This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poetry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of poetry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
According to its own page, the Epic of Manas is two-and-a-half times longer than the Mahabharata. If that's true then obviously this page shouldn't be claiming that the latter is "the longest poem ever written". -- Hux (talk) 06:16, 17 June 2015 (UTC) Hux (talk) 06:16, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Wendy Doniger in EB has put the length at 100,000 stanzas and others (including the listed sources) have used that to say it's the longest have brought in comparison with Odyssey, Illiad etc. I haven't seen any comparison in length for Manas (not to say they don't exist), so if there's some other source that contradicts these claims then we'd need to evaluate that. —SpacemanSpiff 06:50, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
The page on the Epic of Manas says that its longest written down version is half a million lines long (not sure how to convert it to stanzas). However, the epic itself is an oral poem and the Kyrgyz people had no script at the time of the epic, while Mahabharata existed in written form even before recorded history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 08:22, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Alva2bryant (talk) 12:32, 13 April 2016 (UTC)All epic poems have started out orally and were later written down. This is true of even the Homeric epic works, of which Milman Parry deciphered them as oral poems that would have been dictated by a single singer, much like that of the epic of Manas. Even so, versions of Manas, recited by Manaschis very much in the same vein as how the singers of the Iliad would have sung the Homeric work, have been recorded. The latest published recordings are more than three thick volumes (of which I currently have the first) in length and are generationally based, starting with Manas, moving to his son Semetei and then to his grandson Seitek. Previous publishings have more than six or seven volumes of the epic. I will grab the source information later this evening. Alva2bryant (talk) 12:32, 13 April 2016 (UTC)Alva
Semi-protected edit request on 4 December 2015
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
MANAS IS THE LONGEST EPIC POEM THAT HAS EVER WRITTEN,FOR SURE. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 23:18, 4 December 2015 (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. --Stabila711 (talk) 23:27, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Pandavas family (vamsha-Dynasty) is called Chandra Vamsha (faamly), Kuru comes in the middle of that family tree; Itis decribed in the 1st Book 'Adi Parva',75th part(canto) 'Sambhava parva' from the verse (3309)/ 1 to 65, Though it is important not at all mentioned here, but only taken from Kuru. If wanted to feed here, I will give the details.(It is a long list)Bschandrasgr (talk) 17:31, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Is this not a matter of low relevance to the subject here, which is a summary of the Mahabharata? It should instead be included in a more specific subject page. Imc (talk) 18:21, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
According to Vishwa and Joydeep, (2.) German indologists arbitrarily identified "layers" in the Mahabharata and Bhagavad Gita with the objective of fueling (3.) European anti-Semitism via the Indo-Aryan migration theory. This required equating Brahmins with Jews, resulting in anti-Brahminism.
1. "German anti-Semitism" should read "Nazi anti-Semistism" to be more accurate.
2. "German indologists" should read "Nazi indologists" to be more accurate.
3. "European anti-Semitism" should read "Fascist anti-Semitism" to be more accurate.
I have removed the section on "Use in German anti-Semitism". From the Mahabharata's point of view that's irrelevant trivia. It was hardly a significant work inspiring or affecting anti-Semitic thought in any way, and while it may have been abused in that way, that's not relevant to an understanding of the Mahabharata. Besides, the section offered too little context to be useful. There was no timeframe to allow us to put it in context - which idologists did so, when did they do so? Where did it cause anti-Brahminism - in Germany? in India? If the latter, why would British colonial authorities or the Indian public be influenced by anti-Semitic German ideologues and their far-fetched schemes? If the former, would regular Germans even have been able to tell Brahmins from other Indians? I rather doubt that. The reference pointed to more than a hundred pages; that's rather unspecific. If this line of German indology should be discussed at all, it's in the article on indology itself, not here. Huon (talk) 11:15, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
See discussion above. There was a dispute over whether to call it German or Nazi anti-Semitism, but no one suggested to delete the info. This material has CONSENSUS.VictoriaGraysonTalk 13:35, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
A vague, unclear passage about some tenuous connection to anti-semitism is irrelevant and inappropriate in an article on a millenia-old text. I don't see any consensus for adding that random section. There will be thousands of reliable sources on a subject like this - we don't include everything in this article, WP:WEIGHT is the guiding policy here. I'm removing that section again. FireflySixtySeven (talk) 14:54, 12 June 2016 (UTC)