Talk:Legal terrorism

Redirect or delete?
Is it just me, or does linking a vague political term to a specific area seem a tad bit misleading? Calling the dowry law of India "legal terrorism" seems quite offensive, akin redirecting Bullshit to Law of the United States. PotentialDanger (talk) 00:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Deleted content
I arrived at this redirect from an entirely unrelated page. The impression was political vandalism, hence my deletion. I see now that a redirect consensus was reached from an earlier version of the page. I don't have an account anymore (no patience with the hostility and politics), so I haven't attempted to call a vote on this content deletion.

Revert if you wish, but consider that:
 * the pages linking to Legal terrorism have no continuity with the topic Dowry laws of India.
 * the latter is not a generalization of the former, rather at best an instance of it.

Redirecting is plain misleading at best, especially given the source articles. The use of the term in India, referenced in the vote, whether real or not, is a subject for a national language WP version. Absent an article on Legal terrorism, where a "See also" or other mention may be appropriate, it is impossible for me (as a reader, not editor) to experience the redirect as other than POV. This redirect was an epic QA fail... 85.200.17.164 (talk) 15:28, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree with the above
I came here from a general legal wikipage on Chilling_Effects. I was expecting to read about harassment by state or private actors through legal means. Indian dowry laws seem way to specific for such a broad term. 109.33.67.73 (talk) 10:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)