Talk:Arjuna

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)

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)

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))

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)