Talk:Upayas (diplomacy)

India Low‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Hinduism Low‑importance

	Hinduism portal 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.HinduismWikipedia:WikiProject HinduismTemplate:WikiProject HinduismHinduism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wikify

A version of this article was wikified by Sumsum2010, a member of WikiProject Wikify, on March 9, 2011. The project welcomes all editors with a good grasp of wiki markup to help improve articles. Visit our project page if you're interested in joining! If you have questions, please ask at our talk page.WikifyWikipedia:WIKITemplate:WikiProject WikifyWikify articles

I need help rearranging the title to match the first line of the article. So it should read Sāma, Dāna, Bheda, Danda. Sucks being a n00b. arjunb.

OR, dispute

This article lacks WP:RS. I deleted the offtopic ELNO, blog-like sources that failed WP:Scholarship and read like WP:Soap - they were just not encyclopedic. I have also deleted absurd content, and tagged the rest of the article for now. The article lacks notability. It may be better to delete this article, or merge anything useful into separate Sama, Dāna, Bheda and Danda articles. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:56, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ghatus: Why is the primary research/opinions in the blog source reliable? Further, even in the ISDA opinion piece, I was unable to verify much you added back. I do not see support for seven techniques and all the tagged sentences. Please don't insert OR, particularly after your content has been disputed and challenged. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:03, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ghatus: I changed the title, and reworded it. I encourage you to find and add additional WP:RS. For now, this article lacks notability, and it may be better to merge this stub into another wikipedia article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:54, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kautilya3: What are your WP:3O thoughts on IDSA article. If it looks RS to you, I will accept your call, and will remove the tag. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:33, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The IDSA article is like a blog post, or at best an opinion column. It is clearly a nationalist view, and relying on colonial era research and shooting down contemporary scholars. It would be best to delete it. There is no shortage of published sources on the topic at Google books and Golgle scholar.

There are plenty of reliable sources. So an AfD won't succeed. It behooves on those that created this page to develop it sourced from good sources. - Kautilya3 (talk) 21:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kautilya3: Thanks. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:19, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity, why is Olivelle not being cited here (as in Arthashastra)?--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 07:14, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]