Talk:Hindu law/Archive 1

Comment
Good work so far, but all those subheadings will have to go as. =Nichalp  «Talk»=  05:52, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

copyvio
Some sections are straight rip-offs from http://india.eu.org/265.html --Gurubrahma 06:28, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Seems like the last edit by User:Rohitde is a nice copy-paste from sites such as http://india.eu.org/265.html, http://www.payer.de/dharmashastra/dharmash09b.htm & http://www.indiatogether.org/manushi/issue100/sivarama.htm, but nevertheless would qualify as copyvio. --Gurubrahma 08:40, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute
I see that someone has questioned the neutrality of this article (May 2011) but has not indicated anywhere what the problem is. There may be a few sentences here and there that express argumentative positions that are not fully neutral by Wikipedia standards, but I don't see a problem overall with the article. If others think the POV is biased, could they please explain the nature of their objection? I'll leave the tag there for a while, but if I don't see an explanation on this page in a month or so, I'll remove it. Even better would be to edit those passages that seem to express a non-neutral perspective.Drdj (talk) 19:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

As promised, I removed the NPOV tag, since no specific criticism of the article's neutrality has been made. I think everyone interested in this article is happy to revisit this issue, if there are specific concerns.Drdj (talk) 15:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Dharma is not equal to "Just" Law.
If I consult the 'Dharma' wiki page it talks about 'Hindu Dharma' in such a small section!! The Buddhist Section has more material.

Also Dharma page describes Hindu Law as the main page. I'd added a link and a book reference (in 2009). These described Dharma in far more detail than anything I've found in wikipedia. It was written by Sri Chandrashekarendra Saraswati (Shankaracharya of Kanchi Kamkoti).

Funnily enough such an important text available online is removed as link spam. No wonder Hindu Dharma section has so little to offer any reader.

This is not the first time I've seen people summarily removing things to suit their own sense of 'order'. Is wikipedia meant as a source of authoritative information or just something that regular editor's want to make of it?

Dharma is NOT just Hindu Law a figment of the British colonizers. It is far more evolved and spiritual in Nature than just rules and laws. Amazing how well intentioned "curation" can make an article go bald from excessive, compulsive "pruning".

Gurudutt (talk) 17:34, 11 October 2013 (UTC)