Talk:2016 petition to remove Sheldon Pollock from Murty Classical Library

Move and previous discussions

The content of this article was moved from Petition to remove Pollock from Murty Classical Library. See Talk:Sheldon Pollock for previous discussions. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:55, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't think this spin-off is such a good idea. We can't keep creating pages for every petition that gets put up by people. This was a relatively short-lived one. I think a redirect to the section in Sheldon Pollock would have been enough. - Kautilya3 (talk) 09:53, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Let it cool down. The page on Sheldon Pollock should not be dominated by this petition. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:10, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

OK, but if we have a separate page on it, the "peanut gallery" comment should go in, as well as comments by Wujastyk, Romila Thapar and others. - Kautilya3 (talk) 10:37, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Fair, I guess; also becaude I've expanded the article with quotes from the petition, as our friends demanded. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:26, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Ramasubramanian and Srinivas counter-response

This edit added large chunks of text; might as well have added the full text as one quote... This is not the way to write an encyclopedia. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:08, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan, you write Wujastyk responses as an ugly blockquote, it's fine. Someone one else do it, 'it's not the way to write encyclopedia'. HemaChandra88 (talk) 15:29, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan and @Kautilya3, This is preposterous. See what you have made of this article by your agenda pushing. You claim block quotes are ugly, but happily accept blockquotes in contents 'you' have written. I'm going to escalate this. Ciao. HemaChandra88 (talk) 08:54, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

@HemaChandra88: there are few block-quotes in the other sections, and extended quotes in the notes at the "Counter-response" section. Note that there is general agreement at Wikipedia that you don't write articles by copy-pasting quotes. It makes for unreadable articles, as exemplified by your copy-pasting. I'm actually still quite friendly on this; others will be more outspoken. if you think that 'escalating this' is the right track, I think you're going to face more problems. See WP:DISRUPTIVE. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:04, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:QUOTEFARM and WP:LONGQUOTE, that's what I was looking for. And WP:COPYQUOTE: "The copied material should not comprise a substantial portion of the work being quoted." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:27, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Removal of "opposite point of view" as "subjective opinion"

This edit removed the following text (second half):

"The petitioners quoted from Pollock's speech What is South Asian Knowledge Good For?,

in which Pollock argued for the opposite point of view of what the petitioners implied. Pollock defended the relevance of these knowledge systems, rhetorically asking if there "any decision makers" who do not deem Asian knowledge systems to have lost their relevance."

References

with the following edit-summary:

subjective opinion of a person. Cannot summarily reject petitioner's POV. The rejoinder by prof. rama clearly elucidates their opinion."

It's not only the POV of Majumdar and Indrani Basu, but also of Wujastyk and Rohan Murty. The fact that the professors do not agree with this understanding, does not mean you can delete it. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:22, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan, Then, please write it as such. Please quote who's opinion is it. If Majumdar/Murthy/Wujastyk thinks so, please use his name. You cannot summmarily say a particular interpretation is wrong if a few people think so.HemaChandra88 (talk) 15:29, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Ramasubramanian and Srinivas counter-response #2

I've further shortened thee subsection onR&S' reply:

• I've shortened R&S' reply to the 2012 speech, for better readability; full quotes are still available in the notes.
• I've removed the response to the 1985 paper; it's of minor importance, and readers can read the whole part in the email themselves.
• I've also removed the Gandhi-quote; Gandhi is nice to quite, of course, but it's an 'element of style', so to speak, and not an essential argument in their response. This, too, readers can read elsewhere.
• And I've [V shortened] the closing comment, condencing it to the essentials.

I think that a shorter section makes for a better reading, and brings over (taht's not correct english, is it?) their message better. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:31, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan You have literally altered the main concerns of Srinivas and Rama. The main point of Pollock not refuting any of those assertion have been sidelined as mere footnotes, while you chose to highlight the worthless points in their response. What a pity! HemaChandra88 (talk) 09:05, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

On the contrary. You omitted the main point, as very clearly stated by Ramasubramanian and Srinivas themselves. This is what I added to the article:

"In an email-response at the Indology Discussion Forum to Wujastyk, Prof. K Ramasubramanian from Indian Institute of Technology Bombay and M. D. Srinivas from ICHR wrote that Wujastyk remained silent on their main concern, namely the signing by Sheldon Pollock of two statements which "do not condemn the protesters who called for the dismemberment of India and abused the Supreme Court of India for “judical killing”."[12] According to them, Pollock and the other signatories had "no respect for the unity and integrity of India which has been won after a long struggle of the Indian people against colonial rule."[12]"

I don't know how you read texts, but if you fail to catch this point, that's weird. They explicitly state that this is their main objection! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:11, 9 March 2016 (UTC)