Talk:Hindu law

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

message: Some sections are straight rip-offs from http://india.eu.org/265.html --Gurubrahma 06:28, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  copyvio 

message: I am reviewing this article, in preparation to possible nomination for good article status. Right now I am mainly working on bringing it in line with the fine-print of wikipedia's  manual of style. Here I will note the issues that I have questions about and cannot resolve by myself:
* I moved the references to standard works on Modern Hindu law from the lead sentence to the Further reading section. As a result the first sentence is now unreferenced. Can some of the main editors add a reference (with page number) there ?
* The Anglo-Indian law section had the line "an excellent survey of Anglo-Hindu Law can be found in Derrett 1961". I have moved the reference to the Further reading section also, but am not clear which work is being referenced.
* Suggestion: It is a good idea to familiarize oneself with the citation templates, , ,  etc. That way one can avoid the intricacies of reference formatting (proper itlics, quotation marks, sequencing of fields etc). Another useful tool is this template filler, which will generate the correctly formatted template reference from the ISBNs.
Abecedare (talk) 00:05, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added a reference for the opening sentence and found the 1961 Derrett article being referred to!  Lotus (talk) 04:27, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks LitH! I'll resume reviewing the article tomorrow and add to the notes if I have any questions. Abecedare (talk) 04:32, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notes 

message: 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)
thread_title: NPOV Dispute

message: 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)
thread_title:  Dharma is not equal to "Just" Law.