Talk:Hindu Widows' Remarriage Act, 1856

Page Move

I have moved the page from "Widow Remarriage Act" to "Hindu Widows' Remarriage Act, 1856." The current page name is the accurate one. See, for example, Lucy Carroll's article cited in the references. I have also added some excerpts from the text of the act, and a late 18th century engraving of a Hindu widow. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:05, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

extraneous material

The line "To protect what it considered family honour and family property upper-caste Hindu society had long disallowed the remarriage of widows..."

In the Hindu Society (not only upper-caste Hindu) remarriage was not encouraged because the goal of life in Hindu Religion is Moksha not enjoyment of flesh. The death of a husband was thought of as a result of Karma of the woman.

So the stance of the sentence in this article is incorrect.

1859 source is too old

@Nottoocreative: The Edward Leckey 1859 source is very old, and does not qualify as a WP:HISTRS. Your summary "intent upon "destroying the religions of Hindustan," is WP:SOAP, and not really related to the subject of this article. Per WP:WWIN, wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of any information. Please discuss this and gain consensus. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:10, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: I certainly respect your opinion but please consider the following thoughts. As you know, much of India erupted in rebellion a few months after this Act was adopted, and in the passage I quoted, the Emperor cited the Act (along with banning sati, etc.) as examples of English interference with Indian religion that justified the Rebellion. Indeed, the Act is the first very first example that the Emperor mentioned. As such, these facts do appear to be "related to the subject of the article." The matter that you claim is WP:SOAP and/or "editorializing" is actually a direct quotation from the Mughal Emperor. Surely there is some way that this information can be included in the article without wikipedia becoming "an indiscriminate collection of any information." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nottoocreative (talk • contribs) 06:38, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

@Nottoocreative: The pages 47-52 of this very old source does not explicitly mention Remarriage Act. This is your original research (see WP:Synthesis). It does not belong in this article. You may want to include the then King of Delhi's views, from page 47 and 48 of this old source, on "English are people who overthrow all religions", his views on Koran, his views on English "order a widow to make a second marriage", etc. Even in that article, try adding a second more recent scholarship, as well the source's analysis that this was "fiction", to comply with WP:NPOV and to avoid cherrypicking. This is not the right article, per WP:SOAP and WP:OR guidelines. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:42, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: Okay, thanks, I see your point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.147.40.228 (talk) 18:22, 18 September 2016 (UTC)