Talk:Dowry law in India

message: This page has Point of View problems. I want to move it to a better title. I suggest Dowry law in India. Objections? Zeimusu | (Talk page) 06:13, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
There have been no objections to this move. I will go ahead and make it.
POv tag entered. This page will need editing to make it more fully cover the topic. Also the external links should be trimmed. To make it less of a web directory.
:, finally! --Danger (talk) 03:51, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV problems and move 

message: 1. Objection 1 - Moving "Misuse of 498A" to more general Dowry Law page 
Section 498A is just one of the many dowry laws in India. Section 498A comes under Criminal Code and NOT under Civil Code. Civil code has more dowry laws.. and less stringent ones.. Misuse of 498A deals with just the Misuse aspect Section 498A, and not General Dowry Laws.
So, moving "Misuse of 498A" to a general "Dowry law" page does not make sense. This leads to your and my second objection. "PLEASE move latest Misuse of 498A page back to its original link.
2. Objection 2 - Adding Misuse of 498A under NPOV section
Dowry laws in India are pretty vast and 498A is just one section but very stringent one. The Misuse of 498A wiki page provides information from the Misuse perspective. 498A did help lots of women, but it spoiled the lives of many men also. So, this page is meant to provide information, links, support to the victims of misuse of 498A. This page and most of groups mentioned within unequivocally supports equal rights and equal justice. 
so... branding the misuse of 498A wiki content disputable is disputable.
498aVictim 14:47, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
:I hope to respond more fully later, but I have little time right now. Please see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not In particular wikipedia is not a soapbox, and wikipedia is not a web directory. An article on the various Dowry Laws in India is a useful article. A page describing the misuse of one of the sections is not a  useful wikipedia article. A page ment ot provide information links and support to victims is not a wikipedia article. So, I will not move this article back to it's old name, and I will not remove the ((POV)) tag from it. I hope to make some significant edits to it, to greatly change the current character. Zeimusu | (Talk page) 15:01, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
: I have now removed the web directory and somewhat rewrote it introduction to address the factual points you raise. Please feel free to improve it Zeimusu | (Talk page)
Misuse of dowry provisions is legal terrorism: CourtTerming the misuse of provisions of dowry harassment by women as "legal terrorism, a trial court has slammed such women who, in a bid to settle scores, drag all family members into a dowry harassment case though they may be "totally unconnected" with the case.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruproy1972 (talk • contribs) 12:24, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: No it is not really disputable. Wikipedia is not a support group. It's a neutral collection of relevant facts within the scope of particular articles. This content is disruptive. --Daydreamer302000 (talk) 09:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  498A misuse content in Dowry Law...is questionable 

message: : No it is not really disputable. Wikipedia is not a support group. It's a neutral collection of relevant facts within the scope of particular articles. This content is disruptive. --Daydreamer302000 (talk) 09:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  

message: revision of Dowry: Legislation and status in India, redirected but not merged here, contains several things not here, and even shows by example a better topic-by-topic structure that can be used to make this article less lop-sided in place of the current poor pro and con list structure that it has. 
~ Uncle G (talk) 11:01, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lopsidedness and poor treatment of the subject 

message: "Legal terrorism" redirects here.  Does the phrase "legal terrorism" refer exclusively to Indian dowry law?  If not, the redirect makes no sense and should be deleted, it seems to me.  (Notice that this article only contains two instances of the phrase, one of which is not really encyclopedic.  If the phrase really does have relevance to the article, then there should be at least a sentence or two in the article describing that relevance, with a corresponding citation [e.g. "Misuse of this law has been called 'legal terrorism'."].)  Augurar (talk) 03:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Legal terrorism"? 

message: Hello everyone, I am a student working to revise this page and contributing to the section on "Laws against dowry" in the article titled "Dowry system in India". I notice that this page (Dowry law in India) only briefly introduces the concept of dowry and it is predominantly in the nature of a reproduction of the legal provisions from the key statutes (such as the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, the Indian Penal Code and the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005). Further, it also has certain grammar/spelling errors; the article has been flagged by Wikipedia as having multiple issues requiring clean-up and additional citations for verifications. I was wondering if this page could be combined with the article on Dowry system in India as the dowry system and the laws are essentially part of the same situation.
Separately, in terms of revising the section on "Laws against dowry" in Dowry system in India, I would like to expand the article by briefly adding to the introduction with the conceptual significance of dowry along with the cultural context for the practice in India. Then, I will discuss the relevant legal statutes prohibiting the practice along with certain important case law. I also propose to discuss the types of crimes which are tackled by the dowry prohibition laws in India, e.g., torture/harassment, bride burning, abetment to suicide, domestic violence, etc.
I look forward to your thoughts on whether the articles should be combined and also, on how I should proceed with my edits to make it a reader-friendly article.
Sm1986 (talk) 22:46, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to combine articles 

message: Substituted at 13:47, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment