Talk:Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

Requested move 16 October 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved per consensus and policy. Tiggerjay (talk) 19:51, 22 October 2015 (UTC) Tiggerjay (talk) 19:51, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

---

(non-admin closure)

Hindu Marriage Act → Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – year is an integral part of name, hence requesting redirect -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 10:45, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose there is no need for unnecessary disambiguation sst✈ 02:35, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation SSTflyer? I asked for full name not disambig. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 04:16, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

See WP:COMMONNAME. sst✈ 04:17, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

• Move to The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Per MOS:LAW, titles of legal articles are formatted according to the citation convention of that law's jurisdiction. In India, it appears the proper title is "The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955" (with the word "The" in front). -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:27, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Please do not erase data on this page

--A2c1 (talk) 09:21, 12 August 2020 (UTC) An unknown user 2a00:23c6:1482:a100:4811:49f8:7fb7:272a has been deleting information & data in this page. Please don't erase information or data on this page. This page needs much more aditions — Preceding unsigned comment added by A2c1 (talk • contribs) 03:55, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

That’s not how it works. If you include a, quite honestly, barely coherent list of blatant opinions, then yes, it should be deleted. Nothing is fully deleted on Wikipedia so your edits will remain in the page history, but the section you included should not be part of the article. Whether it has links or not is not the same as whether it has reasonable sources. Harsimaja (talk) 15:30, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

--A2c1 (talk) 17:43, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I have not denied that the language may not have complied to a feeling of "impartiality", however this article itself is an incorrect representation of the ground realities. The way this reads, is not correct as it happens on ground. The links that I shared were authentic. How does one add correct information with a request "please feel free to edit, but not eliminate"

Thank You very much --A2c1 (talk) 17:43, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

A2c1 (talk) 17:13, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

This article is misleading especially on what it claims to be "Hindu view point of marriage" & is also misleading when it claims that Hindu Marriages are "only social obligation", whereas India already had sufficient laws for marriages. It is also misleading when it claims that as the name of the Act reads "Hindu Marriage Act", fact of the Matter is that it is actually the Divorce Act which has been placed without sufficient consultation.

It is also misleading as it claims that Sanatan Dharma (Hinduism as this article claims) is only a religion.

There are sufficient articles which I can quote within wikipedia that, that this article does not consider.

There are sufficient articles on Hinduism, Sanatan Dharma, ManuSmriti within the wikipedia domain that this article does not source information from.

There are also many sections of the Hindu Marriage Act which are used, which have not been mentioned here.

Thank You very much

A2c1 (talk) 17:13, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Oxford University Press publishes about a dozen of articles about the subject matter. All of them are freely available but users ned to have an account, probably even not institutional. An Introduction to Hindu Jurisprudence seems to be particularly meaningful on the basic differences among Western and Indian jurisprudence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.51.12.101 (talk) 08:24, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

--A2c1 (talk) 17:38, 13 October 2020 (UTC) Thank You very much for the link.

In fact the best way to understand the Sanatan Dharmic Marriages (misquoted in this entire article as Hindu Marriages) is to read Manusmriti. India already had a fully functional Family Court systems that existed here for 1000s of years, which were much better than the European & Arabic ones which have been superimposed in India. It is best to first reference them, before starting this particular article on the so called version of Hindu Religion Marriages. In the past the judiciary were provided positive powers to help retain relations in families upto 4 generations. Whereas the current Family court systems are designed to apply for divorce (complete family break down of even Parents with minor children, which is very un-scientific) which is also a negative power of the court. Like wise there are too many issues that are not in sync with the civil society in India.

It is incorrect to claim that the western model is based on science whereas the Indian model is based on philosophy. The correct picture is that the western model is based on crime, 3rd party investigation, and then punishment which is based on Arabic concepts that pre date Christianity & Islam. Whereas the Indian Model is based on Justice delivery (prevention of crime is more important) through more than 1000s of years of continuous practice & experience.

Thanks again for the link. I hope that this article is Indianized for a change

--A2c1 (talk) 17:38, 13 October 2020 (UTC)