Talk:Arjuna/Archive 1

Archive 1

Disambiguation

I would like to put in a request that Arjuna be placed into a disambiguation and an article on the plant Terminalia Arjuna and its purported medicinal properties to be written.

oppose - the disambig link from the top of the page is sufficient. Imc 15:34, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

oppose - i agree with the above user 24.79.43.137 05:37, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Anime

I changed "Earth Girl Arjuna" to "Earth Maiden Arjuna" to match the rename of the anime article. Argel1200 19:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Mbharat7a.gif

Image:Mbharat7a.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Arjuna and Hanuman

Maybe i am mistaken, but i think the encounter with hanuman took place with Bhima, the second of the five brothers and who was also the strongest of all.Ajjay (talk) 14:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Hinduism reassessment

Due to the recent creation of class C and introduction of 6-clause B-criteria, i am checking this artcle for the B-criteria:

• The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations where necessary.

Inline citations missing.

• The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies.
• The article has a defined structure, including a lead section and all appropriate sections of content.

Lead does not summarize the article.

• The article is reasonably well written.
• The article contains supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams, where appropriate.
• The article presents its content in an appropriately accessible way.

RESULT: C-class Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

ALL HINDU LITERATURE IS SYMBOLIC IN NATURE OF SPIRITUALITY. ONLY A SPIRITUAL MINDED PERSON CAN UNDERSTAND IT FULLY. ARJUN ALSO MEANS WHO DOES NOT WANT TO BE BORN AGAIN. A SPIRITUAL ASPIRANT. HIS SON ABHIMANYU ALSO MEANS WHO IS UNDER THE CONTROL OF MIND. (HUMAN NATURE). ABHIMANYU KNOWS ONLY TO ENTER PADMAVYUHA. IT MEANS THE SOUL UNDER THE CONTROL OF MIND KNOWS ONLY TO ENTER THE BODY. PADMAVYUHA OR CHAKRAVYUHA IS SYMBOLIC OF 8 CHAKRAS IN HUMAN BODY. ARJUN KNOWS BOTH I.E. TO ENTER AND ALSO EXIT THE PADMAVYUHA OR CHAKRAVYUHA. I.E SPIRITUAL MINDED PERSON KNOWS BOTH TO ENTER AND ALSO EXIT THIS LIFE BY CONQUERING 8 CHAKRAS OF SPIRITUALITY IN THE BODY. SIMILARLY ALL ANALOGIES EXIST SYMBOLICALLY WHICH NEED TO BE ANALYSED AT A VERY HIGH SPIRITUAL LEVEL BY KNOWLEDGEABLE SEERS. SOLUTION TO ALL THESE SYMBOLIC CHARACTERS CAN BE UNDERSTOOD THROUGH DEEP THINKING OR MEDITATION ONLY AT AN INDIVIDUAL LEVEL. I SINCERELY HOPE THAT WIKIPEDIA COMES UP WITH ALL SUCH ANSWERS GIVING THE HIDDEN DETAILS TOO SO THAT THE RELIGIONS ARE UNDERSTOOD IN TRUE SENSE BY ONE AND ALL. THANKING YOU AND AMEN! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.153.44.130 (talk) 07:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Gandeeva

Along with Gandeeva he was also given 2 quivers in which the arrows would never become empty. They were given to him by Varuna. Also I feel that the burning of the chariot of Arjuna needs to be mentioned in this article. This happens after the war is over. Krishna and Arjuna come in their chariot to the Pandavas tent. Krishna asks Arjuna to step down from the chariot along with his Gandeeva and all the other weapons mounted on it. Arjuna does so. Then, Krishna abandons the reins of the chariot and steps down. At that moment, Hanuman who was present in the banner of Arjuna jumps into the sky and in front of the Pandavas the chariot burns into ashes. The Pandavas were very surprised and Arjuna broke down and felt sad that his chariot burned and asked Krishna for its reason. Krishna says that everything in this world has a purpose and once its purpose is served, the thing becomes useless. Also he said that the chariot had withstood many powerful astras like the Brahmastra and it should have been burnt a long time ago but since he (Krishna) was in the chariot it would not burn. Now since he had abandoned the chariot, the chariot burnt to ashes.

Please include this also.

R. Sudarsan 15:29, 19 November 2010 (UTC)R. Sudarsan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sudarsananush89 (talk • contribs)

Meaning of the name

I thought Arjuna meant bright, shining, silver? 'Doer of pure deeds' sounds rather made up. Imc 15:34, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

when did pandu meet krishna? It just sounds ridiculous. Somebody please correct this error

Methinks, it means "complicated"... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.253.130.195 (talk) 16:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Arjuna Kills Jaydhratha.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Arjuna Kills Jaydhratha.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Arjuna Kills Jaydhratha.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:55, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Bazaarart1940s.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Bazaarart1940s.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Bazaarart1940s.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 06:31, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Undefeated?

This article itself has two references to Arjuna being defeated by Shiva and Babruvahana. Why should the introductory piece on Arjuna proclaim him as "the only undefeated hero in Mahabharata"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.83.34.60 (talk) 18:42, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Parth my best friend

Parth is my best friend but he is mad I dont know why this is happening He talks about sexy girls — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.54.50.138 (talk) 10:00, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Context, meaning, and influence

This article covers the events of his life very thoroughly, but I think maybe there could be more about his significance, given that currently the article seems to be mostly a description of events. –—anamedperson (talk) 02:15, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Changing tense

This would be a massive undertaking, but the tense of this article needs to be change to historical present tense. Some parts of the article are referring to the story as history, when it is in fact fiction. Pinkfloyd11 (talk) 21:25, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

PLEASE MOVE ARJUNA ARTICLE TO PROTECTED OR SEMIPROTECTED

PLEASE MOVE ARJUNA ARTICLE TO PROTECTED OR SEMI-PROTECTED STATUS, THIS ARTICLE IS FLOODED BY UNVERIFIED INFORMATION'S,MOSTLY SOMEONES PERSONAL OPINIONS.PEOPLE ARE CONTINUOUSLY VANDALIZING THIS PAGE AND MAKING ABSURD ADDITIONS TO PAGE.PLEASE DON'T LET TO LOOSE THE AUTHENTICITY OF THIS ARTICLESArjunkrishna90 (talk) 03:55, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Clean up

I'm cleaning up the lead sections, up to the 'tutelage under Drona'.

• Names should be given in standard Sanskrit format; e.g. Arjuna, Dhananjaya, not Arjun, Dhananjay.
• This entire section - He was the only Atimaharathi warrior in Pandava army. According to Lord Krishna, except Karna and Bhishma, no warrior in the three worlds can defeat Arjuna in battle. He played a key role in ensuring the defeat of the Kauravas in the Kurukshetra War, Arjuna was an avatar of Nara, who along with the avatar of Narayana, Krishna, established Dharma in the Dvapara Yuga. is of dubious relevance in the lead; it could be put in somewhere else in the article, but should be in suitable context.
• No obscure terms (atimaharathi? devakin?) should be used in the article unless there is a good reason and then they need to be explained.
• The claim that Arjuna was an incarnation of Nara? - why is is included in the lead when his parentage is not there.
• There is no need to restate other stories (e.g. that of Pandu) which are given in their own articles. A brief context is all that is necessary here.

I've reduced the content in the lead again, some of that removed as described above was readded. It now contains a core of the most important information, as the lead is meant to. Imc (talk) 06:59, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Content dispute April - May 2014

Could the editors engaged in the ongoing content dispute (the most recent have been notified on their talk pages) please raise the issues here instead of editwarring. Thanks. Imc (talk) 17:16, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello Everyone

As you may noticed, i already raised the issue of certain authors vandalizing Arjuna page and mentioned it in the talk page on 03:55, 4 April 2014 (UTC) under the title PLEASE MOVE ARJUNA ARTICLE TO PROTECTED OR SEMIPROTECTED

Any way the real issue is particularly with an author named " Thamaragirl"

He/She is continuously deleting data in the Arjuna article claiming that all data provided with references by other authors are comics/folk-fare. She persistently argue that she read a version of Mahabharata book - "the Pune school's compilation of the Sanskrit Mahabharata" and only that version is correct and all other data contributed by other authors all these yeas with references are comics/folk-fare.

How can anyone with common sense agree with that?? May be He/she is saying the truth or may be all other authors contributed on Arjuna article are telling lies??? I simply don't know.My simple common sense is saying that even if He/she is telling the truth,or if He/she read a particular version of Mahabharata which may be detailed or less detailed than other versions of Mahabharata book, she should provide proof or reference that can be verifiable by other authors? I believe that's not rocket science isn't it??.

The other point i particularly like to point out that " there are many versions of Mahabharata, its like many schools of Buddhism. it tells the same story in different way by different authors.How can ANYONE ARGUE that only their version is correct??"

The most popular reference in this page is provided by sacred-texts website by which a version written of mahabaratha by A K Ganguly. You may be aware of it, but Ganguli's translation itself is only of one version of the Mahabhartha. That too, not even the stone tablets discovered (originated in 900 BC) or the ones originated in 300 BC. There are multiple, multiple versions ranging from 2000 to 4000 years old, and Ganguli translated one of them. He called it "Vyasa's Mahabhartha" but it isn't like Vyasa actually wrote it.

THAMARAGIRL WRITTEN THESE AND I QUOTE

"ArjunKrishna90 is citing information from folklore/comics and not the original Sanskrit text of the Mahabharata. This editor appears to be inserting texts that are not found in the most comprehensive Sanskrit version of the Mahabharata

This wiki page should provide information from reputable sources (the Pune school's compilation of the Sanskrit Mahabharata) not folklore which is what you are doing"

I simply cant understand the logic of Thamaragirl deleting the most important parts of the article with multiple references , "like karna firing Nagastra or Kunti asking Karna not to kill Arjuna or Krishna saving Arjuna or blasting of the chariot of Arjuna etc"

All these above mentioned points can be easily verifiable by anyone by using any version of mahabarath by different authors.Even if you google it ,anyone can provide a million references.The thing is Thamaragirl simply deletes all these points arguing that He/she didnt found that it in the version He/she read.My only advice is somebody please tell Thamaragirl to read more and get more GK before axing works contributed by other authors all these years.Destroying something is quite easy but the labor for building something is quite high!!!!

Arjunkrishna90 (talk) 01:15, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Would it be correct to state then that the disagreement is whether or not this article should be restricted to accounts of Arjuna as stated in the Mahabharata, and if so, to what version of the Mahabharata? Imc (talk) 18:59, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Honestly speaking there are countless versions of Mahabaratha. Most editors uses data from most popular versions of Mahabharata like Ak Gangulys version available in sacred texts website,Chopras & Guptas version bcoz majority of people read or learn from these versions.These versions are widely accepted all over India and world.As per Thamaragirls claim "i.e Punes version of Sanskrit compilation" its also one of the version.i am not saying its wrong. But its less popular and 99% editors or people dont have any idea about it.Also its not easily available for references.

""""As per the opinion of Thamaragirl , if we edit the page as per His/Hers opinion then a great problem emerges.We have to delete almost all data from Arjuna page and all characters regarding Mahabaratha and related articles which is a extremely difficult and non feasible work.Then again another problem, then editors of all other pages start fighting over this kind of edits. Bcoz majority dont follow Thamaragirls opinion or i.e Punes version of Sanskrit compilation""""".

I believe if we can maintain a " moderate stand" keep the page" as it is now", bcoz most editors are satisfied with it except few.As we know we cannot satisfy everyone, but we can try to satisfy the majority.My humble opinion is even if as per Thamargirls version is true i.e i.e Punes version of Sanskrit compilation", only a few people ever read it or supports that version.May be its the authentic version as per claim but majority or most editors are not aware of it.

I believe all these problems now happening now,bcoz in India a popular TV channel is airing a version of Mahabarath, which is widely criticized for massively diluting the story from original.So people who are not aware of the original story line as available in popular books or versions," MAKE A CONTRIBUTION TO WIKIPEDIA AFTER WATCHING FALSE STORIES IN TV SERIAL". If you notice the wikipedia, one can see massive edits are coming in almost all characters of hindu epic Mahabaratha in recent few months. The reason is the on i told above. One can see terrible edit or edit wars are going on certain pages like Karna ,Arjuna etc...

Several times many editors pointed out these factors.In popular social media like Facebook severe edit wars or whatever you call it is going on over this version of serial. Its between people who read the original acceptable versions of Mahabaratha and the new gen people who watch stupid TV serials and fight over it.

There is only one solution for it. Bcoz this will continue for long, i.e as long as the channel is airing the serial. Hope is there,bcoz TV serial ends on August. MY OPINION MAKE THIS ARTICLE PROTECTED OR SEMI PROTECTED FOR FEW MONTHS SO THAT WE CAN AVOID FEW VANDALISM'S.( BETTER FULLY PROTECTED )

Page like Karna is already made semi-protected, then also people are making stupid edits.!!!!!!

Arjunkrishna90 (talk) 01:27, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello Imc and to the other editors on this page:

Thanks for your advice/input on this discussion. I’m sorry I couldn’t respond earlier as my work schedule didn’t allow me the time to sit down and write a proper response. I see above the editor Arjunkrishna90’s comments. Once again, he/she is rambling in a very unintelligible manner. This individual appears to be clumping his/her views with every other author’s/editor’s views in stating that “May be He/she is saying the truth or may be all other authors contributed on Arjuna article are telling lies???” Does this individual know the view point of every other author on this discussion page?

Let me preface my response to Arjunkrishna90’s comments by stating that I can’t really understand this individual’s writing. It isn’t coherent and seems more like rambling/random thoughts. Please excuse me, I don’t mean to be insulting and I understand everyone has different writing styles and command of the English language but it’s hard to have a purposeful discussion in this case. I’ll try my best to respond to this individual’s comments:

1. ArjunKrishna90 stated: “He/She is continuously deleting data in the Arjuna article claiming that all data provided with references by other authors are comics/folk-fare. She persistently argue that she read a version of Mahabharata book - "the Pune school's compilation of the Sanskrit Mahabharata" and only that version is correct and all other data contributed by other authors all these yeas with references are comics/folk-fare.” My response: Firstly, I didn’t continuously delete all data provided with references by other authors. I edited, what in my opinion, was erroneous information – some un-sourced and others using sources such as regional folklore/interpretations of this great epic, or recent fictionalized versions, or TV shows. And I strongly suspect that these additions were made by Arjunkrishna90. For example, I deleted a section that stated during the deciding battle Arjuna was saved from certain death by Karna because the sun set and Karna chose not to fire his arrows. This is a complete made up scene from the BR Chopra’s TV show on the great epic and is not to be found in the Sanskrit version of the epic. When I tried to clarify this point with Arjunkrishna90, this individual instead of discussing the matter, began accusing me of stupidity and vandalism. I referenced the Pune school’s compilation of the epic because there is a consensus among scholars, academics and theologians of the epic that this compilation of the SANSKRIT Mahabharata is the most comprehensive and truest to the original version (if there is one to found). This is an immense an ongoing undertaking. There are several translations of this version and I recommended that Arjunkrishna90 read it.

2. ArjunKrishna90 stated: “The other point i particularly like to point out that there are many versions of Mahabharata, its like many schools of Buddhism. it tells the same story in different way by different authors.How can ANYONE ARGUE that only their version is correct??" The most popular reference in this page is provided by sacred-texts website by which a version written of mahabaratha by A K Ganguly. You may be aware of it, but Ganguli's translation itself is only of one version of the Mahabhartha. That too, not even the stone tablets discovered (originated in 900 BC) or the ones originated in 300 BC. There are multiple, multiple versions ranging from 2000 to 4000 years old, and Ganguli translated one of them. He called it "Vyasa's Mahabhartha" but it isn't like Vyasa actually wrote it.” My response: I am well aware of the many version of the Mahabharata. I studied the great epic in University and I know that over the centuries, different regional translations and interpretations of the epic has been written or become part of folklore and that is why I recommended that the authors in Wikipedia stick to the Sanskrit version or translations of this version in discussing this topic. I have also read Ganguly’s translation and have no problem whatsoever with the author quoting from this text and DID NOT edit it because the information was from this source. Arjunkrishna90’s SELECTIVE ADDITIONS from the Ganguly version is what I had an issue with and I discussed this matter with this individual. He/she was adamant on stating that Krishna tells Arjuna that Karna is his superior. But the exact statement of Krishna from the Ganguly version is thus:

”'Vasudeva said, "O wielder of Gandiva, save thee there exists no other man that could vanquish those whom thou hast vanquished with this bow of thine. We have seen many heroes, who, endued with prowess like that Sakra, have attained to the highest regions, encountering thy heroic self in battle! Who else, O puissant one, that is not equal to thee, would be safe and sound after encountering Drona and Bhishma and Bhagadatta, O sire, and Vinda and Anuvinda of Avanti and Sudakshina, the chief of the Kambojas and Srutayudha of mighty energy and Acyutayudha as well? Thou hast celestial weapons, and lightness of hand and might, and thou art never stupefied in battle! Thou hast also that humility which is due to knowledge! Thou canst strike with effect! Thou hast sureness of aim, and presence of mind as regards the selection of means, O Arjuna! Thou art competent to destroy all mobile and immobile creatures including the very gods with the Gandharvas! On earth, O Partha, there is no human warrior who is equal to thee in battle. Amongst all Kshatriyas, invincible in battle, that wield the bow, amongst the very gods, I have not seen or heard of even one that is equal to thee. The Creator of all beings, viz., Brahma himself created the great bow Gandiva with which thou fightest, O Partha! For this reason there is no one that is equal to thee. I must, however, O son of Pandu, say that which is beneficial to thee. Do not. O mighty-armed one, disregard Karna, that ornament of battle! Karna is possessed of might. He is proud and accomplished in weapons. He is a maharatha. He is accomplished (in the ways of battle) and conversant with all modes of warfare. He is also well-acquainted with all that suits place and time. What need is there of saying much? Hear in brief, O son of Pandu! I regard the mighty car-warrior Karna as thy equal, or perhaps, thy superior! With the greatest care and resolution shouldst thou slay him in great battle.”

This is Ganguly’s interpretation of the text. Now Arjunkrishna90 is using this one statement from the entire epic to make his/her point and state on the Wikipedia page that Karna is a superior warrior than Arjuna and could defeat Arjuna. Krishna DOES NOT state that Karna is superior but instead states clearly PERHAPS THY SUPERIOR which is vastly different from SUPERIOR. AND NO WHERE IN THE EPIC DOES HE STATE THAT KARNA IS ABLE TO DEFEAT ARJUNA which is what Arjunkrishna90 added to the Wikipedia page which is a complete misinterpretation/fabrication of the text. Additionally, Arjuna is called the best of warriors and undefeatable in battle on several occasions not only by Krishna but by Bhishma, Drona, and the Lord Brahma himself states:

“In consequence of his greatness, Partha [Arjuna] transgresses destiny itself, whether favourable or unfavourable, and when he does so, a great destruction of creatures takes place. When the two Krishnas [Krishna and Arjuna] are excited with wrath, they show regard for nothing. These two bulls among beings are the Creators of all real and unreal things. These two are Nara and Narayana, the two ancient and best of Rishis. There is none to rule over them. They are rulers over all, perfectly fearless, they are scorchers of all foes. In heaven or among human beings, there is none equal to either of them. The three worlds with the celestial Rishis and the Charanas are behind these two. All the gods and all creatures walk behind them. The entire universe exists in consequence of the power of these two.”

I can give several instances by several individuals in the Mahabharata where Arjuna is named the greatest warrior of the time. By the same token, others like Bhishma, Drona, etc are also given that honorific. We must remember that this was written as poetry in that age and glorifying the past and present heroes was part of the motive. So to conclude, to take one instance and misinterpret it to serve your purpose, legitimate or not, goes completely against literary integrity.

3. “I believe all these problems now happening now,bcoz in India a popular TV channel is airing a version of Mahabarath, which is widely criticized for massively diluting the story from original.So people who are not aware of the original story line as available in popular books or versions," MAKE A CONTRIBUTION TO WIKIPEDIA AFTER WATCHING FALSE STORIES IN TV SERIAL". If you notice the wikipedia, one can see massive edits are coming in almost all characters of hindu epic Mahabaratha in recent few months. The reason is the on i told above. One can see terrible edit or edit wars are going on certain pages like Karna ,Arjuna etc... Several times many editors pointed out these factors. In popular social media like Facebook severe edit wars or whatever you call it is going on over this version of serial. Its between people who read the original acceptable versions of Mahabaratha and the new gen people who watch stupid TV serials and fight over it.” My response: To this point, I’d like to say that I have seen the recent TV version of the Mahabharata and I am NOT influenced by it. Arjunkrishna90 has an issue with people being influenced by this show when this individual himself/herself was citing information from the pervious TV version of the epic. Arjunkrishna90, judging by his/her remarks, appears to take the issue of KARNA’S OR ARJUNA’s SUPERIORITY PERSONALLY AND SEEMS TO VISIT SOCIAL MEDIA AND OTHER SUCH VENUES TO MAKE HIS/HER VIEW CENTRAL AND CARES LITTLE FOR DEBATE AND THE INTEGRITY OF THIS PAGE.

4. “I believe if we can maintain a " moderate stand" keep the page" as it is now", bcoz most editors are satisfied with it except few. As we know we cannot satisfy everyone, but we can try to satisfy the majority.” My response: In asking to keep the page as is, you can clearly see Arjunkrishna90 has no intent in providing facts but his/her views and interpretation. And might I ask how Arjunkrishna90 knows what the other editors/authors of this page feel. This individual seems to very arrogantly believe, without any proof, that the contributors on this page subscribe to her/his views.

I wrote a longer post than I intended. As a person who often visits Wikipedia’s website to glean information on topics, I strongly believe and subscribe to the integrity of the information provided on this website. I understand and appreciate that people’s views are biased (myself included) but that must not prevent us from being able to state facts objectively. This page is dedicated to Arjuna, a mythical hero and will be widely open to interpretations. There are countless interpretations and versions of the Mahabharata but I myself prefer to go by the Sanskrit version or its translations. This page I assume is meant to describe the hero Arjuna and not to vilify him or make him seem less superior to Karna. And in my opinion, Arjunkrishna90 is attempting to do just that. He/she appears motivated by a misplaced need to show Karna as the superior warrior and is using misinterpretations and unrecognized sources to get his/her view across. I myself have stopped editing the page because I do not have the time or energy to be arguing/discussing (whatever you wish to call it) with people like Arjunkrishna90 whose motives are not to maintain the integrity of the information posted on this website but to spread some distorted views they hold.

Thamaragirl (talk) 21:13, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you both Arjunkrishna90 and Thamaragirl for your comments. In line with Wikipedia policy this article should be based on established authoritative versions. Certainly the Critical edition fits this role; I’m sure that the Ganguli version would be considered authoritative, but have to agree that it is a widely used reference and hence hugely important in its own right. But if something it says does not agree with the critical edition or other scholarly works, then at the least this discrepancy should be mentioned. I suggest also that for any contentious topic, it should be accepted that it is included in all the mainstream versions (with multiple references) before it is added here.

Also, this article is an encyclopaedia entry for Arjuna, and hence should present a concise and useful summary of the principal literature of the character. In respect of some the detail of the disputes, such as whether or not Krishna said that Karna was the greater warrior, this seems to me to be a lesser detail that need not be included in a concise summary, and especially not if what was said is in dispute.

Imc (talk) 07:49, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Imc. And yes, I fully agree with you that The Critical Edition of the Mahabharata (Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, a/k/a the Pune School) is what should be sourced on this page. But I also understand and appreciate that there aren't very many proper English translations of this text, perhaps the University of Chicago's (J.A.B. van Buitenen) translation being the most widely known. People source the Ganguly version I suppose because it is easily accessible on the internet. That being said, the Critical Edition is the most authoritative source, in my opinion, on the Mahabharata. And I completely agree with you as to this page being a concise summary/source on Arjuna and that is why I took issue with the editor, Arjunkrishna90 when this individual attempted to add his/her views on the whole juvenile argument of Arjuna/Karna superiority. As I mentioned earlier I tried reasoning and discussing these issues with Arjunkrishna90 is a civil manner but was unsuccessful. I hope this page's information will be maintained by all concerned in the manner that you described above.

Thamaragirl (talk) 23:41, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I both agree and disagree with Thamaragirl. ArjunaKrishna's type of edits should not be allowed...not because they are inaccurate, but because quite often, the English is terrible and the information is directly plagiarized. That leaves it for another editor to fix the junk English and rewrite the copy-pasted information so that it is not plagiarized. However, I don't know how you can venerate the Pune edition of the Mahabhartha above the others. Indeed, it is a great edition, but there are so many different versions in the heads of millions of people....and that is what matters. There really is no one authoritative source or definition. Hell, in the earliest versions of the Mahabhartha, there is no mention of the war; in other versions there are no mentions of anything except the war. Bhima is a famous sword fighter, not a mace fighter. Shikhandi is a woman; the Pancal/Hastinapur dynamic plays far more a role, etc. Some versions are filled with graphic depictions of violence, others gloss over all of it. Ganguly didn't even translate one of the tablets from 300 BC...he translated a version written in the 1700s by a Hindu sage...a version filled with inconsistencies and fallacies, because the sage added his own ideas and interpretations to the story, citing divine inspiration. I really think that for Wikipedia to be truly fair, there is going to be a lot of "in one version of the story" and "in another version of the story" with a reference. Pinkfloyd11 (talk) 01:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Virat War Part Being Classed by Some Scholars as Being an Unauthentic Part of Mahabharata

There was a small section disputing the authenticity of the Virat War as being a part of the text. The cite note did not mention the Virat War anywhere on the page, let alone substantiate the claim. The Virat War was an integral part of the original text.

Therefore, I have removed the last part from the "Eunuch at Virata's Kingdom" section on the page, and replaced the cite note with a link of the same text from a different website to explain Arjuna's role in the conflict.

My previous edit was removed by someone. My intention was only to remove false content. Please discuss the issue here if I am in breach of any rules — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.2.142.52 (talk) 05:40, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Sanskrit pronunciation

I've removed this text from the article lead: "(pronounced [ərˈd͡ʑun] in classical Sanskrit)". Does anyone have reason to believe the final vowel was not pronounced? Uanfala (talk) 17:30, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

It appears that the user User talk:144.36.207.230 is making continuous disruptive editing and involved in vandalism and POV pushing over the days. A level 3 vandalism warning is been issued to him . Arjunkrishna90 (talk) 04:01, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Reason for revert

N sahi you just reverted my edits on this page. Will you please cite the content or reinstate my edit. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 04:54, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

@Capankajsmilyo Why cant you simply provide a tag and wait sometime for someone to provide the references ? You are simple axing a lot of data contributed by editors over the time ! At least have the decency to respect the contribution of other's dude !! If you go on this style i believe Wikipedia will be going back in time to its infancy !!. I am reverting your edits. Have patience and wait out for some time after putting the citation needed tag.Arjunkrishna90 (talk) 03:07, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Persistent Vandalism

As already discussed in this TALK page above, the user User talk:144.36.207.230 is still vandalizing the article. Even after repeated warnings by editors, Admin and Bots the User talk:144.36.207.230 does not seems to heed. Due to his continuous vandalizing the article was semi protected for some time. Now the protection is removed and he is back again. It should be better to block user User talk:144.36.207.230 permanently from editing and keep this article semi protected always.Arjunkrishna90 (talk) 02:46, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Twelve names? Sixteen?

§ Etymology and other names says

The Mahabharata refers to Arjuna by twelve different names.

But the list after that paragraph has 16 names. Are some of them considered variants of others? If so, they should be sub-bulleted (**). If some of them are from other sources than the Mahabharata, the list should be subdivided. --Thnidu (talk) 18:06, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Reaching Dwarka and Subhadra

"wedding rein" doesn't seem to be correct. ". . . but was pacified by Krishna, after he showed that the wedding rein was in Subhadra's hand," Maybe somebody knowledgeable about Hindu wedding ceremonies could replace 'rein' with a more appropriate word. Cunningpal (talk) 22:15, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Merge

I propose to merge Brihannala into this article, since both are about the same character. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 17:14, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

About KINGPORUS's edits of the article.

Recently I have found out severe changes in Arjuna and Karna article made by a user named KINGPORUS. The references made from sacred-text.com does not match with the articles. In fact in some cases they have totally altered meaning and show a biased view positively on Karna and negatively on Arjuna. Also the pages are poorly edited; in some places there is not even a full stop. I earnestly request you to have a look on these two pages — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.230.105.6 (talk) 18:40, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

New edits insulting Karna.

In the recent edit, many facts have been missing and points showing the greatness of Arjuna are added. Moreover Karna is shown as too much inferior. Even harsh words are used to insult Karna. Kachar Membreen (talk) 11:46, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Don't edit without having knowledge

Dear users, Plz don't edit as your wish. This article is created with the help of many sources. Plz express your feelings and points in the talk page so that we will come to know. Also please cite the sources to make your points strong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MKS Harsha (talk • contribs) 02:36, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Protection

Can anyone one plz protect. Anonymous users are trying to spoil it. Or can some guide me to protect the article Arjuna. Dear Nangu Karna, can u help me in this problem plz. Sri Harsha 02:29, 21 July 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MKS Harsha (talk • contribs)

The English of this article needs some attention

There is a problem with the tenses of this article: in the telling of the tales we go from past to present to future with little rhyme or reason. Similarly, there is a problem with the lack of necessary articles such as "a" and "the". And in some sections it is hard to discern the meaning of a clause. For example, in the section discussing a marriage we are told of a 'mutual benefit'. But who is the other person who benefits? I hope one of the original authors with knowledge of the subject might have another go at this. MargaretRDonald (talk) 04:48, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 August 2018

• Vijaya (विजय) - always wins on every war.

This sounds wrong grammatically. Please change it to "always victorious" or "undefeated". 65.244.71.18 (talk) 21:24, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 09:33, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 August 2018

Arjuna is not known by any historical source to be a villain. This article is misrepresenting both his archery skill (which cannot be quantified and ranked as it is - it would be more proper to say that he is among the best archers, a group that includes the names that are mentioned by the list) and his story. By any definition, Arjuna should be known as one of the heroes or perhaps even the main protagonist of the Mahabharata. Phoenixfire727 (talk) 08:06, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: If the article contains a clear factual error, please provide reliable sources to support your request. If that is not the case, your edit request requires consensus to be implemented. Please discuss on the talk page and seek consensus prior to using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 13:29, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Separate out stories written by relatively modern day authors from classic texts.

The Krishna-Arjuna war section is actually from a relatively modern play called the Gayopakhyanam, written in 1890. However, it seems to be presented alongside other stories from classic texts like the Mahabharata. To a layman, or indeed to most readers, they would appear to be part of one and the same mythos when in fact they are from a different day and age altogether. Perhaps a different section for modern stories about the legend of Arjuna or Krishna would be appropriate place for such content. Arjun (talk) 05:07, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Sub topic Modern telivision

The subtopic doesn't have any sources. It's better to delete the content in that Karna DV (talk) 08:36, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

It can be done if permission is given. So I want everyone's opinion about this (whosoever is contributing to this article) Karna DV (talk) 08:37, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

@Wikipedia admins, please add sources or delete content Karna DV (talk) 08:45, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Etymology and epithets

There are 2 epithets. Gandivadhari and Gandivadhanvan. One is required not two. Both of them imply same. Preferably Gandivadhari is enough. So I request admins to look into it and delete Gandivadhanvan. Sri Harsha 191817 (talk) 03:45, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Sourcing

The sources in this article are atrocious. Almost the entire text is sourced to either sacred-texts.com or valmikiramayan.org, neither of which are remotely reliable. Could someone please clean this up? I tried to look through the history to find a reasonable version but it is way too complicated. --regentspark (comment) 14:46, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Arjuna's name

I request that 'Krishna' also be added as one of arjuna's names. Because arjuna was also dark and called krishna. (Krishna meaning dark) Sandtrailer (talk) 11:39, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

No. Arjuna was also known as Krishna but not for the reason he was black. First of all Arjuna was not dark skinned. He was white skinned, fare in complexion. Infact Draupadi was dark skinned. Hence she was Krishna. Arjun was called Krishna because he was attractive. Many young women were attracted. Even Urvashi got attracted. Lord Shiva called Arjuna as Krishna because Arjuna was equal to Krishna as warrior. Both of them were equal in valor. Arjuna and Krishna were Nara and Narayana in their previous births. Hence Shiva called Arjuna as Krishna as their souls are one even if their bodies are different. Arjuna is Krishna and Krishna is Arjuna.

Merge Brihannala

Brihannala should be merged to this article since there's not enough sourced content and its about a brief disguise he took during a short period. Capankajsmilyo (talk) 06:09, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

But Urvashi curse is not mentioned in article Arjuna. Even if article is merged, content should be available for readers in this article. Fire star on heat (talk) 05:55, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

It should be merged with Arjuna and Urvashi's curse should also add in Arjuna's article. Ratan375 (talk) 03:54, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I added curse of Urvashi which was missing from this article. Ratan375 (talk) 05:05, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Cut back

Please read WP:V, WP:RS and WP:PRIMARY. Yes, as a work of fiction there would be scope for a plot summary based on a primary source but (a) we had chapter and verse (sic) here, not a summary; and (b) I am constantly being told that it isn't fiction.

There are modern academic books which discuss/portray Hindu deities. Please use them. - Sitush (talk) 16:12, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

But why you removed all sections? Why not just removed citations? Entire article was a well settled article. Now it's looks terrible. Please Rollback your edits. I have no time to check your all edits and edit them again. You better rollback it and remove unnecessary informations. Most of those really sections were important. Please add them again or rollback your edits. Ratan375 (talk) 21:15, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree that what remains is mostly not the important stuff but my removal criterion was whether or not the information appeared to be reliably sourced. I am happy to remove also the info that is indeed reliably sourced but nonetheless fairly trivial. - Sitush (talk) 02:14, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Misrepresentation

Hi Sitush, the latest additions by you like "Arjuna unintentionally broke the pact with his brothers and so was forced into exile" suggests the event as historical. These are all mythical stories. Please edit accordingly. Capankajsmilyo (talk) 11:22, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Mmm. Not sure. Words like "myth", "story" and "epic" are scattered around already and I'm not comfortable with ramming it home in every sentence or even every section. Will have a think & see what others might say. - Sitush (talk) 12:04, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Mayasura

Does anyone know of any decent academic sources for the Mayasura incident currently in the article? I am really struggling to find anything as Mayasura is usually referred to as a minor figure in the great scheme of things. The source currently cited is poor and contradicts every academic source I have looked at so far regarding the timing of the name being changed to Indraprastha.

I am tempted to leave it out. If big reference works like those published by Oxford don't even have an entry for the character, it's probably not that big a deal. - Sitush (talk) 21:24, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I have just removed it. The incident isn't even mentioned in our own related articles. - Sitush (talk) 21:44, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

No mention of 13 years exile and kurukshetra war

This page needs a separate section for Pandava's 13 year's exile & Arjuna's role in the war. Ratan375 (talk) 09:02, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Rome was not built in a day. I am aware of the big stuff that is missing - please give me a chance. - Sitush (talk) 09:05, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Update: I an aware that the exile bit needs filling out & that I've glossed over some bits, maybe including a summary of why the Pandavas & Kauravas are at loggerheads (Pandu's accession due to half-blindness of his older brother, the father of the Kauravas etc). Will get there. - Sitush (talk) 13:56, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2020

विश्वविजयी कौन्तेय अर्जुन (talk) 17:15, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

 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. Edit requests are intended to ask for a specific change to be made, not to request access to the article itself. Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:17, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Exile of pandava

I had edited this one with reference from KMG mahabharat that Arjuna defeated chitrasen,Nivatkawach demons etc, still removed by someone . Unique Banka (talk) 07:05, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

For the reasons discussed above and mentioned on your talk page some hours ago. Please see WP:PRIMARY. - Sitush (talk) 07:10, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Needs rollback, Recent removes ruined whole article

I don't know know why most of important contents are removed. All those contents had reliable sources. There's nothing can be more reliable than KM Ganguly's dub version of Mahabharata (https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m01/). This page needs a rollback. Recent editS by user Sitush removed important contents like Exile, his 4 marriages, Arjuna's role in the kurukshtra war, and his role in Ashwamedh yajna. Ratan375 (talk) 17:18, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I can reduce it to the lead paragraph if you prefer. Please read what I said here a few hours ago. - Sitush (talk) 17:51, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

You should add those sections again along with template. Most of those removed edits are important. Ratan375 (talk) 18:10, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I will try to add citations from modern academic books. But I believe since he is a character of Mahabharata. There's nothing can be better source than the epic itself. Ratan375 (talk) 18:11, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Please read my message above again. The epic is a primary source and in addition we quite simply do not need an article of that length. If someone wants to read the story in that sort of detail they can buy the book or read it on the web. And if you want to write a lengthy but still cut-down version then there is nothing to stop you doing so elsewhere than Wikipedia. - Sitush (talk) 18:24, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Please read pages 61-62 here. That gives you a rough idea of how it can be done. - Sitush (talk) 18:37, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I can't add all those sections. I wonder why you removed all important contents in first place. Why you cut all the important sections when you can make it short. Now this article looks terrible. You removed all important contents but keeping likes of Tutelage under Drona. Which can be merge with birth & youth. This article needs rollback. Ratan375 (talk) 18:49, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

The sections can be seen in the history tab for the article. Just do not add them back in anything like the state they were in when I removed them. Overall, they can easily be reduced in length by at least 50% They should also not appear in the article without a source that complies with our policies and guidelines, which rules out pretty much every website you could think of. The only web links they should need are ones that point to modern academic books and journals which are available on the web. - Sitush (talk) 18:58, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Modern books will tell you different stories. That's why KMG Mahabharata was better source. This was well settled article but you ruined it. I once again requesting you to rollback your edits. So I can reduce them. You ruined it and you have to recover it.Ratan375 (talk) 21:02, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Ratan375, you cannot use the Mahabharata as a source. Please only use reliable secondary texts, preferably scholarly ones. For any ancient texts, written as they are in dead languages, translations and interpretations vary and therefore we cannot pick and choose one version as the "right" one. --regentspark (comment) 23:19, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Looks like the article is completely destroyed. Lot of content is removed in bulk. The article has to be repaired again. Wikipedia should be a good search engine for readers. Presently this article is having very little info. Even though there were many sources, content is removed. What is to be done now? I will try to contribute for it. Fire star on heat (talk) 04:54, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Hopefully you can now see how to construct a well-cited article without using primary sources or falling into the.trap of trying to include every little detail. - Sitush (talk) 07:33, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

@Sitush: You've horribly truncated the article. Arjuna is the central character of Mahabharata, an epic poem regarded as the largest in the world and it would need many long Wikipedia articles if one was to provide every little detail regarding his life. The previous version of the article highlighted only the outline of important events in Arjuna's life as mentioned in the original epic. Nothing that was mentioned was trivial or in too much detail as you allege. Surely, one can buy a book or read online the available versions to know in full detail every happening of Mahabharata. But that doesn't mean that Wikipedia articles of it's major characters have to gloss over most of the important events of their lives. Arjuna, the illustrious central character of a well-known and influential epic of a mighty scale as Mahabharata deserves a Wikipedia article that concisely describes the important incidents in his life (including his exiles and wanderings and conquest for Rajasuya and Ashwamedha) and his role in the most crucial event of the epic, viz. the Kurukshetra war. The previous version of the article to a large degree satisfied the above requirements and it was not that much long or excessively detailed. Not to say some other characters of Mahabharata of lesser importance like Karna have far longer and more detailed Wikipedia articles than Arjuna.

There are enough modern academic books available that can be cited as secondary references for most of the content you've removed. Had you taken the pain of finding andadding them in place of primary references and making the article a little more concise instead of blatantly removing most of the content, it would have been much better. As far as the primary source is concerned, Wikipedia doesn't explicitly bar editors from adding primary sources. Primary sources can be used with regulation if they are reliably published. And KMG translation of Mahabharata is highly acclaimed and widely used as it is regarded to be the closest to the original text of the epic and also being among the first authentic English translations of the epic. Along with BORI CE and it's English translation by Bibek Debroy, KMG translation is held as the most reliable and authentic account of original epic poem of Mahabharata and gain precedence over all other versions. Vibhss (talk) 00:06, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

So add those modern academic books. I am working on it. The article was crap - it was not merely that primary sources were used but also that the entire tone was wrong. This is well recognised, as is the long-term edit warring. I'm not stopping you from adding decent prose and sources. - Sitush (talk) 04:58, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

This is what it looked like. It was gibberish. - Sitush (talk) 06:45, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 July 2020

Shrutakarma and pragathi (from draupadi) 49.207.133.121 (talk) 06:21, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

 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. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 13:22, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 January 2021

Removing the offensive word myth from the entry. In all bible stories in Wikipedia the word myth has not been utilized. Why should it be used in Mahabharata? 128.12.92.212 (talk) 15:52, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Given that one of the primary sources for this article is the Handbook of Hindu Mythology, I don't see this as something that can be done as simple maintenance without a consensus (see WP:EDITXY). ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 18:37, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 February 2021

Zebra563 (talk) 10:32, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Arjuna killed karna when he was trying to get his chariot up which was stuck in the ground.

 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. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:59, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 September 2021

I want to edit Viratyuddh (talk) 14:59, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

You can once you've satisfied the conditions for autoconfirmed users. --RegentsPark (comment) 15:17, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 September 2021

I want to edit Viratyudhh (talk) 08:39, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:49, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 September 2021 (2)

I want to contribute Viratyudhh (talk) 16:02, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:27, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 October 2021

I want to edit the page and contribute something more. 122.161.51.238 (talk) 11:57, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:01, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 October 2021

The article is very biased Godwatch25 (talk) 11:31, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done Please specify the changes you want to see in the article along with reliable sources.--RegentsPark (comment) 12:17, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 October 2021 (2)

I want to edit Godwatch25 (talk) 11:33, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done Please specify the changes you want to see in the article along with reliable sources. --RegentsPark (comment) 12:18, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 October 2021

I want to correct some wrong informations Goldmines24 (talk) 17:53, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

 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. — DaxServer (talk) 17:55, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 November 2021

There is a mistake in the article. Please remove the lock Goldmines49 (talk) 06:27, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. Please specify the edit you want to be made directly, if any. —twotwofourtysix^{(My talk page and contributions)} 07:03, 1 November 2021 (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:

• Krishna tells Gita to Arjuna.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:33, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 December 2021

"Gudakesh" means one with dark brown hair, and the name "Nidrajeet" means one who has conquered sleep. 205.253.126.182 (talk) 17:05, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Gudakesh also means who has controlled the sleeps(Gudaka+isha). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Just another Wikipedian editor (talk • contribs) 15:30, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

About the article

ARJUNA IS NOT A FICTIONAL CHARACTER. THERE IS EVIDENCE THAT THE MAHABHARATA ACTUALLY HAPPENED IN KURUKSHETRA. PLEASE CORRECT UR FACTS BEFORE WRITING ANYTHING. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.186.153.238 (talk) 08:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

We simply don't know. Nobody has yet come up with any reference that is considered reliable for Wikipedia to either state he is fictional or historical. The epics and all its characters might, as far as Wikipedia is currently concerned, be either complete fiction or complete historical fact or anything in between. You are very welcome to give a reliable source of the quality that Wikipedia demands which says that he was a historical person. But without reliable sources, we cannot state anything about it, not even that it is uncertain. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ We can only state what the epics say, without claiming either historical truthfulness or the opposite – until we have found reliable sources to state otherwise. --Jhertel (talk) 13:49, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Fictional character

I find it somewhat strange that this article deals with the story of Arjuna as if it is somehow true. We all agree that the character is fictional, right? So what I miss is more paragraphs starting with "According to the story, ", "According to the legend, ", or similar clear indications that this is not about something factual or historical. When it comes to an article about Donald Duck, I believe most would find it clear that he is a fictional character (and the article about him even does make that very clear), but in this case, I don't find that the article is totally clear about this. It feels like some mixture between historical reality and fiction. The lead could perhaps start with something like "Arjuna is a fictional character in several ancient Hindu texts, and specifically one of the major characters of the Indian epic Mahabharata." to make it totally clear. Remember that Arjuna being a character in an epic doesn't in itself make him a non-historical person (you can make fictional stories about real historical persons), so it has to be pointed out explicitly. In fact, I will change the first sentence to say that. Perhaps that will make it clear enough. --Jhertel (talk) 11:06, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

@Jhertel There are multiple Arjuna fan following, sparked into existence by numerous TV soaps based on Arjuna. Their objective is to glorify the fictional character and make it appear as a historical character. Please feel free to improve the page and remove other instances of glorification and promotion. Hindu right also conflates, history with mythology, so that is another reason for the poor state of Mythology articles. Venkat TL (talk) 11:17, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Oh, that's interesting! I didn't know that. I'm just a European knowing way too little about Indian culture, wanting to know more. I did have a slight sense that there was some actual confusion since the article is written the way it is (or was), but I'm still somewhat surprised that some might actually believe the character to be historical. I guess if there is widespread belief in Arjuna being historical, then ideally the article should openly discuss or at least mention that. After all, we are here to describe the world, including even scientifically unfounded major beliefs, not claiming that the content of those beliefs are true, but that they exist.

But enough for now; my main purpose for visiting this page today was to find out if Arjuna had any historical reality. Thanks for your clarification and support in making that clear. Jhertel (talk) 12:02, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

@Jhertel The widespread and mainstream belief is that Arjuna is a fictional character. Fringe can believe whatever they want. Wikipedia covers the WP:MAINSTREAM view. Venkat TL (talk) 12:24, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I think instead of calling Arjuna real or fictional, it would be better to state him as "a character of Mahabharata". There are people who believe Mahabharata to be real and there are people who consider it fiction and there are people who consider it to be historical fiction. In any case calling Arjuna A character in Mahabharata and other purunas will suffice instead of calling him out right fictional.

I agree with reasoning regarding naming him as fictional character however while reading the Wikipedia article now with the change it looks as if he is only fictional character and not historical personality. LakshmanReddy72 (talk) 18:23, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

@LakshmanReddy72 Wikipedia is not the site which reports what different kind of people think about something. You might want to read Social media. Please see the link in the last comment I posted. Venkat TL (talk) 18:38, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

It's a very interesting discussion. I'm not here to claim he is fictional if indeed there is evidence he was a historical person. But also, we should not beat around the bush by trying not to state that the Earth is spherical just because some believe it's flat. It's perfectly okay that some believe Arjuna was a historical person, but if there is no real evidence of that and the scientific consensus is that he is not a historical person, we should state that. We can still state that some believe he is historical.

But I don't even know what the science says about it. I just found an article "True legends?" in Times of India saying there is no clear answer. If there really is no clear answer, then we should not claim so directly that he is fictional, but instead state that it is unclear whether he was a historical person or not. Jhertel (talk) 21:58, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Arjuna is not the Donald the Duck whom you can straight away say fictional. Agreed Wikipedia is not social media where you can cater to people's opinion at the same time it's not a place where you can impose your views on unsuspecting masses.

True we can't say Earth is not spherical because it might offend some people which is not the case here, Arjuna might be a historical character of he can be fictional. Refer Hercules is considered a greek mythological Hero not real or fictional. Similarly Arjuna is a character of Mahabharata which is considered to be mythology. LakshmanReddy72 (talk) 03:01, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't know where Mr @VenkatTL: got consensus that Arjuna is fictional. How was he able to claim with absolute confidence Majority agree with him and outright classified those who doesn't agree as fringe. I would like to see the evidence if there exists one. LakshmanReddy72 (talk) 03:06, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Sorry if if my previous additions to the discussion were rude and full of anger. I was polite and expressed my side of argument with nothing but respect.

But then @VenkatTL: went ahead and called my contribution worthless and something unimportant and something that is only worthy to be present in some dumb social media post. While going around assuming things on everyone's behalf and calling anyone a fringe right winger if they don't agree with his views. That really irked me and I lost my cool and I am sorry for that. However I am not sorry for being rude to @VenkatTL:.

Here is my calm contribution to the discussion.

First of all I agree with you that Arjuna cannot be proved a real life character and not just some fictional character. Even if there is evidence that Arjuna is indeed an historical personality there is still no way to make sure that each and every event described in Mahabharata is indeed true and not something with lots of creative liberty. I mean his personal life was described with a lot of detail and there would be no way to verify that even if the epic is only 100 years old or even a decade old. I agree with @Jherrtel:.

However Arjuna can completely called a fictional character either. One cannot prove he is one by any means. We cannot say that Arjuna is a fictional character like Donald the Duck. He is a character of Mahabharata it's called an Ithihasa which loosely translate to this happened like this. Ithihasa by no means is history at the same time a complete work of fiction. It exists in a state that is different from both. Arjuna being a character of the epic isn't fictional or real he is simply the character of Ithihasa. So to completely characterise him as a fictional character would be totally unfair. It isn't binary where he is either real or fictional.

When there is no proof there exists belief. Do I know Arjuna to be a real person? No. Do I believe Arjuna to be a real person and lived as described in Mahabharata? Yes. And there are people like me and there are people who aren't.

But to call Arjuna a fictional character without any of this explanation and when it is more of a belief than fact would be unfair. So I humbly submit the description should be changed from "A fictional character" to "A character". Let the opinion be formed by the readers since there is no proof going either way.

You might feel like why should one prove something to be non existent, it's the other way they should prove he exists. I ask you to think of Donald the Duck and can you prove he is fictional? Then can you prove Arjuna to be fictional.

I just ask one thing, please don't ignore my inputs because of my earlier outburst towards a person who called me a dumb social media person for my comment and called people with similar views as me a fringe group.

Agree with me or disagree. I am not here to impose my views on others but please don't ignore me.

Also I would like to apologise for not following the syntax. I am new to Wikipedia and still new to thi. Hope you will ignore the mistake.

Please continue the discussion. (LakshmanReddy72 (talk) 13:02, 16 April 2022 (UTC))

I feel sorry for having claimed in the article so clearly that Arjuna is fictional, as it appears that there is no clear evidence for either that or the opposite. And I didn't even add a reference for the claim. It was not my intention to take a stand on it; my intention was only to state something I thought was true. I will remove the claim again. The discussion is still interesting and can continue, but I believe it would need reliable sources to claim again so directly that he is fictional. I would find it better to state that it is unclear whether he was a historical person or not, maybe with a reference to the article "True legends?" that I mentioned earlier, and preferably other articles or books. As a reader, that would satisfy my question "was he a historical person?". "We don't know for sure" is a perfectly valid answer to me. So I will do that. The reference might not be the most perfect reference, as it doesn't directly mention Anjuna himself, only his son, but it is the closest I found and does discuss epics like Mahabharata. Everyone is of course welcome to find better references or better ways of stating the uncertainty. --Jhertel (talk) 13:09, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @Jhertel: for the edit. It is indeed a very great discussion and thanks for the article it has several intresting points.

However as you said earlier Arjuna being a historical person has no bearing on whether or not he is real. He could be fictionalized in Mahabharata. Since the Mahabharata was composed long ago even layers of interpolations were added by later writers. So even if Arjuna historical person exists it's hard to seperate fact from fiction in terms of Arjuna detailed in the Epic.

So it is impossible to prove that Arjuna described in Mahabharata is historical or not even if Arjuna the epic character is historical.

General consensus is that Jesus is historical figure. But whether or not he walked on water or if it was exaggerated is matter of faith and belief rather than historical accuracy. Same can be applied here.

This discussion has grown very intresting indeed. I look forward to your points.(LakshmanReddy72 (talk) 16:57, 19 April 2022 (UTC))

In the end, I guess it doesn't really matter for the epics whether he was a historical person or not. I don't personally believe that's the point of them. They are telling important stories about the human condition, and that doesn't really require historical persons. Even complete fiction such as novels or plays can be enlightening. I was just curious about the historicity of the characters, in this case specifically Arjuna.

Whether Jesus was real or not doesn't make any important difference to me either; despite me not being very religious bordering to atheist or something, he (as depicted in the New Testament) is still my hero and has always been my main role model; I'm still struggling to match him though 😉. It's all about the story and what it tells us about being human, about suffering and how to transcend it. It's still interesting whether he was real or not; I personally believe he was, but how would I know for sure? The important part is the story. I believe the same applies to the Hindu epics.

I noticed that even the uncertainty claim that I added has been removed again now, as the source was not reliable enough for Wikipedia. So we can't claim anything about the historicity, not even that we don't know. 🙂 I guess we just have to live with that, until reliable sources that tell us otherwise perhaps show up. That's okay for me. It's okay not to know. 🙂 Jhertel (talk) 14:22, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

I do hope that one day we learn everything we can about these characters. Be it Jesus, Krishna or Arjuna. Fingers crossed 🤞 LakshmanReddy72 (talk) 14:45, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Error in text

The introductory text states that Arjuna killed many of the Kaurava warriors including Karna and Bheeshma. This is factually incorrect. Bheeshma had the boon of dying when he chose to. He was not killed by Arjuna but died after the battle, on a day and at the time of his own choosing. Please have the text edited to reflect this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Surenpb2009 (talk • contribs) 08:34, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Minor error

In the first paragraph, after "the five sons of Pandu.", there is no space to separate the next sentence. I'd edit myself, but I don't have privileges. Kosinvita (talk) 17:29, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

 Done @Kosinvita: Thank you for pointing this out. —C.Fred (talk) 18:22, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Arjuna and Arash

I have edited the article to arrange for the legend of Arash to parallel with Arjuna, as opposed to the other way around. Arjuna's article (and the history it details, for that matter) is far more encompassing, and its brevity far more profound. As such, it is only fitting that the legend of Arash be seen in light of Arjuna's highly revered station within the Mahabharata. I have nevertheless still illustrated the common ancestry of the cultures.

I have pointed out that the link is tenuous. For one, nowhere in either article are the striking similarities shown. Second, its increasingly clear according to Indian sources, and modern genetic research, that the Indian culture draws from a local lineage, and is not from an overarching Indo-Iranian/ Aryan one. Hence, unless more references are provided- Arash and Arjunas similarities remain conjecture. (Archerblack)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• Boon of Indra to Kunti.jpg
• Brihannala.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:55, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• Drauapadi Disrobing.jpg
• Karna's wheel is stuck.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:25, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

WP:SPOILER violations and budding edit wars

68.205.26.246 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) seems to think that it's acceptable to remove "including his own elder brother Karna unknowingly and his grandfather Bhishma" by stating "A spoiler of a story should not be revealed in the first three sentences of a character's wikipedia page. A person should be able to read the first 3 sentences of a character's wikipedia page, without such a significant part of the story being revealed" three times over without any actual valid policy-related rebuttal as to why this article should be an exception to WP:SPOILER. Normally, I'd re-revert the IP's disruptive edit, but that would mean I would be violating WP:3RR, hence why I'm starting this discussion here. --SHB2000 (talk) 03:10, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

(they also have not responded to my two messages on User talk:68.205.26.246, FWIW) --SHB2000 (talk) 03:11, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I replied. 68.205.26.246 (talk) 16:20, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Would you get satisfaction out of ruining someone's surprise birthday party, and try to look up a rule book for why it is okay to ruin someone's surprise party? 68.205.26.246 (talk) 16:02, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I had a portion of the story spoiled for me. I'm trying to protect readers from having a similar experience so that they can maximize the value and enjoyment of reading Bhagavad Gita. A reader should be able to google a character, or read the first 3 sentences of a character's wikipedia page without reading such a spoiler. 68.205.26.246 (talk) 16:06, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedia Britannica, New world encyclopedia, World history encyclopedia have the common sense and decency to provide an informational summary on Arjuna in the first paragraph without including a spoiler of the Bhagavad Gita story in the first 3 sentences of the encyclopedia page for the character Arjuna. I'm not implying that the information shouldn't exist anywhere on the page. But, to include it in the 3rd sentence of the first paragraph, it robs a reader of a spoiler in the book. It is difficult to comprehend why anyone would allocate so much effort to contrast such an obvious common sense sentiment, as protecting a reader from a spoiler, so that a reader can do a google search on a character without having the story spoiled. Wikipedia is something like the second search result on google, and the first paragraph of the wikipedia page shows up on google without even clicking the wikipedia link. It seems beyond reasonable that a person should be able to google the name of a character in a book without having a later portion of the story spoiled. 68.205.26.246 (talk) 15:58, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"When including spoilers, editors should make sure that an encyclopedic purpose is being served. Articles on a work of fiction should primarily describe it from a real-world perspective, discussing its reception, impact and significance."

- Wikipedia:Spoiler

Including this spoiler information in the first paragraph is beyond the scope of an encyclopedia being served, it's borderline malicious to readers. An encyclopedia page can be informative and serve an encyclopedia purpose without the first 3 sentences spoiling such a significant part of a story.

I'm not suggesting that the page couldn't contain any spoilers anywhere on the page. But if someone is using judgement, it seems pretty obvious that such a detailed and specific spoiler of the story should not be included in the 3rd sentence of the first paragraph. That's just being courteous and tasteful. 68.205.26.246 (talk) 16:17, 13 April 2023 (UTC) 68.205.26.246 (talk) 16:21, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

You haven't made an argument why this should be an exception to WP:SPOILER (in regards to "[i]t is not acceptable to delete information from an article because you think it spoils the plot", but repeated yourself over. Sure, not including a spoiler is courteous and tasteful, but you're still removing information from the lede paragraph, which summarises the entire article in a nutshell. --SHB2000 (talk) 08:09, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Including this spoiler in the first 3 sentences of the wikipedia page of Arjuna is outside the scope of solely serving an encyclopedia purpose, because it can be a discourteous, malicious, disservice to a reader of Bhagavad Gita who google searches "Arjuna".

It would be like putting the spoiler ending of a movie, in the first 3 sentences of the 1st paragraph of a movie's Wikipedia page.

I understand that Wikipedia contains spoilers, but usually not in the very first paragraph of a page, and this does not serve an encyclopedia purpose. I have not seen any other encyclopedia website that includes such spoilers in the first 3 sentences like this.

Spoiler information should at least be presented later in the page, not in the first 3 sentences. 68.205.26.246 (talk) 18:41, 13 April 2023 (UTC)