Talk:Manusmriti/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Ambedkar

I am pasting the relevant test from Babasaheb Ambedkars book, "Revolution and Counter Revolution in India". this is essential to understand the date of writing of the Manusmriti

""""It (Buddhism) did not remain as one of the many diverse religions then in vogue. Ashoka made it the religion of the state. This of course was the greatest blow to Brahmanism. The Brahmins lost all state partonage and were neglected to a secondary and subsidiary position in the Empire of Ashoka.

Indeed it may be said to have been suppressed for the simple reason that Ashoka prohibited all animal sacrifices which constituted the very essence of Brahmanic Religion.

The Brahmins had not only lost state partonage but they lost their occupation which mainly consisted in performing sacrifices for a fee which often times was very substantial and which constituted their chief source of living. The Brahmins therefore lived as the suppressed and Depressed Classes2 [f58] for nearly 140 years during which the Maurya Empire lasted.

A rebellion against the Buddhist state was the only way of escape left to the suffering Brahmins and there is special reason why Pushyamitra should raise the banner of revolt against the rule of the Mauryas. Pushyamitra was a Sung by Gotra.

The Sungas were Samvedi Brahmins,3[f59] who believed in animal sacrifices and soma sacrifices. The Sungas were therefore quite naturally smarting under the prohibition on animal sacrifices throughout the Maurya Empire proclaimed in the very Rock Edict by Ashoka.

No wonder if Pushyamitra who as a Samvedi Brahmin was the first to conceive the passion to end the degradation of the Brahmin by destroying the Buddhist state which was the cause of it and to free them to practise their Brahmanic religion.

That the object of the Regicide by Pushyamitra was to destroy Buddhism as a state religion and to make the Brahmins the sovereign rulers of India so that with the political power of the state behind it Brahmanism may triumph over Buddhism is borne out by two other circumstances.

The first circumstance relates to the conduct of Pushyamitra himself. There is evidence that Pushyamitra after he ascended the throne performed the Ashvamedha Yajna or the horse sacrifice, the vedic rite which could only be performed by a paramount sovereign. As Vincent Smith observes :

"The exaggerated regard for the sanctity of animal life, which was one of the most cherished features of Buddhism, and the motive of Ashoka's most characterisitic legislation, had necessarily involved the prohibition of bloody sacrifices, which are essential to certain forms of Brahmanical worship, and were believed by the orthodox to possess the highest saving efficacy. The memorable horse sacrifices of Pushyamitra marked an early stage in the Brahmanical reaction, which was fully developed five centuries later in the time of Samudragupta and his successors."

Then there is evidence that Pushyamitra after his accession launched a violent and virulent campaign of persecution against Buddhists and Buddhism.

How pitiless was the persecution of Buddhism by Pushyamitra can be gauged from the Proclamation which he issued against the Buddhist monks. By this proclamation Pushyamitra set a price of 100 gold pieces on the head of every Buddhist monk. [f60]

Dr. Haraprasad Shastri speaking about the persecution of Buddhists under Pushyamitra says[f61]  :

"The condition of the Buddhists under the imperial sway of the Sungas, orthodox and bigotted, can be more easily imagined than described. From Chinese authorities it is known that many Buddhists still do not pronounce the name of Pushyamitra without a curse."

II

If the Revolution of Pushyamitra was a purely political revolution there was no need for him to have launched a compaign of persecution against Buddhism which was not very different to the compaign of persecution launched by the Mahamad of Gazni against Hinduism. This is one piece of circumatantial evidence which proves that the aim of Pushyamitra was to overthrow Buddhism and establish Brahmanism in its place.

Another piece of evidence which shows that the origin and purpose of the revolution by Pushyamitra against the Mauryas was to destroy Buddhism and establish Brahmanism is evidenced by the promulgation of Manu Smriti as a code of laws.

The Manu Smriti is said to be divine in its origin. It is said to be revealed to man by Manu to whom it was revealed by the Swayambhu (i.e. the Creator). This claim, as will be seen from the reference already made to it, is set out in the Code itself. It is surprizing that nobody has cared to examine the grounds of such a claim. The result is that there is a complete failure to realise the significance, place and position of the Manu Smriti in the history of India. This is true even of the historians of India although the Manu Smriti is a record of the greatest social revolution that Hindu society has undergone. There can however be no doubt that the claim made in the Manu Smriti regarding its authorship is an utter fraud and the beliefs arising out of this false claim are quite untenable.

The name Manu had a great prestige in the ancient history of India and it is with the object to invest the code with this ancient prestige that its authorship was attributed to Manu. That this was a fraud to deceive people is beyond question. The code itself is signed[f62] in the family name of Bhrigu as was the ancient custom. "The Text Composed by Bhrigu (entitled) "The Dharma Code of Manu" is the real title of the work. The name Bhrigu is subscribed to the end of every chapter of the Code itself. We have therefore the family name of the author of the Code. His personal name is not disclosed in the Book. All the same it was known to many. The Author of Narada Smriti writing in about the 4th Century A.D. knew the name of the author of the Manu Smriti and gives out the secret. According to Narada it was one Sumati Bhargava who composed the Code of Manu. Sumati Bhargava is not a legendary name, and must have been historical person for even Medhatithe[f63] the great commentator on the Code of Manu held the view that this Manu was 'a certain individual'. Manu therefore is the assumed name of Sumati Bhargava who is the real author of Manu Smriti.

When did this Sumati Bhargava compose this Code? It is not possible to give any precise date for its composition. But quite a precise period during which it was composed can be given. According to scholars whose authority cannot be questioned Sumati Bhargava must have composed the Code which he deliberately called Munu Smriti between 170 B.C. and 150 B.C. Now if one bears in mind the fact that the Brahmanic Revolution by Pushyamitra took place in 185 B.C. there remains no doubt that the code known as Manu Smriti was promulgated by Pushyamitra as embodying the principles of Brahmanic Revolution against the Buddhist state of the Mauryas. That the Manu Smriti forms the Institutes of Brahmanism and are a proof that Pushyamitra Revolution was not a purely personal adventure will be clear to any one who cares to note the following peculiarities relating to the Manu Smriti."""" http://www.ambedkar.org/ambcd/19B.Revolution%20and%20Counter%20Rev.in%20Ancient%20India%20PART%20II.htm#a7

The bit where the manusmriti is dated as being composed around 200BCE has no references and seems to be a ridiculously late date. While it is a fact that the greek invaded around that time, most of the tribes mentioned there are said to have been exiled from the northwestern parts of Afghanistan - this is recorded in the Puranas. So the justification for the date (200 BCE) is no more tenable than my claim. Until a solid reference based on proper historical research (as opposed to historical conjecture) is given, the chronology should be removed.

Completely non-neutral

This page seems to have been hijacked by people with a (possibly) genuine grevience against Manusmriti. It shows only the point of view of one section of people. But, that has no place on wikipedia if it is supposed to be neutral. This page should probably be rewitten from scratch.

Concurring Opinion

Did anyone notice that this article simply goes on about how the caste system is a way of subjugating those born into "lower" castes? What about the other things that are in the Manusmriti? Like sexuality, for example? This article takes a negative tone about the entire works and does not consider it as a whole.

Object

I had edited this page yesterday, but it is gone. To start with let me propose that hindu mythology doesn't say that Manu is forefather of "human race", it is (wo)man . the race word should be omitted.

Can the person who has added a story on Pushymitra reply on why is such interpretation is important to be included here, if not for derogatory purposes. Historians have been saying all sorts of things, of how fair skinned aryans invaded the dravidians, and that is all about the roots and everything that sprang from it. Such stuff should be edited out from hinduism pages, instead be contained in history pages.

Latest Research on The Manusmriti

In the late 1970's, Prof. Dr. Surendra Kumar had done a research work on Manusmriti to remove all interpolations. He research work has been published by Arsh Sahitya Prachar Trust, Delhi in the form of Sampoorna Manusmriti. It had received a wide applause from the Vedic Scholars and Arya Samaj Mandirs in India. This book claims it is the first successful attempt at removing all interpolations. In this book, the researcher has given detailed commentary on all verses in Manusmriti and also explained in detail regarding why a particular verse was an interpoltion. Later Vishuddha Manusmriti was published which contained only the authoritative verses and all interpolations removed. Since there had been no article speaking about this work, also taking into consideration the importance of this book (all Arya Samaj mandirs and vedic scholars in India at present refer to only this work in all matters pertaining to Manusmriti), i have added an article. plz covey ur views. Rockwillgetu

Table of Contents

The formatting for the Table of Contents taken from Olivelle needs to be fixed and the whole thing properly cited.

Drdj (talk) 03:17, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Hercules = Hari Krishna

Er, where is the source for this very matter-of-fact assertion that the god whom Megasthenes describes as Hercules was in fact "Hari Krishna"? --SohanDsouza (talk) 09:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, I can't find any info about this. Is there anyone who can help? leaflord (talk) 14:14, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Bharuci wrote a commentary in 7th century BC while manusmrii was written 2nd century BC? Is that some kind of a joke?? Vishal Agrawal —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.236.12.149 (talk) 15:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Bharuchi is 7th century AD not BC. leaflord (talk) 14:14, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Dates and Periods of Origin

Did anyone notice a pattern on what appears to be how all Wiki articles talk about all Hiduism texts date only back to a few centuries BC? I did see some articles saying words like "some believe it was written around 1000 BC" and later I find such text magically disappear.

Of course, we need valid references. But most times the "valid" part becomes something as in researched by a Western scholor, researched in Western style. Doesn't it? I saw it in other Hinduism articles' talk pages. Please consider Veda's for example. Valmiki is another best example. He is dated to a date which is established by a Western scholor, no Indian/eastern or traditional perspective is presented.

My proposal is to present all traditional, eastern, Indian and Western opinions as well. As far as Indian texts are concerned, let's not try to declare "authoritative" dates, because the dates can only be "considered authoritative". 168.159.160.57 (talk) 14:40, 5 September 2011 (UTC) Guttina

Does not conform to Wikipedia standards.

This article is completely non-neutral and does not conform to Wikipedia standards. It looks like the author of this article has a very biased opinion about Manusmriti in particular and the sacred scriptures in general. In my opinion, it is best to leave the choice, to the reader, of deciding the merit of the work only after reading it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.81.17.55 (talk) 20:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Manusmriti’s most controversial part ,discrimination against Women and Shudra,

Some user deleting following most controversial part continuously. It shall be stopped. If anybody thinks presentation style is not good, it can be changed.but deleting this part will make article incomplete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JUGAL70 (talk • contribs)

Jugal, I have had to revert your edits once more since they did not address any of the concerns I raised at your talk page, and in reply to your message at mine. As I have said before, I have no objection to adding content about what Manusmriti has to say about women or shudras, but adding a selective quote farm is not the way to do so. I'd suggest that you use this talk page to craft the content you wish to add, since edit-warring at the article will only get you blocked, and is not a productive strategy. Abecedare (talk) 05:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

How to protect a biased & Non neutral article from editing? A very interesting example.

Some wiki administrator adopt a very different technique to protect a biased & Non neutral articles. They create a sock account ( another account) and start vandalism of article themselves. Delete text without any thought in mind and after half an hour they login to their real account(now they are wiki administrator] start using template for protection of page. They write something [ vandalism, excessive OR, disruption, sockpuppetry].Pgae is protected for 2 months or 1 year.

If you do not believe what i wrote please check this page as on 14:04, 24 April 2010

Text added with number of reliable references mostly Google Books about widely talked controversies in Manusmriti.User or wiki admin SpacemanSpiff used sock account name Shiladitya78, deleted some text and protected this article removing Laws of Manusmriti for women and Shudra.Later Shiladitya78 blocked indefinitely.

--117.192.176.152 (talk) 16:32, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

You are claiming that an admin is using a sock account. Take it to WP:ANI and/or WP:UC. Thanks. --dab (𒁳) 20:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The British Raj Worsened the Caste System

From page 635 of The Earth and Its Peoples, Third Edition:

The British and Indian elites danced sometimes in close partnership, sometimes in apparent opposition. But the ordinary people of India suffered. Women of every status, members of subordinate Hindu castes, the “untouchables” and “tribals” outside the caste system, and the poor generally experienced less benefit from the British reforms and much new oppression from the taxes and “traditions” that exalted their superiors’ status.

Hokie Tech (talk) 14:43, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Hirdip, 16 April 2011

1. Origin of the World (1.1-119)

There is no narration in Patrick Olivelle's "The Law Code of Manu" : Intruduction- page xxx. Please remove the request to help. If you need proof, let me know, I can send you a copy.

Hirdip (talk) 14:22, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe I solved the problem, if I did not let me know. _{@ d \/\/ | | |}^Talk 19:59, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Twilight of the Idols reference

Not sure I'm doing this right, just wanted to point out the bit taken from Twilight that it's suggested here is a criticism of Manusmrti is an obvious and possibly intentional misrepresentation of of the text and Nietzsche's intent. The explanation at Tschandala is much more helpful and accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.45.144.250 (talk) 11:14, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you, I am just reading "The Twilight of the Idols" and I don't think Nietzsche's intention was to criticize Manusmrti, he is rather quite laudatory even though he acknowledges that is terrible, the quotation is misleading because out of context and if we read the whole fragment we realize he is not at all critic with Manusmrti.Rdelaro (talk) 15:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

POV pushing by User:Naveen Reddy

I have reverted multiple edits by User:Naveen Reddy which changed section titles, biased the lead, had incomplete citations (missing page numbers) or unreliable sources (e.g. a blog) and amounted to massive POV pushing. They were also written like an essay. Elsewhere, e.g. in this edit, the user has inserted the same blog links as a source, which he calls "an excellent source" and given highly POV summary which reads "Excellent reference to prove my point that manusmrithi is a ultra racist document ! which screwed destiny of India", speaks about the reliability of the edits of the user. For this article, there is a section on criticism and criticism should be confined to that section from reliable sources. Yojakanaaman (talk) 06:20, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi @ Yoja I now added proper references to my edits, not just only the blog reference but rest like the original Book ref and others including page numbers and lines in the book. Now I hope these should validate the reason for my edits. Comments and contest of edits welcome ?!. I'm open to discussion and learning Naveen Reddy 17:06, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Your edits violate many Wikipedia policies (WP:POV, WP:UNDUE, WP:COPYVIO, and several more). Your edits under "Salient features of Manusmrithi" (sic) are lifted point by point from a website. These are critical views and must be attributed to the author and moved to the criticism section. Wikipedia is not a forum for bashing Manu. Yojakanaaman (talk) 01:27, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

They are by point presentation of the important points in manusmrithi and also I started by saying what it says about caste system not talking about contents. There is no mention of these points any where in the article and no one can argue how manusmrithi and caste system are related. I'm not critisizing any one rather I'm mentioning the important points also didn't modify or remove anything around it. It presents a strong evidence that how Brahmin class exploited illiterate Indians in the past to present. I feel strongly it is appropriate to be present in that section because its not critisism. I mentioned the references also. Whats wrong if I lifted the points from some other source till its valid ans sensible and mention the source

Naveen Reddy 16:44, 11 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naveen Reddy (talk • contribs)

The last foot note by the Canadian professor seems to present a balanced and neutral appraisal of the "Manu Way" and goes further showing it's relative position to some of the other variants or strains. That's POV too I suppose; but, I suggest that more of his work be incorporated into the the main page. Good work; interesting stuff.

Regards, PSW. four tiledes Psw808 (talk) 22:40, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 July 2012

In this article of 'Manu Smriti' which is the sacred law book of Hinduism, given by the father of human society 'Manu' from whose name humans are called 'Man' in English, there appears to be a major biased element. The section called 'Salient features of Manu Smriti' has been taken from a biased source and is not presenting the true, factual and unbiased information about the scripture. THIS HURTS THE RELIGIOUS SENTIMENTS OF OVER A BILLION HINDUS WORLDOVER and thus, it is my request that please delete this section and replace it with the information from a valid and unbiased source like the opinion of an expert indologist with some reputed university. Thanks. Rasabiharidas (talk) 09:22, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Please provide the exact change you'd like made. If you write up a section that could replace it, then your request could be considered. In addition, if you provided evidence that the section was incorrect, we could remove it for the time being. Ryan Vesey Review me! 13:58, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Bias Alert

"8a. Many feel Manusmrithi is so unjust and so out of tune with our existing values that even an objective exposition reads like a severe condemnation. Many Indians reject varna-vyavastha because it is irrational, unjust and undemocratic,is being opposed to the democratic and human values of liberty, equality and fraternity."

Clearly the above is just biased ranting. It doesn't have a place in an encyclopedia, although it should be in an essay. I think this makes the article deserving of a POV banner.125.17.230.98 (talk) 10:09, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Too many Tags

Several tags have been put on the page on 11th Sept. 2012, like Confusing, Unrelated sources, Have Intricate Details, Grammer, Cohesion, Spellings, Reorganise, Relocation of Information, Very Long, Needs Splitting. It is not that bad as it is made out to be. There are 59 citations, most of them from Book it self, which are relevent and genuine. Yes, reorganisation is required as some contents are repeated. Also unnecessary stress on 'commentries' has to be removed and contents of book have to be given more importance.Sudhirkbhargava (talk) 04:32, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Wrong attribution of dates

The article claims that the work is approximately 10,000 years old and does not question the historicity of Manu. The article also presents as fact the notion that Manu lived after the last glaciation "10,000 years ago". First of all, the las glaciation ended around 12,500 years ago. At that time the inhabitants of India were not Aryans (the foundational element of the Hindu religions and Indian civilization). Aryans only appear in India around 1,500 B.C (perhaps as early as 2,000 B,C.). This is attested by archaeology, analysis of religion-mythological texts, linguistic analysis and DNA analysis. The emergence of Vedic culture (which produced the Laws of Manu and all the other great works of ancient Indian literature, religion and philosophy) has been universally dated to around those dates (i.e., 2,000 to 1,500 B.C.). The Laws of Manu were probably compiled around 100 B.C to 100 A.D. according to linguistic analysis, although their origins most likely go back several centuries back. As someone else mentioned . This article needs to be rewritten. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.206.228.134 (talk) 03:21, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

The article has sufficient number of references to support the new additions, which answer your questions. Please go through them. Aryans were natives and lived throughout the subcontinent, however, their concentrated existence is recognised and mentioned in the vedic state of Brahmavarta in North India in Rigveda and Manusmriti. The saints Manu and Bhrigu, who constituted Manusmriti were compariots and contemporary 10,000 years ago. Then Bhrigu had migrated to Bharuch, where post Bhrigu archaeological findings dated 8500 years ago are found already. Also the epic Ramayana is now dated scientifically 7200 years old and another epic Mahabharata is dated 5100 years old. Archaelogical evidences at several places in Pakistan, Gujrat and UP in India now are dated about 9-10,000 years old. Aryan Invasion Theory is redundant now on the basis of several scientific researches available. Please be abreast with the latest and then you won't have objections to new additions to this page.Sudhirkbhargava (talk) 15:58, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Source of Laws — Manuic laws of India

Law of Thailand#Sources of Law reads:

The Rattanakosin Kingdom and the four traditionally counted preceding kingdoms, collectively called Siam, had a largely uncodified constitution until 1932. In the King of Siam's preamble to the Penal Code which was promulgated on April 1, 1908, and came into operation on September 21st, his Majesty the king said: "In the ancient times the monarchs of the Siamese nation governed their people with laws which were originally derived from the Dhamasustra of Manu, which was then the prevailing law among the inhabitants of India and the neighbouring countries."—

How may H.S.M.'s remark be incorporated into the article.? —Pawyilee (talk) 14:35, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

At the section refereed to above, I just piped neighbouring countries, instead of to Southeast Asia, to Greater India, which better puts H.S.M.'s remark into historical context. —Pawyilee (talk) 14:57, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

This important information can be put in lead paragraph in one or two sentences.Sudhirkbhargava (talk) 05:51, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

can someone change this please?

In the first section date and place: of Haryana in the districts of Mahendragarh and Rewari on the basis of images of paleochannals [14] of these rivers from satellites, geo-morphological studies of the soils, which confirm presence of soil particles of Himalayan rocks in the areas represented by Saraswati river, and mentions of the area in Mahabharat, Rigved, Shatapatha Brahmana, Manusmriti and various Puranas.[15] As per epic 'Mahabharat' Bhrigu Rishi had his Ashram at 'Deepotsak' on 'Vadhusar' river, and his son Chyavana, on Dhosi Hill [16] a tributary of Drishadwati river, in the Vedic state of 'Brahmavarta'. Mahabharat and Rig Ved are misspelled. it is Mahabharata and Rig Veda, can someone please change this?

Antiquity of Manusmriti

Some editors have objected to the antiquity of Manusmriti, without giving any reliable source. If they have any source, please discuss here. Not only Manu was a flood period seer (8000BCE), his compariot and contemporary Bhrigu seer had lived in the Vedic state of Brahmavarta, the land between two revered rivers Saraswati and Drishadwati. The terms used by Manu for the first time like Verna, Brahmin, Kshatriya in assigning the roles for various communities were frequently used in Rigveda, (Dates suggested for the composition of Rigveda range from 6000BCE-1000BCE, Upinder Singh 2008, A History of Ancient and Early Medieval India, page 185) Ramayana (5200 BCE) and Mahabharata (3100BCE). Several archaeological findings, agricultural activities and use of Copper during that time has already been found in the Vedic state of Aryavarta which date to before 9000 years ago, like Bhirrana, Mehrgarh, Bhimbetka, Dwarka Lost City in Gulf of Cambay etc. These findings also infer that this was not a stone age in this part of the world but Copper age. Sudhirkbhargava (talk) 04:50, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm also puzzled as to why this was removed. Thinking it was still here, I just created a redirect for great floods. —Pawyilee (talk) 04:18, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

How come a King's law become Hindu Scripture?

Manu was originally a King Satyavrata based on Mahabharath. More over Ambedkar mentioned in "Revolution and Counter-Revolution in Ancient India" that "pre-Manu days a woman was free and equal partner of man. Why did Manu degrade her?" Ambedkar also mentioned that pre-Manu period allowed women to learn Vedas and were as free as men; If Vedas are the rocks upon which Hinduism is built upon, what has a King's Laws to do with Hinduism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.185.58.6 (talk) 19:57, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

You're confusing a person with a personification. "Manu" can mean man or monkey depending on context, and it makes no sense to worry about who was the first man or ruler to bear that as a personal name. Other than that, the question is valid, and the answer is they couldn't; at least, not directly. They had to rule according to higher law and absolutely unmodifiable articles. For Hindu context, see

• Classical Hindu law
• Classical Hindu law in practice

For Thai context, see Source of Laws — Manuic laws of India, above, which maintains that these formed a constitution for Siamese kingdoms. As these "laws" were considered sacred, they could not be amended. Rulers would of necessity have to have a way to work around that limitation, and this article explains one way it was done with Royal Ordinances. All ordinances expired with the death of the ruler, unless his successor renewed them. After a succession of such renewals, it was assumed these had proved worthy of being included in an annex to the main body of law, and no longer requiring renewal. —Prince Dhani Nivat, Kromamun Bidyadabh [in Thai] (1947). "The Old Siamese conception of the Monarchy" (PDF). Journal of the Siam Society. JSS Vol.36.2b (digital). Siamese Heritage Trust: images 8-9. Retrieved March 7, 2013.

—Pawyilee (talk) 05:56, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Manuvada and Manuvadi

If at all you want to give your views on Manuvad or Manuvada, give them under commentries, not on the introductory para. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.198.140.117 (talk) 14:20, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for posting a reply. For the moment, I will assume User:117.198.140.117 and User:106.78.63.71 are different editors, and that each of you are concerned about this. I would encourage both? of you to use an account and sign your posts, though I realize you could be one concerned editor on a mobile, in which case it is good of you to edit at all. =)

The reason I said that, This is the correct place, may be illustrated as follows: Imagine that you are websurfing, and come accross the word 'manuvadi' in a variety of contexts. One could consult wk:manuvati, if someone has gotten to it. To someone with some exposure to the Subcontinent, it might seem like a heavier weight word, like hindutva, which might have its own article, manuvada. Note as well that in hindutva, in the second line of the brief first paragraph, hindutvada and hindutvadi are both explained.

It seemed derelict of Wikipedia not to satisfy a search for manuvada adequately. My edit here and the redirect page was, I felt, the lightest-touch solution that would quickly ground one in an understanding of the word, but not get in the way of the narrative in manusmrti. In light of the deletion I've made manuvada an article, so that searches for it not fail.

Generally, I think you are correct, in that there ought to be a section explaining how manusmṛti is reflected in contemporary discourse, which would, as part of the larger require an understanding of 'manuvada'. Somebody should write that, and I'm probably not that person, for want of time and exposure. The deleted second paragraph that has become manuvada, might suffice as a start. Also, I understand that, unlike hindutva, manusmrti is a much older, broader topic, suggesting that discussing the more contemporary oppositional senses of the word might be disruptive to the narrative so early on. Since that vast majority of citations I found were in an oppositional sense, it seemed critical to acknowledge this immediately upon explaining the word itself.

I've followed the example in hindutva/hinduvadi, and broke the introduction into paragraphs as well, which needed doing anyway. I hope this is acceptable. Actually, I like it better now than what I had before, so thanks for the feedback, =)

-SM 20:31, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Manuvada or Manuvadi are new terms used by a minority of so called Dalits to denounce certain communities in Hinduism, for their political ends. Manuvadi is a controversial term and that's why it should go to commentries below. It is not a standard term and should not be placed in introduction para. Moreover, while objections of a group of Dalits to certain shalokas is understandable, why Muslims and Buddhists should have any objections to Manusmriti contents, as you have described.Sudhirkbhargava (talk) 11:27, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

From the comments I have seen (all from you? or are the IP edits from others?), I am gathering that the term manuvadi may be somewhat exonymic among manuvadis. Tell me, do Hindus ever use the term in a more neutral sense, or does it really only smack of contemporary minority politics?

Also, I sense you are right about the contemporary feel of the term (here in what is one of the most ancient topics in civilization!), though not right about it being merely the recent instrument of a minority of Dalits. Even with casual good-faith Googling, it is clear that the term is also used by Muslims and Buddhists, though I suspect much less so among Hindus. Perhaps (much like you are saying), there is a model in Boston Tea Party, where the contemporary Tea Party movement usage is relegated- rightly- to Tea Party#Legacy. That article, however, is in much better shape than this one.

I have been asked (twice) to relegate "my views" on Manuvada to the commentary section. It seems that referencing Dalits, Muslims and Buddhists may have lent the appearance that my inclusion of the term is in furtherance of an agenda. I assure you it is not. My agenda, such as it is, is purely a Wikipedian one: place the term in context, very much in line with the intent of WP:LEDE#Contextual links. Particularly, I am keen not to have the reference buried somewhere in the middle of the article. As I alluded above, the only reason I set off on this little adventure is that Wikipedia could not explain the term to me, which is unacceptable. Also, the term oppositional should not convey the sense either of opponent or objection, so much as simply in contrast to, whatever the motivation for the contrast.

I do not want to stick a politically loaded term (if that is what it truly is) in the front of what is a classical subject, but I want the contexualization to be accessible. How do we do that?

-SM 21:01, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Citations for Manuvada and Manuvadi

Manuvadi or Manuvada are confusing and irrelevent words and cannot be mentioned on this page, keeping in mind the context they are used in. By Manuvadi, a political party in a state in India means those who believe in Manusmriti. This word is used by them to incite the Dalits for their political gains and create hatred towards Brahmins, Rajputs and Vaishyas. Manusmriti has some 2700 shalokas describing how to live life and contains topics from Big Bang to duties and responsibilities of kings, about family, society etc. etc. It also describes the four varnas, how the varnas can be changed, how a Brahim becomes a Shudra or a Shudra becomes a Brahim. If some one is Manuvadi as pointed by politicians, he must be following what is mentioned in Manusmriti. Manusmriti is not against Dalits as mentioned by politicians. It is wrong interpretation which is creating problems. I have never come across the word Manuvada. You are giving a meaning to it yourself. Please give some citations and context where they are used.Sudhirkbhargava (talk) 19:09, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

You speak at length of how unfounded and unjust the claims of certain politicians are. This is irrelevant here: I am concerned with neither the rhetoric nor the motives of politicians, nor have I made any comment on them here, nor should it be made here. I have given no meaning to the word myself, it is simply there, easily found on Google. You use it yourself, If some one is Manuvadi..., he must be following what is mentioned in Manusmriti., By Manuvadi, a political party in a state in India means those who believe in Manusmriti. This is simple enough, and the reference in the article need go no futher.

Also, a simple good-faith search for manuvadi, or manuwadi, shows it in use by both proponents and opponents of manusmṛti, not simply, as you put it above, a minority of so called Dalits. In addition to Muslims and Buddhists, I have also found the term used by Christian groups. Here is a book concerning the dharmaśāstras, sold on vedicbooks.net entitled imagined manuvad. It is used as well in innumerable newspaper articles.

Forbidding the use of two words because you think certain political actors are unjust, because you think that the words are "confusing and irrelevant", or especially because you think, "wrong interpretation...is creating problems" would be highly inappropriate.

-SM 08:14, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Manuvad is used by the political party to describe the so called discriminstion in 'Varna vaivastha' in Manusmriti which is mentioned in 2-3 shalokas. Even if this description , which is much less than 1 % (one percent) of Manusmriti, consisting of 2700 shalokas, cannot be mentioned in the opening para. Moreover, this description of a few shaloks itself is debatable. So put these words in Commentries rather than in opening para.Sudhirkbhargava (talk) 05:07, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

A casual look at the commentaries section, which concerns itself with historical speculations and research about the text (and not a grabbag of Controversy soundings), shows that moving the Manuvād reference there is clearly not appropriate. It would serve only to lower the visibility of the reference, which itself is not an appropriate goal, and smacks of WP:CENSOR. Even if there were a separate section lower down on — say, Manuvād and the opposition to Manusmṛti (not a bad idea)— there should still be a reference to the word in the lede. BTW, as I have said, I am not interested in writing that section, though the stub Manuvāda which I have created would be a good start.

You must get past this idea that the term Manuvād is somehow solely an unjust indictment of Manusmṛti requiring your defense, and even if it were so, that this would justify removing it from the article. Manuvād and its cognates are used not just by the political party (whatever you mean by that), but by several parties and other interested groups, some of whom are actally pro-Manuvād. It has become a common word of discourse, and where it sits now in the lede is the proper point to contextualize it.

Again, the specifics of where you feel one party is getting it wrong or what the motives of one party might be is not relevant as to whether the term should be explained in this article. To act on this rationale is to violate WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:CENSOR and many other principles, as well as to misunderstand the purpose of WP:LEDE, WP:CONTEXTLINK and WP:NOTABLE. Most importantly, see WP:BATTLE, i.e. it is not down to us to make judgements about the justice of certain political actors and weigh in to defend them by censoring references. Violation of this last is particularly egregious in the eyes of administrators. Please carefully review these Wikipedia policy points.

-SM 21:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

seriously, you may have created the Manuvada stub, but apparently you did it off the top of your head, and you did not bother to cite a single reference. Whatever happened to WP:CITE? I googled a bit and tried to find some context, but this is your article, not mine. By all means you should try and compile decent coverage on this. Once and after you have done that, of course there should be mention of it in the "Modern reception" section in this article, discussing the role of the Manusmriti in current day hardcore Hindu nationalism, but this is hardly going to warrant more than a brief paragraph, as it certainly isn't this article's main focus. It's, idk, if there was some freaky conservative party in the west who wanted to reinstitute medieval serfdom, this wouldn't be worth more than a footnote in the article on actual, historical, serfdom in the Middle Ages. The existence of kooks should never distract from the discussion of a serious historical topic (WP:FRINGE). --dab (𒁳) 13:00, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree completely, and yes, I did write Manuvada off the top of my head. You can see from the above how the balance of my editorial energy went into explaining why Wikipedia is not an exercise in political guidance in right thinking [sigh].

That said, the political dimensions of the term are somewhat broader than your wholesale replacement of Manuvāda would suggest. In contrast to the needed reboot of this article, dumping the Manuvāda lede was somewhat rash (what happened to "citation needed" =)). I have restored it, whilst keeping your work as a good next section. Note that your cites also support the assertions in the lede, though there are more here in my discussion above, and more readily googled. When I am back from holiday and not editing with my phone, I can add them myself.

-SM 16:49, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Ambedkar description

I think it should be limited with "ambedkar", as later he was buddhist, and not to mention the previous suggested "writer of constitution" which is obvious WP:FRINGE as constitution was borrowed from many other writings. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:58, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Frawley and Hancock

Frawley and Hancock are absolutely *not* credible sources on history.Wjhonson (talk) 20:51, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. The edit-summary though could have been a bit, ahem, politer. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 21:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

comparative study of Manusmiti and Yagnavalkya smriti

comparative study of Manusmiti and Yagnavalkya smriti — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.139.187.130 (talk) 11:27, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Edit conflict and source checks

@Human3015: If you study this edit, you will note that I had merely reformatted Neitzsche's paragraph from a list into text, per MOS. I did not delete anything there yet. I am yet to check sources on that to verify it, which I will do when I get to it. Have you verified the views on Manusmriti that are attributed to Friedrich Nietzsche in this article? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:52, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

article lacks NPOV and seems to be POV Pushing. You have deleted sourced matter

*deemed it "an incomparably spiritual and superior work" to the Christian Bible.

• observed that "the sun shines on the whole book" and attributed its ethical perspective to "the noble classes, the philosophers and warriors, [who] stand above the mass."

• endorsed the political exclusion that Manu's system was considered to bring.

• considered the caste system to be a good idea, and stated that "caste-order, order of rank is just a formula for the supreme law of life itself", a "natural order, lawfulness par excellence".'

.

I think you continue your editing, I will review it later, because you may have many things to add so first you complete your edits. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  14:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

References

@Human3015: Did I, are you sure? The above text was and is still there, only the format is different !! It now reads,

"The "Law of Manu" was cited favorably by Friedrich Nietzsche. He *deemed it "an incomparably spiritual and superior work" to the Christian Bible, observed that "the sun shines on the whole book" and attributed its ethical perspective to "the noble classes, the philosophers and warriors, [who] stand above the mass."[44] He endorsed the political exclusion that Manu's system was considered to bring.[45] Nietzsche considered the caste system to be a good idea, and stated that "caste-order, order of rank is just a formula for the supreme law of life itself", a "natural order, lawfulness par excellence".[46][47] He wrote that 'To prepare a book of law in the style of Manu means to give a people the right to become master one day, to become perfect, - to aspire to the highest art of life.'[47]"

Check again. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:16, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

(ps): For reason why I converted the bulleted list into text, see this from MOS guideline. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:21, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

• Just an FYI, I have no dog in this fight and I'm bringing this up because this particular issue has been a contentious point in the past with a variety of socks involved and I've protected the article for that purpose. I have no opinion on the content itself (I've just adminned this page in the past and bringing this up for the reference of current participants), feel free to discuss and sort that out. This is an example of some of the changes that have been pushed on here with sources being left behind after content changes. —SpacemanSpiff 14:23, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)*@Ms Sarah Welch: Ok, fine. There are two extreme views about Manu Smriti, one is positive and one is negative, both views are good at their place. Positive views regarding culture or mythology is one thing and negative views regarding Laws regarding "rights of women" or overall "Human rights" are other thing. We have to maintain balance between two opposite views. Manusmriti is infamous among Feminists for negative views against Woman written in Manusmriti but in quick review article has no mention about it instead one line mentions in article that Manusmriti glorifies position of woman. Ok, it may have been written but who will write other side? In criticism also "Close bible open manu smriti" is written, who will write views of other philosophers who criticised Manusmriti in very Harsh way. Article does not stop itself from unneccessarily praising Manu Smriti in Criticism section also.--Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  14:37, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

@SpacemanSpiff: That was a good call by you in the past. I am puzzled by @Human3015 claim "I deleted comments of Nietzsche" above though, even as I feel he did so in good faith. The more serious issue with the conclusions / views currently attributed to Friedrich Nietzsche in this article is that it refers to primary sources. For example, ref [44] is "Friedrich Nietzsche, The Antichrist (1888), 56-57". It needs to replaced with a secondary, recent scholarly source. Nietzsche did refer to Manusmriti (I recall Ray Furness's introduction in Twilight of the Idols translation of Nietzsche). This needs to be summarized in this article, but we need to do it properly. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:50, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

@Human3015: Indeed. That is why I created the Contents section, and placed 'expand section' tag there for now. My intentions was to add a summary of what the diverse views on women rights, varna, etc as stated by Manusmriti, and by modern scholars, in that new section. Do you want to take the initiative and summarize all that? Any other concerns that triggered your POV tag? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:50, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: Its not about only my concerns, it is overall concern about Wikipedia policies, in your this edit you removed inline citation of Olivelle. You should give inline citation, either someone praises or criticises Manusmiriti then you should mention "according to whom". Because this book is ancient book and various historians can have different opinions about this book. So while writing "praise" do mention who praised, same applies for criticism. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  15:02, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

@Human3015: AGF. I added that sentence, and originally included that inline attribution, in my edit today. I removed my inline attribution 20 minutes later, because I wanted to rephrase that sentence and add something else from a non-Olivelle source. As I was editing, your revert conflicted with the version I was working on. I abandoned my work, because I didn't want to edit war with you. I was going to fix it in a different way, but I am fine with that sentence in this article for now. An in-line cite concern does not deserve a POV tag. Any other concerns? FWIW, it is difficult to work with you reverting and edit warring. So, I will wait, let you edit, add summary, add sources, and add more tags. I will resume later. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:26, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

@Human3015: I suggest you or someone consolidate Nietzsche's views in one place in that section, along with adding recent scholarly secondary sources on Nietzsche's views on Manusmriti. The current section has two paragraphs in the middle and then the last paragraph. Add Gavin Flood's clarification that Nietzsche read Jacolliot's translation and commentary on Manusmriti, which has since been questioned. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:34, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

POV tag of August 2015

@Human3015: I will move the POV tag to a relevant section, based on my understanding of your concerns above. Feel free to add it to other sections as well, but with an explanation on this talk page, as to what your concern is with each section you POV-section tag. Your specific comments may help improve those sections. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:17, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:NPV

The overall tone of the article, with references from 18-19th century writers gives a biased, congratulatory appraisal of manusmrti without giving sufficient countenance to the criticisms it has sustained by contemporary authors over its contents.

Furthermore, the critical reasons as to why these authors so believed and, in particular, which part or parts of the text the particular appraisal refers to will provide readers with a more neutral article.

--Avedeus (talk) 13:50, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

@Avedeus: Indeed, for that reason I have tried to use Olivelle's 2005 edition published by Oxford University Press a lot more, as well as added summaries from many more recent, reliable scholarly publications. For historical comparison, between colonial era interpretation of "C-K Manusmriti mss" and current scholarship on that and other manuscripts, we cannot ignore the old translations and modern reviews of the old translations. If you have specific suggestions for a section or paragraph or sentence, or additional not-yet-summarized recent reliable sources, please post. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:57, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

blogs are not ok, WP:BRD

@Bo99: Blogs such as this by Taimur Khan are not acceptable or reliable sources (per WP:RS). If you wish to add Kaufman's comment, you must include the page number and a faithful summary from the source, not from a blog, for WP:V. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 07:41, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

No blog was a source for the Walter Kaufmann comment; the cited Kaufmann paperback book was. No need to reply. Bo99 (talk) 09:03, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

@Bo99: You inserted the Taimur Khan blog in your edit here. On Walter Kaufmann, I just reversed your embedded comment here. I checked Kaufmann and included only that which can be verified, per WP:V. We cannot include what is not in the source, and we also cannot include soap and non-encyclopedic personal opinions from blogs or other sources, per WP:NOTEVERYTHING and WP:NOTOPINION. You need to provide specific page number of a reliable source for WP:V and explain how what you wish to add is "a summary of accepted knowledge" by most scholars. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 10:24, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

No. No blog was a source for the Walter Kaufmann comment; the cited Kaufmann paperback book was. No need to reply. Bo99 (talk) 11:03, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Nietzsche quotations deleted by 'Ms Sarah Welch'

'Ms Sarah Welch': regarding this diff page:

1. Explain why you claim that the statement of fact, that you deleted that Nietzsche quotation, is 'a personal attack' on you, as you stated in the Edit Summary for that deletion.

2. Give a citation to a formal Wikipedia source for your seeming claim, in that diff page's Edit Summary, that temporary hidden comments are not permitted to be placed in that useful centralized place (i.e. the article text). I have never come across such a source but would like to see one.

3. I'm ok with deleting essentially all the primary, Nietzsche quotations. But if you are going to include a supposed Nietzsche view to the effect that the Manu book is very positive, then we also need to include Nietzsche's view that the Manu book is very negative. Which do you prefer? Misconceptions about Nietzsche’s views on ethics are legion, as stated by Kaufmann in yet another quotation that you deleted, here.

4. In all of that, pls try: to take time; to read, think, and write with precision and clarity; and to bear in mind that you have been deleting the volunteered, hard work of various other people. Bo99 (talk) 11:35, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

@Bo99: See Hidden text: Inappropriate uses for hidden text section. You added as hidden text, "This paragraph and the one above (....) If there is no explanation or objection, i will at some point correct that deletion, and will remove this discussion." This should be on this talk page, not as hidden text in the article. I agree with your #3. The Neitzsche summary currently does include positive and negative views, but we can't do WP:OR and insert WP:WWIN. I already checked Kaufmann, removed WP:OR, and trimmed the section to what Kaufmann actually writes. I tried verifying rest of the quote and was unable to, and the Tamur Khan blog link you inserted here is unacceptable. Can you identify the specific page number from Kaufmann or another reliable source on Manusmriti that hasn't been summarized? If you do, we will add it back. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:26, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

reply to 'Ms Sarah Welch':

2.1. It would be helpful and logical if in future you break your masses of text into paragraphs, and take more time and give more details, so that one can know for sure what is being talked about in particular clauses. No need to reply on that.

2.2. regarding your phrasing, '@Bo99': It seems wrong to use the 'at' symbol. No need to reply on that.

2.3. regarding 1 above: You appear to agree by silence that my statement of fact, at this webpage, that you deleted the Nietzsche quotation described on such webpage, was not 'a personal attack' on you, though you claimed it was an attack, in the Edit Summary for that deletion (see same webpage). No need to reply on that.

2.4. regarding 2 above, my hidden comment at this page: It is wasteful to use 4 lines to recite what is agreed and obvious: of course i used a hidden comment. The only relevant point is that such use was completely proper; 'Editors use invisible comments to communicate with each other in the body of the text of an article. ... Invisible comments are useful for flagging an issue or leaving instructions about part of the text, where this is more convenient than raising the matter on the talk page.' That's from the hidden comment guidelines. Your criticism of such hidden comment was wrong. No need to reply on that.

2.5. regarding 3 above: Your statement, that you agree that the Nietzsche part of the article currently does include positive and negative views, is obvious and thus not relevant. But you did not clearly answer my question: 'I'm ok with deleting essentially all the primary, Nietzsche quotations [and keeping just the secondary sources]. But if you are going to include a supposed Nietzsche view to the effect that the Manu book is very positive, then we also need to include Nietzsche's view that the Manu book is very negative. Which do you prefer?', i.e. a mix of primary and secondary sources, or just secondary sources.

2.6. more regarding 3 above: I wrote in my prior posting, above, 'Misconceptions about Nietzsche’s views on ethics are legion, as stated by Kaufmann in yet another quotation that you deleted, here' (near the bottom of such page). Are you now saying that you agree that that statement should be re-included in the article? If you deleted such text because the source was stated but not a section number, then in future please of course preserve text and simply indicate the need for a section number, e.g. by a hidden comment. That would avoid deleting the volunteered, hard work of other people. (The number is: p.212 in the Walter Kaufmann paperback; section 2, the 5th paragraph from last in that section. And/or simply go to the helpful Khan website and search for e.g. 'legion'.)

2.7. regarding your statement 'we can't do WP:OR and insert WP:WWIN': That jargony recitation of the obvious wastes text and time. No one ever suggested doing such things. No need to reply on that.

2.8. Regarding your objection to the helpful Khan website: If you feel the need to continue that, i welcome that, in the relevant section above, 'blogs are not ok ... '. No need to reply on that.

Bo99 (talk) 16:33, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

@Bo99: I am going to ignore your lecturing, as responding to it is unproductive and improper forum-y use of this talk page. Yes, if you present a specific reliable source, which hasn't been summarized, we will add it to the article.

Now, let us focus on the specific page number you give in your 2.6. You claim page 212 in Walter Kaufmann's Nietzsche: Philosopher, Psychologist, Antichrist book refers to Manu or Manusmriti. In the version I am looking at, it does not. The first line starts with "sheer perversions. John Stuart Mill...." and the last line ends with "less clearly defined sense of awe...". In the book I have, section II starts at page 216 and there too in the 5th paragraph I see no mention of Manu or Manusmriti. There is something on "law of Manu" on page 225, which I already summarized in the article, a while ago. May be we are looking at different editions? It would help if you can provide a quote of the few sentences where you see Manu or Manusmriti or "Law of Manu" from page 212. The Khan blog is not acceptable. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:19, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

reply:

regarding your use of '@Bo99' again: Again, use of the 'at' symbol seems wrong. No need to reply on that.

Everything i wrote above is accurate, productive, and now undisputed. No need to reply on that.

It appears that all this time you have been talking about the wrong book. No one ever claimed that the Walter Kaufmann quotation that you deleted at this webpage' is from WK's 'Nietzsche' book, as you wrote above. Instead such deleted text recites that the quotation is from WK's book 'From Shakespeare To Existentialism'.

Bo99 (talk) 18:03, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

@Bo99: Page 212 of WK book From Shakespeare To Existentialism has no mention of Manu or Manusmriti either. Nothing in section 2. I see a mention on page 215, and that was once again already summarized in the article a while ago. It would help if you can provide a quote of the few sentences where you see Manu or Manusmriti or "Law of Manu" from page 212 of the WK book From Shakespeare To Existentialism. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:14, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

reply:

regarding your use yet again of '@Bo99' to address me: Again, that use of the 'at' symbol seems wrong. Stop or explain.

Again, the quotation is: 'Misconceptions about Nietzsche’s two types [of ethical system] are legion ... .' Perhaps you deleted that text without knowing what it meant. One of those two ethics types is exemplified by Manu's Laws, according to Nietzsche and Kaufmann.

Bo99 (talk) 18:27, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

@Bo99:: I see that quote in the middle of page 212. It reads, "Misconceptions about Nietzsche's two types are legion, and they shall not be catalogued here." The two types are mentioned on page 213: "Nietzsche presents master and slave morality as two types without claiming that every..." There is no mention of Manu or "Laws of Manu" or Manusmriti on page 212, or page 213, or in section 2. To interpret or assume that is WP:OR. Can you quote anything from Section 2 or those pages that can confirm that Kaufman is referring to Manu or Manusmriti, to meet the WP:NOR burden: "directly supports that conclusion". Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:50, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

regarding your use yet again of '@Bo99' to address me: Again, that use of the 'at' symbol seems wrong. Stop or explain or get help.

You yourself previously cited the page you seek: 215.

Bo99 (talk) 18:58, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

@Bo99: The article already has a summary of "laws of Manu" related content that is on page 215, Section 3 of the Kaufmann's book From Shakespeare To Existentialism. You can't add WP:OR into this article after interpreting what is on other pages, sections, chapter of Kaufmann's book, and assuming it to be about Manusmriti. WK is discussing Kierkegaard, Kant, Christianity, Bradley, Aristotle and others in that chapter and Section 2. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:46, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

response to the 'Ms Sarah Welch' person: No. Page 215 clearly states that master morality is exemplified by Manu. That is exactly what you asked for above, though you yourself had looked right at such page: you asked, 'can [you] confirm that Kaufman[n] is referring to Manu[?]' No original analysis is involved. Bo99 (talk) 20:03, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

@Bo99: Just quote me exactly, don't distort and misquote me. I have already answered you above. Section 2 is not referring to Manu. The mention of "law of Manu" on page 215 of From Shakespeare To Existentialism is already summarized in this article. There is nothing more to add from that WK's book into this article. Review WP:OR. Alternatively, try WP:DRN. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:54, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

to the 'Ms Sarah Welch' person:

No one distorted or misquoted your words in the slightest. If you don't understand that, you don't understand worldwide quoting standards. Ask for this further basic education.

Regarding the proposed addition of text, you are completely wrong and excessively lengthy and off-topic as usual. The text would essentially be just 3 strung-together quotations (secondary sources, not primary), without any substantive analysis stated or implied, certainly not original analysis. Because you were even unable without help to figure out what book was at issue, and because of your other numerous problems, all documented above in this thread, i assume that you no longer even know what proposed text is at issue, so i'll repeat it, this time in full:

'Misconceptions about Nietzsche’s two types [of ethics systems] are legion ... .' (Kaufmann p.212) 'Nietzsche presents master and slave morality as two types ... .' (Kaufmann p.213) 'Nietzsche discusses the Indian "law of Manu" as an example of master morality ... .' (Kaufmann p.215)

I don't care much if the above three quotations are included in the article or not, but the article would greatly benefit from them (because people are so confused about Nietzsche's flamboyant and difficult language on this sensitive topic), and the rules certainly allow the three. The more important point is that your insistent erroneousness will continue to be negative for Wikipedia in all that you do going forward, unless you gain self-recognition.

Do what you want. No need to reply. Bo99 (talk) 22:43, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

New removals

Ms Sarah Welch writes "see talk page discussion from few weeks ago, this is not in the sources, undue OR",[1], but sources are reliable and they clearly state that the acclaimed quotes and insights the positive view about Manusmriti by the named authors. They are noted as admirer on the named sources, which part have you missed? Capitals00 (talk) 04:52, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

@Capitals00: Have you actually read the sources? Have you checked if your sources meet WP:RS guidelines, or what you added back meets WP:LEAD guidelines? You added a blog of Taimur Khan, such as from wordpress.com. This is not WP:RS. See above section on Walter Kaufmann. Kaufmann did not attribute to Manusmriti what you are alleging he did. There is one place, on page 215, where Kaufmann mentioned Manusmriti, which has been and is already in the article. Rest of what you added back is similar OR. Let us focus on Kaufman first. Then we can discuss your other sources reliability, is it WP:DUE and what they actually state. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:04, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Ms Sarah Welch I was just adding the previous version back because it had more content, it is not that I want to add wordpress or anything about Kauffman, but anything else from that. Which includes quotation of William Jones, Horace Hayman Wilson and references that Radhakrishnan, P.D. Ouspensky, Pandurang Shastri Athavale, Louis Jacolliot, William Robertson were admirers. Capitals00 (talk) 04:49, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

@Capitals00: You did add back Kaufman-related OR and blog. Inadvertently it seems now. Let us set that aside. On others, why are some of these 100+ year old, colonial era writers WP:DUE in this article on Manusmriti, in light of the scholarship in the last 25 years? Next, did you actually read each source you added for these? The source needs to conclude that "X admired Manusmriti". I checked. I couldn't verify. Can you provide a page number or quote? If we can add a bit of 'why', that would make it better and more encyclopedic. Some of your sources look like SPS, published by fringe-y publishers, and not mainstream peer reviewed WP:RS scholarship. Can you provide WP:RS instead? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 09:13, 24 December 2015 (UTC)