Talk:Narayani Sena

Content issues

Requesting attention of some of the expert editors Abecedare,RegentsPark, Bishonen, Slatersteven, Fowler&fowler, Kautilya3 in India related topics to this page- Can this book - "title=Sociology and Economics of Casteism in India: A Study of Bihar" by Braj Kumar Pandey which is primarily dealing with socio-economic development in last 120 yrs be used to put this content in the lead of an article related to mythological subject- It is described in the Mahabharata as being all of the Abhira caste.. Not only this in the lead itself a link to blog has been used as reference. Akalanka820 (talk) 11:42, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

MIght be best to ask at wp:rsn. Slatersteven (talk) 11:51, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Scholarly sources can in general be used for non-controversial aspects of history (even if the sources are not WP:HISTRS). But in this case, I think the source is being controversial. As far as I know, Abhiras were a community of some sort during the Puranic times as well as the Periplus. None of them characterised it as a "caste".

So I think any use of this source should be attributed as an opinion, and should not be used in the lead. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:38, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

References

Dear Kautilya3, this has been used in the reference ( 9th reference) in the lead [[1]], I am not sure if blog content is allowed here, I would request for some expert editors such as you who have better understanding of mythologies and the ancient history of that period to improve this article. Some added references are definitely not in the right context. Thanks Akalanka820 (talk) 13:05, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Please feel free to remove all blogs and any content sourced to them. I have the page watch-listed now. But I really don't have time to work on it myself. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:07, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

For religion related articles, there is lack of secondary sources, as i can see from various such articles. You may find many WP: PRIMARY sources and such blog used as source on religion related pages. Admantine123 (talk) 14:16, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Dear Admantine123, you had no edits on this page till date, neither I tagged you but you commented within 1.5 hr of my last post. I would request for no WP:FOLLOWING, I hope so that there is no such intent here. Akalanka820 (talk) 14:47, 28 May 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:

• Army of Pandavas.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:00, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Merging + Copy editing

Hello @ Narayana-Narayana

I saw that you reverted every single edit that I made to the Narayani Sena page and marked it by adding that "my opinion counts for nothing." I would like to first start off by saying that my intentions of copy-editing this page were out of WP:AGF, not to discredit any of your contributions. Rather to see me as a helping hand in improving this page, if you choose to see it that way.

In regards to the edits I've made, I'm not sure if you're aware that although Wikipedia is a place for everyone to contribute to, there are certain policies and guidelines that we need to adhere by.

1. These two sources 1 and 2 were removed because they are not verifiable. Having a closer look, they are self-published sources and the authors cannot be justified as experts or reputable.
2. The language on this page is not Neutral, one of the three core content policies on WP. Phrases like "supreme sena of all time" is opinionated/biased or rather MOS:PUFFERY. Another such phrase that is also biased is "Fearing Narayani Sena, many Kings didn't try fighting against Dwaraka." Although you may have found reliable sources to justify what is written, according to WP:Verifiability "even when information is cited to reliable sources, you must present it with a neutral point of view (NPOV)."
3. The subheading "Involvement in Kurukshetra war" was in need of copy editing and I just condensed the summary to take out some extra fluff and fix grammatical errors. I also, condensed this sentence: "They were the supporters of the Duryodhana and Kauravas, and in the Mahabharata, Abhir, Gopa, Gopal and Yadavas are all synonyms" and placed it in the lead paragraph next to this sentence "It is described in the Mahabharata as being all of the Abhira (Ahir) caste"

Overall, I'm not entirely sure why you reverted everything without looking at all of my edits in detail. But open to hear your thoughts.

Best,

Chilicave Chilicave (talk) 17:51, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

@Narayana-Narayana I had requested @Chilicave's help in copyediting this article because I did not wish to engage in an edit war with you. Please note that it is unacceptable of you to be disrespectful to editors on this encyclopedia despite your disagreements with them. I believe that all the points that Chilicave is raising are valid, and I had previously also brought up the lack of neutrality or reliable sources of the version of the article you wish to maintain in our previous discussion. Would you like a third opinion on this matter? Please do engage in this discussion. Chronikhiles (talk) 06:32, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

@Materialscientist @Kautilya3 I request your opinions on this matter since both of you have previously contributed to this article. Chronikhiles (talk) 04:04, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

@Dāsānudāsa @Adakiko @Eucalyptusmint I would like to request your opinions on this discussion so we can arrive at a consensus one way or another. Chronikhiles (talk) 04:19, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

This isn't really something I know too much about (I haven't read the Mahabharata beyond the Gita) but your edits look reasonable to me. Beyond it being badly written, the first thing that strikes me about this article is that it's completely lacking in NPOV -- this is a mythological army and a mythological battle and should be written as such, whereas now it reads like a factual description of a historical event. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 08:59, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

@Dāsānudāsa Thank you, I agree that the seeming historicity of this is an issue. Chronikhiles (talk) 10:39, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree with @Dāsānudāsa, at first glance, the edits look reasonable based on the explanations outlined above. On a separate note, is this topic notable enough to be its own article? I'm wondering because the article has 33 references cited, 20 of which are in the lead, of which 10+ occur in the first sentence of the lead. This seems like WP:REFBOMB. A quick google book search shows that it doesn't really have significant coverage outside of just mentioning the topic in various sources. [2] [3]. Based on that, I think the info from this article might be better incorporated as a section in another article such as Kurukshetra War. Eucalyptusmint (talk) 01:04, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

@Eucalyptusmint I just realised that the Narayani Sena is already featured in the Kurukshetra War article. I don't believe the topic is notable enough to require an article of its own when it is already adequately represented in the other article. Thank you for bringing this up. I would personally support a merge. Chronikhiles (talk) 03:49, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Did I miss something? It looks like @Tryant Saurashtrian already moved the article. Eucalyptusmint (talk) 23:33, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

@Chronikhiles@Eucalyptusmint

It seems as if @ Tryant Saurashtrian may have gone a few steps ahead of everyone and merged the article according to their own calling. What is the best way to approach this? Chilicave (talk) 23:59, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

@Chilicave I have asked the user to restore the last version of the article as consensus to merge had not been achieved yet. Chronikhiles (talk) 03:37, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

I've went ahead and restored it. Eucalyptusmint (talk) 14:02, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

@Chilicave I just noticed that you have not yet expressed your view on the merge of this article with the Kurukshetra War article. Would you support or oppose this action? Chronikhiles (talk) 10:59, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

@Chronikhiles

My apologies for the delay, I've been pretty busy. BUT, in response to your question: yes, I am in support of merging this article with the Kurukshetra War article. Chilicave (talk) 00:09, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

@Chilicave @Eucalyptusmint Seeing as there is unanimous consent to merge, I will merge the contents of this article with the Kaurava army section of the Kurukshetra War. Chronikhiles (talk) 05:23, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Great, seems like its an appropriate section in that article for it to be merged with, it also looks like that section is missing references anyways. Let me know if you need any help. Thanks. Eucalyptusmint (talk) 22:33, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

@Chronikhiles

Sounds good to me! Chilicave (talk) 03:10, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Editors adding their own opinion but removing reliable sources info

Which sources says Narayani army attacked Arjuna? three reliable sources clearly said that the Narayani army belonged to the Abhira caste. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tryant Saurashtrian (talk • contribs) 05:47, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

@Tryant Saurashtrian You'll note that none of those three "reliable sources" are a primary source i.e. the Mahabharata itself, but sources from fields that have nothing to do with Hindu mythology. Their reliability is dubious at best. The Mahabharata itself mentions the Abhiras as a people group who participated in the Kurukshetra War - see here - along with numerous other groups. If you can find an accurate English translation of the epic that supports the claim that the "Narayani army belonged to the Abhira caste", this content may be restored with the source.

If you would, do express your support or opposition of the merge of this article with Kurukshetra War in the discussion. Thank you. Chronikhiles (talk) 12:08, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

@Tryant Saurashtrian Let me paraphrase: these sources you mention are not the epic Mahabharata, which is the text that features this army, nor are they scholarly works that hold any credibility in the topic of Hindu mythology. Their mere quoting of the epic is, therefore, not reliable. Chronikhiles (talk) 17:07, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

@Chronikhiles So you are doubting Mahabharata? You can see this, which clearly says, " It is described in the Mahabharata as being all of the Abhira caste.. many sources clearly says this army made up of Abhira gopas. Do you think Gopas and Abhiras are different? The Abhiras were the same as the Gopas or Ballavas of Mathura see the reference.

@Chronikhiles stop trolling, Mr. Bhattacharya, a distinguished historian. While you are only an editor and belong to Rajput group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tryant Saurashtrian (talk • contribs) 17:55, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

From what I can tell it appears that the two sources are contradicting each other. The one Chronikhiles linked above, a primary source, says the army included various other groups. While the Bhattacharya source says that it was made up of all one type of group. @Tryant Saurashtrian I can see the point you're making with the Bhandarkar Oriental Research source but including it would be WP:SYNTH. You mentioned there are many other sources which also say that the army was made of one group, could you provide links to those sources? They could possibly help shed some more light into this conversation. Eucalyptusmint (talk) 19:17, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

@Tryant Saurashtrian Please do not restore the content that states that the members of the army all belonged to the Abhira caste before providing a reliable source that supports this claim. Chronikhiles (talk) 09:11, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I assure you that I am not "trolling". Bhattacharya is a Hindu nationalist, and he is no expert on Hindu mythology. I have no idea what to make of your "belong to Rajput group" statement. Chronikhiles (talk) 10:49, 2 May 2023 (UTC)