Talk:Murty Classical Library of India

Arjuna and the Hunter
Kirātārjunīya by Bharavi has already been translated by Carl Cappeller in 1912 as Volume 15 of the Harvard Oriental Series. Solomon7968 10:12, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Petition 2016
@, why are you reverting sourced material? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HemaChandra88 (talk • contribs) 18:29, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I have copied NPOV text agreed between a number of editors on the Sheldon Pollock page. This entire section has to do with Sheldon Pollock, and nothing about Murty Classical Library. So, you can either accept this NPOV text or delete the whole thing as being WP:UNDUE here. The petitioners haven't said a single word about the library. - Kautilya3 (talk) 18:35, 7 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Blatant Untruth serves no purpose. Title of Petition itself is "Removal of Sheldon Pollock as mentor and Chief Editor of Murty Classical Library". "Not one word" says.
 * The petition starts with the following words:
 * "We the undersigned would like to convey our deep appreciation for your good intentions and financial commitment to establish the Murty Classical Library of India......." It ends with specific requests. It says:
 * "There must be a written seret of standards and policies for the entire project, pertaining to the translation methodologies, historical assumptions and philosophical interpretations that would be used consistently in all volumes."
 * Is this about Sheldon Pollock only?
 * I am reverting the edits by, as he has removed duly referenced material. It may be seen that infact he has added content that is unsourced and without NPOV.

Adiagr (talk) 18:46, 7 March 2016 (UTC)


 * As you wish. You are simply wasting your time. Once this goes to NPOV noticeboard, they will repeat what I said that only those issues that pertain to the Murty Classical Library can stay. We will of course add Murty's "peanut gallery" response, which has clearly to do with the library. - Kautilya3 (talk) 18:57, 7 March 2016 (UTC)


 * You have deleted loads of sourced content from the NPOV text that I copied, and you have never written a single word of explanation of what you are doing. This doesn't bode well. - Kautilya3 (talk) 19:00, 7 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Kautilya3 It is a request to spend some time in reading. It is not a case of mutually exclusive issues.Adiagr (talk) 19:27, 7 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Read what, pray tell me. All the sources have been read and thoroughly debated on the Talk:Sheldon Pollock page, as the events unfolded. Neither you nor have participated in those debates. Now you come here and do edits like these:
 * edit 1 where you claim that "reportedly said" is a "violation of NPOV" (I would like you to cite the policy that says that), and delete the entire response of Rohan Murty, whose library you are supposed to be talking about!
 * edit 2, where you claim that "the editor is unaware of the exact sequence of events" and delete a whole bunch of explanation of how the petitioners made incompetent claims, and precisely make those very same claims! The citation you retained says the exact opposite of your claim: In fact, had the petitioners quoted the sentences preceding this paragraph, it would have been clear that Pollock was not stating his own position but critiquing the position of others. So much for "reading!"
 * edit 3, where you yet again delete sourced content about Rohan Murty response hiding behind "reportedly."
 * This is the extent of your reading! About your co-editor HemaChandra88's edits (which you reinstated), the less said the better. I am giving you time to straighten out these problems and reinstate the NPOV text I copied. Otherwise, you will go up on everybody's radar screen as a POV-pusher. - Kautilya3 (talk) 20:35, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Petitoners
I've removed the list of petioners; it's WP:UNDUE. This article is about the Murty Classical Libary; it's not a WP:COATRACK for this petition. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   20:38, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Unclear, incorrect English

 * "The petition notes from the long academic career of Prof. Pollock that it is well-known that he has "deep antipathy towards many of the ideals and values cherished and practiced in our (Indian) civilization.""
 * Can this be noted from his "long academic career"?
 * Is it "well-known" that he has "deep antipathy etc."? This is so according to the petitoners.


 * "The petition also cites that Pollock's political activism unrelated to academia condemning the Government of India in its various actions which potentially undermines it's sovereignty and integrity including 2016 JNU sedition controversy."
 * Does it cite? Or does it state?
 * "Pollock's political activism unrelated to academia condemning the Government of India in its various actions which potentially undermines it's sovereignty and integrity including 2016 JNU sedition controversy." - what does this mean?

Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   20:49, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Shortened
I've shortened the ectiion on the petition, and added a link to the specific section at the Sheldon Polloch article. This article is about an outstanding library, not about some people who can't appreciate the efforts to make India's valuable heritage available to those who are only schooled in English, and not in the great classical language of India. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   20:56, 7 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The name Classical is reserved for dead languages. West certainly wants Sanskrit to be dead, which it is not. I request not to insult our heritage by using your terminologies. You have to only see the robust Sanskrit scholarship prevalent in India. I am listing a summary of Sheldon Pollock's views on Sanskrit. The petitioners highlight that a person with such a view point is not ideal candidate for editing Sanskrit texts. In that sense the petition does bring in Sheldon Pollock. Adiagr (talk) 04:23, 8 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Is that so? Well, I think that you understand very well that this was not meant as an insult.   Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   05:55, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject assessment
This article lacks a proper structure and coverage for it to be classified as C.
 * Make sure the WP:LEAD section is separate from the body and summarises it.
 * Try to expand it further. The way I see it, the scope of this article is not much so there might be difficulties in doing this. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 07:43, 8 March 2016 (UTC)