|This article is the subject of an educational assignment supported by Wikipedia Ambassadors through the India Education Program.|
|Seven ways to greet a neighbor was nominated for deletion. The debate was closed on 12 May 2009 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Arthashastra. The original page is now a redirect to here. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.|
|WikiProject India / History / Literature||(Rated C-class, Mid-importance)|
|WikiProject Politics||(Rated C-class, Mid-importance)|
Re Attention tag
The article currently focuses strongly on the kingship and statecraft angle. The Arthashastra also has amazing cultural and technical description of the society for which it was written (see ). I think the article needs abridging and cleanup of the Rajarishi section (which is about Book I) and expansion of these other aspects.
The Rajarishi text comes from an article by Navendu Shirali - it can be found elsewhere on the Web, but he did write it, so no need for copyvio alerts (especially once it's copyedited). Tearlach 01:28, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
"He should be just in regarding and punishing."
'Regarding', or 'rewarding'? TheMadBaron 08:04, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
Kautilya says that artha (Sound Economies) is the most important; dharma & karma are both dependent on it.
Meaning of Artha
Artha has many meanings, and this text touches on most of them. Some of the appropriate ones would be "power" and "wealth", so I have to disagree with the translation of the title as "The Science of Material Gain", especially considering that this is a treatise concerned with how a king should rule, not how an individual should pursue material gain. It is different from other texts such as the Kama Sutra in that way. I would personally translate the title as "The Science of Power" or as a compromise "The Science of Power/Wealth". Unlike our corresponding words, Artha implies both of these simultaneously, and that should be reflected in the title.
- I agree. Academic sites and book intros divide between three translations: "Science of Wealth", "Science of Material Gain" and "Science of Polity" - "polity" being the form and process of civil government or state. WP:NOR guidelines stop us creating an original translation, but mentioning the alternatives would be good. Tearlach 10:21, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure Handbook of Profit is sufficiently common to go up-front as the implied dominant translation. I found about three Google hits. The Arthashastra entries in the Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics and Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions don't mention it. I can only find it in the Britannica Online, where two articles use it ("Carvaka" and "Artha-sastra") but seven others use the usual Science of Material Gain and Science of Polity. Tearlach 01:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Versions in other languages
It should be noted that there are not many versions of the Arthashastra in other languages. However, there is a Telugu version of Kautilya’ Arthashastra by an eminent Professor of History and Political Science, from Andhra Pradesh, M. Venkatanrangaiya and Akundi Venkatashastry. The version was first published in 1923. There is no reprint of this, however, a copy of the same is available upon request at email@example.com. The book starts with an introduction highlighting the expertise of Kautilya. The divisions of this version are the same as in Samashastry’s 1915 edition of the book in English.
'what's the problem? explain at talk'
- Perhaps the briefest of glances at the article's history would provide you with the answer
- (remove inappropriate, unreferenced, and thoroughly useless trivia. If you wish to include it, 'Killkoa', discuss it on the Talk page.) 13:58, 5 September 2008 CalendarWatcher (Talk | contribs) (19,312 bytes)
- (remove inappropriate, unreferenced, and thoroughly useless trivia. If you wish to include it, 'Killkoa', discuss it on the Talk page.) 03:58, 4 September 2008 CalendarWatcher (Talk | contribs) (19,312 bytes)
- (Undid revision 228354673 by 22.214.171.124 (talk) - enough with the trivial reference to an unknown hack writer) 13:38, 28 July 2008 CalendarWatcher (Talk | contribs) (19,240 bytes)
- (Remove trivia: 1) unrelated to topic; 2) wildly out of tone with the rest; 3) neither book nor author even have articles, meaning that this is even less important, not to mention unverifiable.) 13:47, 22 June 2008 CalendarWatcher (Talk | contribs) (19,634 bytes)
And most especially, this:
- (Undid revision 237169669 by CalendarWatcher (talk)i like his version better. i never actually read the book 15:21, 9 September 2008 126.96.36.199 (Talk) (19,642 bytes)
In addition, a quick glance at the contributions of what is clearly a single troll--one whose existence you're already aware of, given that you've already warned him:
- Killkola (talk · contribs)
- 188.8.131.52 (talk · contribs)
- 184.108.40.206 (talk · contribs) - and this block log
- 220.127.116.11 (talk · contribs)
and quite probably
Included are the following highlights:
- (←Replaced content with 'retired from wikipedia... Calendar Watcher is gay for even coing here to look') 18:48, 18 October 2008 (hist) (diff) User:Killkola
-  9:30, 22 June 2008 (hist) (diff) m User:CalendarWatcher/Talk Archive 1
- (CALENDARWATCHER IS A FUCKING WIKI-TARD!) 22:07, 19 October 2008 18.104.22.168 (Talk) (19,637 bytes)
- (no no no... calendar watcher u cant touch my clitoris... im 13 thats wrong) 03:58, 17 October 2008 22.214.171.124 (Talk) (19,637 bytes)
- (adding the sameinformation again because a wiki-durkha durkha will not stop harassing me.) 22:56, 12 October 2008 126.96.36.199 (Talk) (19,637 bytes)
- (Undid revision 236449242 by CalendarWatcher (talk) reverting vandalism by a wiki douche bag) 14:04, 5 September 2008 188.8.131.52 (Talk) (19,653 bytes)
This adds nothing to the article, is wildly out-of-tone with the article as a whole, is unverified, and isn't even believed by the person adding it. Other than that, not much.--CalendarWatcher (talk) 06:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- It looks pretty silly to me, but it's not completely out-of-kilter with WP. It is, in principle, verifiable by reading the book. If it were being added under more normal circumstances, I'd probably suggest it be left in. Given the behavior of the editor(s?) adding it, I am biased against. CRETOG8(t/c) 07:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Please create a section on the Arthashastra's contribution to economics
This treatise is considered as one of the earliest known work (if not the earliest) that considers economic theory that is a forerunner of modern economics.
L. K. Jha, K. N. Jha (1998). "Chanakya: the pioneer economist of the world", International Journal of Social Economics 25 (2-4), p. 267-282.
Waldauer, C., Zahka, W.J. and Pal, S. 1996. Kautilya's Arthashastra: A neglected precursor to classical economics. Indian Economic Review, Vol. XXXI, No. 1, pp. 101-108.
Tisdell, C. 2003. A Western perspective of Kautilya's Arthasastra: does it provide a basis for economic science? Economic Theory, Applications and Issues Working Paper No. 18. Brisbane: School of Economics, The University of Queensland.
And The issue 'Modern perspectives on Kautilya's economics' in the journal Humanomics, Vol. 25, issue 1 (2009).
It contains information on the sources and prerequisites for economic growth, and obstructions and incentives for economic growth.
Sihag, B.S. 2007. Kautilya on institutions, governance, knowledge, ethics and prosperity. Humanomics 23 (1): 5-28.
Therefore please create and write about the Arthashastra's contribution to economics by referring to the above-mentioned economic papers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oxford Dictionary (talk • contribs) 12:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Language in which Arthashastra
If anyone know the language in which the Arthashastra is originally written, they are requested to update that information in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aravind V R (talk • contribs) 13:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Please change "professor" and "university" into different terms. These are anachronistic and serves to undermine the contents sense of factuality. Also they might mislead uneducated readers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 07:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Arthashastra in modern literature
I have seen a modern literature section in here off and on. Keeps getting reverted in the name of trivia. However, the author Brad Thor has an article, the mentioning of Arthashastra is an uncommon topic in modern literature and in the book several true recipes for poisons, bio-warfare and chemical warfare are mentioned. All gleaned from Arthashastra. I do not care to get into a silly edit war and considering the people watching this article for this fact Modern Literature "trivia nonsense" alone, I would also ask for an outside opinion. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 08:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- First off, you can link the article page of Brad Thor or his books to this page but not vice versa, and like I've said in the edit summary, trivial stuff are best left out of the equation here unless it is really related in some way(s) with notable citable reference that we can verify for reuse on Wikipedia. Otherwise, omit needless words. --Dave1185 (talk) 09:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- Come on man leave me alone! Stop following me! I don't want to get into it with you again. I am asking for a neutral party to talk to me. And you are most definitely NOT neutral. You are trolling and looking for drama. If you feel the need to advise people, do it were at least you know you will receive a warm welcome, eh? Seriously, please stop following me, OK? I am asking as nicely as I am able too without resorting to vulgarity and incivility. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 10:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- And I am talking to you very nicely too. What is it with you? Correct me if I got it wrong, but if you have something that's troubling you in real life, I'd suggest that you take care of it first before coming to Wikipedia to release your pent-up energy/frustration, this is hardly the place to do so. And if you enjoy editing article(s) but not for the sake of bettering it, why do so? Do it because you like it and not because you want it. There is a difference between a need and a want, ya'know? --Dave1185 (talk) 10:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- Come on guys don't start this again. Dave.. You do appear to be shadowing him. That is curious behavior in itself. Anon IP (a relative of mine) is interested in this article because of me. I originally made the inclusion of the Modern Literature section, and the section was promptly removed by another editor making much the same claims. However, I have come across NUMEROUS articles including one that I linked to on your talk page... Republic of Singapore Air Force that include popular culture "trivia" and have read many discussions related to this topic. It seems that most of the reverts on this page come from editors, who have a disagreement with either myself, my friends whom have read the Brad ThoR novel, or my relative (who also read the novel). Mind you I am not reverting anything, just cluing you into the Anon's perspective as well as my own. And Dave it is a little creepy that you are following my brother around and watching what he edits. You have to admit he is not a malicious editor, he is simply rude. He is not edit warring and he is asking the community (via the talk page) (and minus your opinion which he considers biased) for advice. Leave it alone man, let him find out on his own. Cheer up fellas!! - 4twenty42o (talk) 10:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- For the record, I'm not shadowing your brother, all I was doing was making some recent changes patrol when I saw his IP popped up and so I check it just in case he got into trouble again. Also, trivial section are not encourage on Wikipedia but if there is another article that can accomodate that, by all means go add it there instead, and that includes the page of RSAF. If Brad had wrote a book with reference to this article, it's best to mention it there since it is modern literature, which has totally nothing to do with this Indian literature page, agreed? Do you mix business with pleasure? I think not, right? --Dave1185 (talk) 11:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Max Weber´s quote
I tried to find Weber´s quote in various places, but I didn´t. It seems to be another example of apocryphal quotes in wikipeida. I´ll remove it. You can personally check it here.--Knight1993 (talk) 00:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- Hi, it is sourced to Politics as a Vocation, in which the quote can be found. An English translation (probably different from the one used in the article) is here; you can search for "really radical" or "harmless". Shreevatsa (talk) 01:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)