Talk:Arthashastra

message: 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)
thread_title: Re Attention tag

message: "He should be just in regarding and punishing."
'Regarding', or 'rewarding'? TheMadBaron 08:04, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Meaning of Artha 

message: '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 96.248.130.135 (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 98.222.196.27 (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:
*
*
* - and this block log
*
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 98.222.213.137 (Talk) (19,637 bytes)
:*  (no no no... calendar watcher u cant touch my clitoris... im 13 thats wrong) 03:58, 17 October 2008 98.222.185.84 (Talk) (19,637 bytes)
:*(adding the sameinformation again because a wiki-durkha durkha will not stop harassing me.) 22:56, 12 October 2008 98.222.213.137 (Talk) (19,637 bytes)
:*(Undid revision 236449242 by CalendarWatcher (talk) reverting vandalism by a wiki douche bag) 14:04, 5 September 2008 98.222.196.27 (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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Trivia

message: 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.
See here:
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.
See here:
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)
thread_title:  Please create a section on the Arthashastra's contribution to economics 

message: 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)
thread_title: Language in which Arthashastra

message: 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 78.172.232.106 (talk) 07:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Anacronistic Language

message: 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.    98.214.81.82 (talk) 08:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: *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)
replies: text:  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.  98.214.81.82 (talk) 10:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: *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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: *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)

text: Hay chill out you lot, I am shadowing everyone on Wikipedia, and as soon as I clone myself I will be at your front door. Seriously can someone provide something about what you are talking about? Enlil Ninlil (talk) 22:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Arthashastra in modern literature

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Found it now. Thanks for that! --Knight1993 (talk) 03:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Max Weber´s quote 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Arthashastra. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100131051351/http://www.ne.jp/asahi/moriyuki/abukuma/weber/lecture/politics_vocation.html to http://www.ne.jp/asahi/moriyuki/abukuma/weber/lecture/politics_vocation.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:30, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: @Wujastyk: The source you added is already in the article. I have standardized the format, and updated the links to sources you added. I am puzzled by your proposed changes to the lead. Why delete the Olivelle's source? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 05:48, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: @Ms Sarah Welch: I expect I was just clumsy.  Apologies! Wujastyk 17:51, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

text: I would have liked to see 's response to this. In my view, the prevailing view of Kautilya/Chanakya/Vishnugupta should be labelled as such (as "prevailing") and the questions raised by Olivelle et al. should be mentioned alongside as recent research. Ergo, we don't have scholarly consensus at present. - Kautilya3 (talk) 11:55, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Kautilya3: If you read Olivelle's research you will see that it is much more than "questions raised."  He presents a thorough discussion of previous theories, especially Kangle's, and then presents fresh evidence and compelling reasoning for a new view of the history of the Arthaśāstra.  This isn't a little spat amongst pedants, it's a major shift in historical knowledge. Wujastyk 17:51, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Perhaps so. But note that we don't determine whether a shift has taken place. We can only note whether there is a consensus or not, and the evidence is that there is not. - Kautilya3 (talk) 19:55, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: @Kautilya3: I concur with @Wujastyk. Olivelle does a comprehensive review and it is the best out there, and it is a recent WP:RS. If you provide another WP:RS within last 25 years contesting Olivelle with page numbers, we can add it as a note or something. The article already acknowledges the surviving manuscripts "likely include the work of several authors, over the centuries". Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:03, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, I have weakened the lead right now. If you want to weaken it further, please go ahead. But I am afraid both of you are taking liberties in interpreting a WP:PRIMARY source. We need secondary sources to authenticate. - Kautilya3 (talk) 20:41, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

text: I may be misunderstanding what is going on. I saw that  made some edits to the lead , which you reverted . I am proposing a middle way, already implemented in the lead, which basically says there is no agreement among scholars about the situation. But, now, you say you concur with Wujastyk. So I am perplexed. - Kautilya3 (talk) 00:45, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: @Kautilya3: I concur with @Wujastyk's comment at 17:51, 4 February 2016 above that Olivelle "presents a thorough discussion of previous theories". Olivelle is a recent reliable review RS for this article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:58, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok, but the debate is really about what Wujastyk has called a "new view of the history" and "shift in the historical knowledge." Are you concurring with that? - Kautilya3 (talk) 01:10, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: @Kautilya3: I avoided, and we must avoid, taking sides and presenting only primary research or only the "new view of the history" in this article. See Sushruta Samhita talk page, where @Wujastyk and I have been having a similar discussion. Your critical view and comments there are welcome. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:28, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources by @Wujastyk 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Arthashastra. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ne.jp/asahi/moriyuki/abukuma/weber/lecture/politics_vocation.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:36, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Dear reader, thanks for taking time to review this suggested edit. 
Please change:
"The colonial era scholar Max Weber observed in 1919, few years after the newly discovered Arthashastra manuscript's translation was first published:"
To:
"The scholar Max Weber observed in 1919, a few years after the newly discovered Arthashastra manuscript's translation was first published:"
Because:
1) Grammar: "a" few years. 
2) Qualification of Weber as a "colonial era scholar" is inaccurate and normative.
And please change: 
Truly radical "Machiavellianism", in the popular sense of that word, is classically expressed in Indian literature in the Arthashastra of Kautilya (written long before the birth of Christ, ostensibly in the time of Chandragupta): compared to it, Machiavelli's The Prince is harmless.[124]"
To: 
A really radical 'Machiavellianism,' in the popular sense of this word, is classically represented in Indian literature, in the Kautaliya Arthasastra (long before Christ, allegedly dating from Chandragupta's time). In contrast with this document Machiavelli's Principe is harmless.[124]"
Because: 
Translation of citation is not the same as translation in referenced source (https://web.archive.org/web/20100131051351/http://www.ne.jp/asahi/moriyuki/abukuma/weber/lecture/politics_vocation.html) Sandervanhaperen (talk) 17:03, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: @Sandervanhaperen: Thanks for the suggestions. Welcome to wikipedia, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:47, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 5 December 2016 

message: i listened to one scholar stating arthashastra has originally seventeen texts, all except one have been lost, when we observe it, the name seems more about science/shastra of artha/ livelihood/sustenance etc than the book. i think that a separate article should be made on arthashastra and this one labelled as book.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.137.72.188 (talk) 18:17, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  arthashastra book vs philosophy 

message: Arthashastra on war, or similar titles, Arthashastra on military affairs, can be new articles. This single paragraph helps explain why there could and should be a separate article on war:
Also, a simple comparative study shows similarities with The Art of War; this comparison can also be taken up, even in this article and with other texts. DTM (talk) 09:38, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Arthashastra'' on war 

message: If Arthashastra were a written text and was written in BCE the. few questions that need to be answered:
1. Which language it was written originally?
2. How can original work be less popular than its translations?
3. Ever sanskrit been written in any script other than Devnagari? 101.114.64.41 (talk) 12:39, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Arthashastra a written text?