talk 18:53, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * How in the world did I let myself get distracted into talking about mathematics. Achar used a computer, so GIGO applies perfectly. Doug Weller  talk 21:45, 28 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Scholars versus fringe theorists is not "a balanced argument." Unfortunately, as long as there are people who don't know the difference; who think that mythology is the same as history; and who think that the rest of the world has to believe what they believe, and that Wikipedia exists to spread those beliefs; so long will it be necessary to "lecture on history." Not only by westerners, also by Indians and editors of all other parts of the world.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   04:49, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Kurukshetra War. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ejvs.laurasianacademy.com/ejvs0104/ejvs0104article.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 10:23, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Sunil Sheoran
An editor has recently been adding a claim about the date by this person sourced to a presentation uploaded to a random site. It's self-published and I can see no evidence this person a scholar in this area. The phrasing is also extremely POV. Discussion here as the editor has been pushing this repeatedly into the article. Ravensfire ( talk ) 12:39, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Response: So, what's the problem with self-published work? This is a research work. If you would have known anything about Mahabharata, you wouldn't have deleted the small dating reference that people may find helpful. Did you even bother to look through the contents of the link provided?

As far as Mahabharata dating is concerned, this dating is closest to Archaeological dating by BB Lal, an eminent archaeologist of India, and also uses the astronomical parameters stated in Mahabharata. Deleting it without an analysis/evaluation goes to show what kind of ignoramus you are.

And for your information, Slideshare.net is not a RANDOM SITE, it's one of biggest presentations site in the world. Google it. Do you consider Quora.com also as a random site? If yes, to hell with Wikipedia. Better be in company of few wise people than be in company of fools. If no, here is his profile: https://www.quora.com/profile/Sunil-Sheoran. Noticed how much he contributes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.32.56.144 (talk) 12:59, 13 September 2016 (UTC)


 * You have to follow our policies. See WP:SPS. It's also not reliably published, see WP:SPS. We don't care how much he contributes to open sites such as quora.com, any fool, as you say, can do that. We wouldn't use Wikipedia as a source either or an editor with 200,000 edits here just because they had so many edits. Anyone can contribute to slideshare.net just as they can contribute to YouTube. It doesn't count here. We are an encyclopedia based upon what reliable sources say about a subject. You're not going to be happy here taking that attitude.  Doug Weller  talk 14:31, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

'''Response #2: ''' Oh really? Look at the following extract from this very page:

"Day 1 When the battle was commenced, Bhishma went through the Pandava army wreaking havoc wherever he went but Abhimanyu, Arjuna's son, seeing this went straight at Bhishma, defeated his bodyguards and directly attacked the commander of the Kaurava forces. The Pandavas suffered numerous losses and were defeated at the end of the first day. Virata's sons, Uttara and Sweta, were slain by Shalya and Bhishma. Krishna consoled the distraught Yudhishthira saying that eventually victory would be his."

Now ask yourself? Where did you get it from? Who put it here? I don't see a reliable source. Where are all these lines written? I don't see any source quoted. Now since there is no quoted reliable source, how do you allow it to continue here?

The problem, my friend, with your approach, is that your approach is robotic and overtly technical rather than a well-versed and intelligent one.

With people like you staffing YOUR Wikipedia.org, I am sure it wouldn't last very long. People who don't know anything history are editing history articles. Best of luck, I say BYE BYE BYE to your website forever. Congratulations for making good the loss of one client to your website !! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.32.56.144 (talk) 16:12, 13 September 2016 (UTC)


 * It is sourced, to the Mahabharata where the tale of this war comes from. It is a reliable source for a summary of itself.  Huge difference.  You, however, are not a reliable source.  Nor is your presentation.  You really need to read our page on reliable sources to get some more information on what is and is not a reliable source.  You also need to dial back your tone a lot.  This is a collaborative website, not combative.  You won't find much help with the tone you've taken. Think about it. Ravensfire ( talk ) 17:35, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * this is a good hook to raise something that's been bothering me. Our policy at What Wikipedia is not says " articles on works of non-fiction, including documentaries, research books and papers, religious texts, and the like, should contain more than a recap or summary of the works' contents. Such articles should be expanded to have broader coverage." This is far too much of a summary of the source to make me comfortable. Doug Weller  talk 17:45, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I won't disagree with you there, it is a rather long article. It's part of a rather massive epic (1.8 million words!!) and seems to be a fairly significant part of that epic.  I think the impact of the epic is shown by the passion of various editors, plus several co-workers more familiar with this culture all confirmed the impact of the epic.  The article is really detailed into the story. Ravensfire ( talk ) 03:37, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kurukshetra War. 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/20060313192059/http://haryana-online.com/Districts/Kurukshetra.htm to http://www.haryana-online.com/Districts/kurukshetra.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:46, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kurukshetra War. 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/20160304234232/http://www.dkprintworld.com/product-detail.php?pid=1280856795 to http://www.dkprintworld.com/product-detail.php?pid=1280856795

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:12, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

image
https://videshisutra.com/2014/08/12/kurukshetra/

I think the map in this blog would be good for this article. If so, what are the proper steps for releasing it under a compatible license and uploading it and including it in this article? I've never uploaded an image before. Benjamin (talk) 16:50, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

New article proposed - "Weapons of power in Hindu epics"
In general, policy suggests, and I agree that stubs for every small item, or little-known person, should be avoided when the topic can be covered in a larger article without destroying the focus of the larger article; see WP:UNDUE. The various powerful weapons of the Hindu epics are currently covered piecemeal and without much citation to other than the epics themselves. The Vaishnavastra (Vaisnavastra) is an example. Since it is essentially entirely from the Mahabharata (and the Ramayana?) and is a weapon of war, one might expect it to be covered in the article on the Mahabharatan War, i.e. Kurukshetra War; but it is not mentioned there, not even in the section Army divisions and weaponry (no supernatural weapons are). Nor, is it mentioned in the Lord Rama article. There has been some interest in identifying the powerful weapons of the Mahabharata, but the information has not been drawn together into a single article. We have articles on the edged weapons, Asi (Mahabharata); projectile weapons, Astra (weapon); and other individual ones, see in general the list at Category:Weapons in Hindu mythology. Some are obvious candidates for consolidation: Brahmastra, Brahmanda astra and Brahmashirsha astra should probably be merged into the Astra (weapon) article, or a new Weapons of power in Hindu epics. Stub articles like Narayanastra and Pashupatastra should be either merged into the Astra (weapon) article, or have the supernatural weapons all covered in one comprehensive article, that cites some of the research such as, , , and (originally published in 1975). This talk page seemed a reasonable place to discuss this. --Bejnar (talk) 14:44, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I have provided notice of this discussion at
 * Wikipedia talk:Hinduism-related topics notice board,
 * Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics,
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mythology
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Skepticism


 * That sounds like an ideal structure to me; any weapons that do end up with enough material for a standalone article can then be spun off as appropriate. If you have anything particular in mind, how about creating a page in the draft space (e.g. Draft:Weapons of power in Hindu epics)? Although, if I may, I'd like to suggest a few alternative names for discussion (feel free to knock any down as not appropriate for the exact scope):
 * "Weapons of power in Hindu mythology"
 * "Weapons of power in Hindu literature"
 * "Weapons of power in Hindu epics" (original proposed name)
 * Let me know what you think. — Sasuke Sarutobi (push to talk) 15:02, 22 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I like the title Weapons of power in Hindu mythology better than my original proposal. Cf. List of mythological objects (Hindu mythology) and Hindu mythological wars. --Bejnar (talk) 15:41, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I dislike "weapons of power", They are mythological, so why not just call them that?Slatersteven (talk) 16:30, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Two possible interrelated reasons come immediately to mind. First calling thm "weapons of power" distinguishes them from ordinary weapons, and second it does not conflate the mythological source of these tales with the nature of the weapons.  A third reason would be to focus on the grandiose effects of these weapons, which is why they are singled out.  It is possible that "divine weapons" might substitute for "weapons of power", as many, if not all, of them have divine origins attributed to them. But some editors might object to that use of "divine". Any other suggestions? --Bejnar (talk) 20:08, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * So how do we define "A weapon of power" (indeed what is an ordinary weapon, mythology is littered wit Excaliburs and spears of destiny)? It just all seems to open to OR and synthases. Why do we need to define them as special as opposed to (say) [Mythological Norse weapons‎]?Slatersteven (talk) 08:54, 23 June 2018 (UTC)


 * IMO, minor weapons can be merged into Astra (weapon), however significant weapons like Brahmastra, which are referred in many Hindu scriptures and epics, should be retained as separate articles. Redtigerxyz  Talk 12:17, 24 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I think it's more than reasonable that existing separate articles remain separate - to my mind, they would simply have a short section in the article that hatnotes to the main article (in the same way as any section that grows large enough to warrant its own article). and  make a good point, though, that the criteria for inclusion need to be made explicit. Is "weapon of power" a translation of a particular Sanskrit term, or is there anything in the literature that either gives a definitive list or explicit definition of what constitutes a "weapon of power"? — Sasuke Sarutobi (push to talk) 10:23, 25 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Actually, we don't define them, in good Wikipedia style, secondary sources define them. See, e.g. Whitaker, and others, mentioned above. Using sources prevents OR. OR, or at least a lack of cited sources, is one of the problems with most of the existing articles in this category.   --Bejnar (talk) 19:44, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Dead external link
The external link at Dating the Kurukshetra War (at ignca.nic.in) no longer works. The page has moved to: http://ignca.gov.in/dating-the-kurukshetra-war/. I suggest that someone update the page. EdJohnston (talk) 16:14, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 February 2019
Typo fix: In the 'Day 14' subsection, the weapon used is listed as "PASHUPATHSTRA". It should instead be "PASHUPATHASTRA" Hisokamorrow (talk) 04:06, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done with thanks, NiciVampire</b><b style="color:black">Heart</b> 01:03, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2020
In first line : The Kurukshetra War, also called the Mahabharata War, is a war described in the Indian epic poem Mahābhārata.

But as per the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI officer) this incident is true. So, the first line should be, Correct : The Kurukshetra War, also called the Mahabharata War, is a war described in the Indian epic real incident Mahābhārata. 112.196.147.16 (talk) 22:40, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 22:46, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Changes for WAR PREPARATIONS
I want to say that here in the war preparations it is said Dwarka helped Pandavas..... But actually none but only Krishna was with the Panadavas......The rest army(Narayani Sena) was given to Duryodhan(I'm not sure.....Plz discuss). And also check that the state of Kekaya is given in side of Pandavas and Kauravas..... They halped the Kauravas only. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepan Krishna (talk • contribs) 04:04, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Ochre Coloured Pottery culture
what's your intent with this addition:

Ochre Coloured Pottery culture says "The Ochre Coloured Pottery culture (OCP) is a 4th millennium BC to 2nd millennium BC Bronze Age," yet Singh gives a date for one site between 2650 and 1180 BCE, making it contemporary with the Late Harappan culture. Sigh.... "4th millennium BC to 2nd millennium BC" is incompatible with the Indo-Aryan migrations; first half of the 2nd millennium BCE is interesting; I've corrected that dating. Let's go through your sources:
 * - the familiair stretching-back of datings, and then:
 * That kind of dating is the realm of wihfull thinking, not science. As an aside, the article has been cite one time; also a sign of the impact of these speculations.
 * That kind of dating is the realm of wihfull thinking, not science. As an aside, the article has been cite one time; also a sign of the impact of these speculations.


 * - this seems to be a book-chapter, but from which book?... Google Scholar is numb. Anyway, Giacomo writes (p.224) that the OCP is "generally dated 2000-1500 BCE," but pushes back the date of the Mahabharata War to 1432 BCE (p.226). Speculation, in a publication which can't even be found at Google Scholar... See also Mahābhārata and archaeology: the chariot of Sanauli and the position of Painted Grey Ware for Benedetti's views on "the 'chariots' in Sanauli."
 * - Parpola at least is an acknowledged scholar; this article also comments on "the royal cart burials excavated at the Late Harappan site of Sanauli." Parpola (p.175): "In his opinion, several indications suggest that the Sanauli “chariots” are actually carts yoked to bulls." But Parpola further contends (p.176):
 * Now, that's really interesting! Further (p.191):
 * And (p.194):
 * Okay, that's really good. It doesn't change the dating of the Mahabharata War, though, but it's realy interesting.
 * And (p.194):
 * Okay, that's really good. It doesn't change the dating of the Mahabharata War, though, but it's realy interesting.
 * Okay, that's really good. It doesn't change the dating of the Mahabharata War, though, but it's realy interesting.

Note, though, Om Prakash (2015), Cultural History of India, New Age International) (augh, not a very promising publisher-name qua reliability...) p.26: "...of all of the sites associated with this culture [OCP] none is in Sapta-Sindu region. Most of them are in the Ganga-Yamuna Doab." And Parpola does not associate OCP with the Rig Vedic people, on the contrary.

I'll add back the info, and copy-edit it. But the Parpola-article is reaaly good; thanks! Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  09:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi ,

I have re-examined these articles and it seems they are rather "fringe", in that their postulations require denial of the Indo-Aryan migration; initially I thought this didn't have to be the case. My editing might have been on a whim, so I apologize for that. I still believe the information should be included, just under a different light.

Ur-Pabilsag (talk) 20:46, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2021
Some things need to be changed in the Infobox. Matsya over here refers to the Kingdom of Matsya, not the first avatar of Vishnu.

The changes need to be made or else the information being provided will be considered misleading. JaushChatterjee (talk) 08:03, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done  EN  - Jungwon  08:40, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Historical Evidence
I think it would be appropriate to mention that the only evidence of this war is in the Mahabaratha, and maybe some additional information on historical evidence that has shown atleast some of aspects of the event to be true.

I think it may be worth mentioning here about Prof. Rao's findings on Dwaraka City. It may through some light on Mahabharata war date and it seems that the date is close to Prof. Iyngar's prediction that the war could have happened around 15th century BC.

There are hundreds or thousands of archeological Evidences of the Mahabharata the most interesting ones in my opinion are bhisma khund where bhisma died and immortal banyan tree in kurukhestra harayana where Krishna told the knowledge of the Gita to Arjuna and jarashanda akhara where the fight between jarashanda and bhima occurred therefore most of the events in the Mahabharata shouldn't be called a mythology when there are clear evidences of it 950CMR (talk) 14:34, 16 March 2021 (UTC)


 * The proof is in the pudding. WP:CHOPSY will be the judge of your claims. Unless you can WP:CITE WP:RS to that extent, you have nothing to say in our article. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:37, 16 March 2021 (UTC)


 * no body ever said that Mahabharata is completely fictional. No literature on this earth can ever be 100% fiction. Even Star Wars is based on knowledge that humans already obtained from real life experiences. coming back to Dwaraka: First it was 3000BCE Then it became 1500BCE by S. R. Rao. —both dates have been rebutted. Many of underwater artefacts such as boat jetty were ancient ports, no evidence for Mahabharata like big city exists from there. stone anchor has been proven to be from medieval ships used by Arab merchants and while few other stone structures were built by Marathas(Gaikwad rulers). Some people are still stuck in early 2000s when some natural structures under Gulf of Khambat has been misinterpreted as man-made by western sensationalist Television channel. Many of these conspiracy theorist didnt even knew that Dwaraka is not along the Gulf of Khambat. ChandlerMinh (talk) 15:07, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Rename to "Kurukshetra Battle"?
A war is a sequence of battles, and this article only deals with one 18-day battle, not the whole conflict between the Pandavas and the Kauravas. What do yall think? We should change this even if it is a decent amount of work to do so. Prad Nelluru (talk) 14:18, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 October 2021
There is a heading in the midst of the page that refers to "popular tradition and astronomical estimates". My appeal is to simply change that heading to "popular tradition and astroLOGICAL estimates". That is all, really. 223.230.23.37 (talk) 11:43, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: The sources refer to astronomy, not astrology. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:58, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 October 2021 (2)
Thanks for adding the N. N. Oak reference. Just a small correction: in footnote 19 referring to "When Did The Mahabharata War Happen?" book, the "0" should be a ")". :-) Dralthi (talk) 16:36, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ melecie   t  02:29, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 October 2021
In the "Popular tradition and astronomical calculations" section, please change the spelling of Nilesh Nilkanth Oak's middle name from "Nilakanth" to "Nilkanth." Thanks! Dralthi (talk) 17:03, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ &#8209;&#8209; El Hef  ( Meep? ) 19:45, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Nilesh Oak is WP:FRINGE
Nilesh Oak is someone who makes extraordinary claims such as 13000 millennium BCE data for Ramayana through wishful translation of verses. He interprets astrological metaphors as true observations. His ideas are fringe even within the OIT circles. Therefore kindly never add his claims. Will be removed without warning ⚠️ ChandlerMinh (talk) 19:00, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 October 2021
In the "Popular tradition and astronomical calculations" section, ten alternative dates for when the MB War occurred are proposed. I humbly request that an additional bullet point be added to include researcher N. N. Oak's claim that the MB War occurred in the year 5561 BCE. He has written an entire book dedicated to this subject called "When Did The Mahabharata War Happen?" where he cogently argues his claim which may or may not be correct. However, his work is a significant contribution to the discourse and is worthy of being mentioned for the benefit of casual readers, students, and serious researchers.

Here's a proposed addition: N. N. Oak claims that the war happened in 5561 BCE.

Thank you for taking my request into consideration. Dralthi (talk) 05:53, 12 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Done, and thanks. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  06:11, 12 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Joshua Jonathan@undefined. Don’t add Oak here: he is WP:FRINGE. I have seen countless videos of his that claims to date Ramayana to 13000 BCE (13th millennium!?1?). Most of his so called astronomical observations are mere metaphors taken from astrology. For an example he consistently refers to Mars-Mercury conjunction to date bad events within epics. Mars and Mercury are enemies in astrological belief. So whenever a bad event like a battle or fight occurs, the poet often compares it with the conjunction of Mars and Mercury. What oak does is to use these metaphors as actual observations. Another prominent example is Oak using Arundhati and Vasishta. According to Hindu belief not being able to see Arundhati is bad omen. Since Arundhati is pale star, people with bad eyesight can’t differentiate between the two. Which is also used in Ayurveda as a way to measure strength of eyesight. Such poetic language is being taken literally by Oak to push this fringe claims. These claims were dismissed even by the proponents of Out of India Theory (like Koenraad Elst). I really don’t understand why is he still doing it. (Is he related to the other infamous Oak) People get fascinated by his claims because he uses computer graphics to recreate ancient skies. His followers don’t understand that these computer softwares are not really that complex. And make big claims like “advanced modern computer technology” to prove their baseless arguments. Recreating ancient sky isn’t really that hard. People with understanding of astronomy can recreate ancient skies on paper by hand; only difference is that it may take some more time than doing it on a software. People has been doing that since a very long time. Nonetheless all these so called computer simulation has only given inconsistent dates for the epic spanning over multiple millennia. Just look at the dates in this article itself. 5000 BCE date for a supposed war which was fought using spoked wheel chariots? And we dont have any evidence for spoked wheel even in the so called chariots of 1800 BCE Sinauli burials —ChandlerMinh (talk) 09:35, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Help verifying addition of citations
The addition of lot of citations here (and probably more might come) needs verification. Almost all of them are refs to books, and these needs to be checked whether they are WP:RS or fiction. @Marvelcanon1 Could you tell us more about how you found such a large amount of books in a short while (based on your edits.)? Thanks! — DaxServer (talk · contribs) 21:07, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello DaxServer, Firstly, I search for the citation that contains the information I want to cite on, such as typing “Arjuna and Duryodhana visit Krishna in Dwarka”. I would then look for it in google books and preview the available pages that mentions them to see if they match the description that I have searched for. I would scroll to the other pages of the book to see if the other information in that particular book is reliable. If they are, I would cite them on this article. Marvelcanon1 (talk) 04:58, 30 January 2022 (UTC)


 * @Marvelcanon1 Thanks for your contributions. Could you tell me why you have cited a novel and Quora  as references? I would scroll to the other pages of the book to see if the other information in that particular book is reliable. Also, could you tell me how you determine a book being reliable by just scrolling? Is that what you did with the novel and Quora links above? — DaxServer (talk · contribs) 10:42, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I have accidentally selected the novel as I was in a rush ( I understand to identify a reliable book properly) and I didn’t know that Quora was an unreliable platform to cite information as I thought that that information that the user published was formal and reliable Marvelcanon1 (talk) 14:35, 30 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Some great sources so long as they have been used properly and cited properly, eg page numbers. Others, and I haven't checked them all, are not. Most websites are probably useless for this subject, eg which is hardly academic. St Paul's doesn't seem reliably published either.. Vidura By M.N.CHOUDAPPA, Litent, no, I see Litent ePublishing on Amazon, pretty sure this is self-published. Tellyreviews is just that, a website that reviews tv programs. I'm not sure at all about StoryMirror Infotech Pv (revise that, they are a self-publisher, Hemkunt (is this the foundation?), Kuasiki books, and Notion Press is another self-publisher. I haven't looked at them all.  Doug Weller  talk 12:08, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Why is archeological evidence being shown as 1000 years ?
In the recent archeological exploration at Sinauli site, horse pulled chariot was discovered which was dated to be atleast 4000 years old. Chariots were the main reason that dating of Mahabharata was pulled to 1000 BC instead of 3000 BC. So since we have good evidence we should change it to 2000 BC as there is clear evidence of chariot in bronze age.

From what i have understood, Mahabharat should be easily 8000 years old but only time will tell more things about it by different other ways. 49.205.245.22 (talk) 02:33, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * There is no definitive historicity that puts the Mahabaratha datings in those ranges. Cite the archeological paper that you’re talking about. Puranic chronology cannot be used here. -- WikiLinuz { talk } 🍁  17:23, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:22, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Arjuna stands between two armies.jpg