Talk:Save Indian Family Foundation

A suggestion for proceeding

My Wikidness, you seem to be the other editor interested in this article. If you're interested in working together on this, may I suggest that we do it one section at a time? This is a long, complicated article, and doing one section at a time would help us keep track of what we're doing. I'm open to suggestions on which part you'd like to start with. -FisherQueen (Talk) 13:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Fisherqueen, after you vandalised the article by deleting large portions of it, the article is no longer complicated or long. Now that the article is short and simple, I do not understand, why you call it complicated and long? Most probably, you are confusing the issue and the article. The issue is complicated and frustrating for feminists, who are exposed by SIF and I guess you are attributing all that to the article.Newageindian 11:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

SIF Concerns section

At the moment the the SIF Concerns section is written like an essay. It reads like it is attempting to prove the SIF's points. The Section False Statistics by feminists has no place on Wikipedia for 3 reasons. First is its unverifiable claim about Bride Burning, second because of the contestability of the statement the big lie about the 70% of Indian Women & domestic violence (not NPOV) and third because it violates Wikipedia policy WP:POVPUSH. An appropriate version of this section would be... The SIF is involved in activism against the domestic violence Law in India that was implemented on October 26th, 2006. The SIF claim the law, could be abused by women and described the government that implemented the law as Fascist. ” The SIF is also concerned about section 498a of the Indian Penal Code, which provides for the arrest of a man, his parents, siblings and friends if that man's wife complains of harassment and cruelty by him and his family. The SIF are concerned that the accused can be jailed without a warrant. The organization is also concerned about the rate of male suicide claiming that many married men are driven to suicide by their wives. I have not edited the page yet. If anyone objects to this proposed edit discuss here. Please note I am posting here in good faith and edits done to this page by this user will be in good faith. If you wish to object do so civilly, but NPOV and non-conflict of interest posts please.--Cailil 21:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Cailil, every article in wikipedia is an essay. So, it is absurd to accuse this article to be an essay. I do not think it is a coincidence that you and FisherQueen are both from Ireland. You both have similar professional backgrounds and you both are over enthusiatic to edit, delete and vandalise this article as much as possible claiming "good faith". I are sure that you both are working hand in hand in this process of vandalising an article by bending policies of wikipedia. FisherQueen deletes the citations and here you demand citations. What do you know about India and its present turbulent social situation? Or do you both still think India as a colony of Ireland? Can not you both leave this editing work to a couple of Indian Editors in wikipedia who are aware of present Indian social scenarios? If you delete any portion of this article, I will revert it back. Ireland is a country where 5% people marry and India is a country where 99% people marry. So, you people from Ireland are poorly equiped to do proper editing (of this article) and you keep on asking citations for every single word written in this article. FisherQueen has already deleted more that 50% of this article and you want to delete remaining 40% so that all that remains is just 5 lines. I am not against editing, but I am against mindless biting of articles giving neglected perspectives and I want Indian editors to do the editing and I am sure thats not unreasonable.Newageindian 11:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not from Ireland. I'd love to visit there someday, though. I've heard it's a lovely country. I had no idea that only 5% of people in Ireland marry. That's so unusual... you'd think they'd be more famous for it. -FisherQueen (Talk) 14:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

You'd certainly have heard if it was true. In fact that statement is completely bogus, per this. -- John Broughton | Talk 15:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposal: Indian Editors to work on the Article

FisherQueen and Cailil, I am requesting couple of Indian editors from Wikipedia:WikiProject_India to work on this article.--Newageindian 12:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Feminists attempt to Vandalise the article

It is a fact that feminists can not tolerate any organisation or article which talks about men's issues. Both FisherQueen and Cailil are feminists or they are at least opposed to masculist issues. So, it is ridiculous for Cailil to falsely claim that he is acting on "good faith". Here is the evidence. Cailil came to the talk page with a fixed mindset to work towards deleting this article and yet he claimed that he is working under good faith. Earlier, Fisherqueen had requested the feminists in Talk:Project Gender Studies to support her designs and Cailil had offered to list the article under Afd. The agenda by them was to vandalise the article by deleting citations, content and to list it for deletion. I humbly request both FisherQueen and Cailil (both from Ireland) to stop editing this article any further and read the previous Afd discussion. I will work towards restoring all the contents and citations deleted by them. Newageindian 14:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

• I'm still not from Ireland. I'm not sure why it would be so terrible if I were... but I'm not. -FisherQueen (Talk) 23:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

This is my last comment on this page for the moment. I am in favour of a debate on an AfD for this page for precisely the same reasons that it was originally listed "notability" - which means I can find no information on SIFF beyond SIFF sources. That does not mean I am anti- this page or anything else. I have not listed the page because I was about to express my concerns here. Newageindian I am a pro-feminist, I am Irish and I am working in good faith. I have not altered the article page becuase I wanted to find consensus with Users such as yourself. I am sorry that you feel it neccessary to respond like this - I do not wish to offend you with my work or comments. I made a proposal to article content and offerd Third Party opinion on this article nothing else.--Cailil 14:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

This article came out successfully in a debate for Afd just recently(see beginning of this page). I hope, you are not aware of the wikipedia rule that one must wait for sufficient time before renominating an article for Afd. We Indians are deeply troubled by the conspiracy by "radical" pro-feminist lobbies in US and Europe to destroy our Family, culture and society. May be they are our personal views. But, our innocent elders are dying here in false cases by feminist lobbies "funded" by rich Western countries. Minor children are getting jailed[1] and Amnesty International is supporting it[2]. We have lost trust with civil, humble, good faith double standards all around the world. I am sorry I have to be harsh here, but one has to learn cultural sensitivity and stop interfering with all countries and cultures in the name of modernising them. You could have simply consulted an Indian editor on this article.Newageindian 16:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I hope, you are not aware of the wikipedia rule that one must wait for sufficient time before renominating an article for Afd. There is no such rule, at least in writing, just as your link to AfD should have been to Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. John Broughton | Talk 16:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe it is a bit disengenouous to blame others if India for some inexplicable reason locks up children in cases of alleged spousal abuse. This is not a Western practice, after all. And it is frankly wrong to say that Amnesty International supports this. May I suggest some more care in how you choose your points? It will help your case to be more convincing. --Slp1 23:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

One can imagine someone driving "Formula One" cars on muddy indian roads. UN, Amnesty international with lobbiests[3] from rich countries force 21st century laws in third world without taking legal infrastructure and corruption by police into account. That happens due to reductionistic approaches and a "I do not care" attitude. Ultimately, people in third world suffer and develop resentment towards west. There are 22 million litigations pending in Indian courts. Indian police extorts millions of rupees from innocent people[4](Indian Language 1 crore=10 million,1million=10lakhs). UN and Amnesty International do not take these factors into account. Amnesty international supports pro-arrest and jailing policy even for innocent elders accused in lawsuits[5]. I guess they may have forgotten what the phrase "prisoners of conscience" is. Does police jail 70 year olds in US or Europe on charges on domestic violence on a 30-year old daughter-in-law? I not, then I feel Amnesty International should desist from supporting such practices in India. Please refer Page 15 of WHO report on Elder Abuse --Newageindian 19:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide an exact source for your claim that Amnesty International supports jailing policies for innocent elders in lawsuits? Your link provides no such evidence. And yes, police in the West do jail 70 year olds for domestic violence. (See [[6]] and search for Case 1 to get to the right spot.)
This is not really relevant, though, since whether or not elders are jailed in the West is unconnected to what Amnesty does or does not criticize elsewhere. As you noted, human rights organizations do not take country factors into account when human rights violations occur, precisely because they believe that human rights are by definition universal. The Wikipedia article on Human Rights notes, "Human rights refers to the concept of human beings as having universal natural rights, or status, regardless of legal jurisdiction or other localizing factors, such as ethnicity, nationality, and sex." Most countries (including India) agree since they have ratified legally binding human rights covenants to this effect. --Slp1 00:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Improvements and Comments

Newageindian I'm returning to comment here after some time and some thought. First I'd like to compliment you on some improvements you've made to this page. Your merger and redirect from Protect Indian Family was an appropriate decision. The secondary sources (Hindustan Times and Times of India) are exactly what was needed here. I still take issue with the way the the SIFF Concerns section is presented. I mentioned in my first post that this article reads like and essay. I said this because and it uses facts to make a point, have a look at WP:SYNT for clarification. I also think the link to the yahoo group is bad for the article, in my view its spam because it just promotes SIFF (a link to their homepage is already listed). I apologize if any of my previous posts sounded aggressive, I wouldn't delete anything from this (or any other) article without spelling out why and seeking consensus. You're doing a good job making this page verifiable and appropriate to Wikipedia - keep that up. I am sorry to say that I do still have reservations about the notability of SIFF, I would recommend asking a wider pool of Edtors to give their responses in an RfC--Cailil 21:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

outside comments on NPOV

I find the article one of the more extreme examples of POV I have seen on WP: one of the section headings was "False statistics by feminists" One of the summaries of a newspaper account about a particular police district generalized it to all of India. The nature of the organisation is a men's right's organization, but the first sentence misleadingly called it a "social organisation"--and various biased wording throughout. (The very name of the organisation is POV, but WP can't help that). NPOV requires more than including a section of criticism, it requires fair statements throughout the article. I have made a first pass, and fixed a number of copyediting problems as well. I will try to take another look later today. I am not sure what the comment about Notability means--is there doubt that the organisation is a significant force in Indian affairs?DGG 00:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

DGG, you are free to change the language which makes generalisations. By the way, according my understanding men's rights organisations are also social organisations. Let me know if you want to differ and the language can be change accordingly. I think SIF is more of a "Human Rights Organisation" than a men's rights organisation. There are citations (in article) on innocent mothers and sisters of a man getting jailed, so how can SIF be a "Men's Rights Organisation"? Regarding false statistics by feminists, it is a grave error on part of Washington Times and almost all Indian newspapers to take feminists at face value and publish a fact without verifying its sources. Any other statement making sweeping generalisations can be altered.Newageindian 11:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I am of a similar opinion, as above. The issue I have with SIFF's notability is this: there is not a substantial amount of outside writing on the SIFF, or any that substantiate its concerns in a neutral, reliable fashion. I am not making comment on the SIFF itself but the information about it. As stated in the notability guide lines: In order to have a verifiable article, a topic must be notable enough that the information about it will have been researched, checked, and evaluated through publication in independent reliable sources. In fairness to the organization and the editors here this article suffers from a major case of Recentism. This problem may not warrant deletion but where the info is "thin on the ground" such a large article is not tenable--Cailil 00:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Cailil, I think this article easily meets the minimum threshold of notability. Let us know if you disagree. According to WP:N, notable here means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice". You are free to make modifications in any biased language without deleting any citations.Newageindian 12:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Cailil, regarding Recentism, this organisation is only about 1.5 years old when this article was written. Only a small portion of Indian media articles are available in Internet. As SIF has large number of active blogs which show up first in google and not the few newspaper articles. I could link the citations related to SIF because I had bookmarked them earlier. Otherwise, it is difficult to reach to these articles via google. Newageindian 11:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

For the other perspectives on SIF concerns, one can refer these sources[7],[8],[9] and page 15 of WHO report on Elder Abuse.Newageindian 12:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

As regards recentism, a way to flag the unfolding nature of SIFF would be to say that it is a current movement at the top of the article. I understand your worry about users deleting citations - have no fear about that it is my firm belief that this page needs more not less references. Thanks for finding the other perspectives I will have a proper look at them soon. I agree with you Newageindian that SIFF does meet the minimum requirements for notability - especially since your good work referencing it. I would be more concerned about the notability of the organizations concerns.

I've made ammendments to the Accurate Statistics section: renaming it Accurate Reporting. I removed the word "feminists" from the first line for NPOV and condensed the Washington Times misleading statistics into 1 sentence - the 3 links to the original article, the RADAR alert and the retraction are still there. I moved the line about bride burning to the end of the paragraph aswell. I do think this section would be improved if SIFF's concern about it could be referenced. Overall I think a little work would go a long way to making this a really good wikipedia article. If you have any more refernce links please add them :)--Cailil 19:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Cailil for making all the relevant changes to make this article balanced and neutral. I will add more references related to feminist perspectives in SIF concerns. I also appologize for harsh words used against you earlier.--Newageindian 08:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• No problem Newageindian, apology accepted.--Cailil 21:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I've done a bit of research and sourcing about the Protection of Women Against Domestic Violence Act 2005, and have added and reorganized that paragraph a bit as a result. I hope it meets with approval! --Slp1 02:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Slp1, you additions are perfectly fine for me as your effort is towards making this article more balanced.--Newageindian 08:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I've been looking at the sections Section 498a of IPC and Indian Domestic Violence Law perhaps these two pieces deserve to be in a seperate article on Domestic Violence Laws in India - I think it would help this article if that were the case since the laws are important to SIFF but not about SIFF. They would still need to be on this page but not in their fullest detail. I know it would shorten this article a bit but perhaps it should be discussed.--Cailil 15:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

just a quick postscript. I've been meaning to say this for a while but keep forgetting. The new reference system might benefit this page see here Footnotes.--Cailil 16:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions, Cailil. I've been thinking that footnotes would be helpful too. They are a pain to set up but much easier for the reader, I think. And I do agree about the need to focus on SIFF and not too much on the laws and other peripheral things. There is already an article on the Protection of Women Against Domestic Violence Act 2005 and on Section 498a as part of Dowry law in India, though the latter looks like it is in need of sourcing, and does not look very NPOV to me. Your earlier point about needing lots of reliably sourced information about SIFF is the key, I think. --Slp1 22:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

There articles law Protection of Women Against Domestic Violence Act 2005 and Dowry law in India need some citations, and some POV cleanup. For example, the first article needs some details regarding challenges in implementing it, as Indian legal infrastructure is almost dysfuntional now. So, it may not take the additional load of handling DV lawsuits. Still, the new DV law will certainly help reduce the number of Section 498a lawsuits. DV act is a not a criminal law and hence a man or his family does not get imprisoned when a women files a complaint of DV. On the negative side, this law is badly drafted[10]. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Newageindian (talk • contribs) 06:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

I've made a minor adjustment to the Concerns section about the law. I removed a sentence or two about Protection of Women Against Domestic Violence Act 2005 since it has its own article. I've also made a first attempt at NPOVing the IP498a section, all the citations should be intact, double check to make sure.--Cailil 17:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Meaning of word "Family" in Indian context

The word Family can have different meanings in different civilisations. In India, the society is family centric and a family includes children, parents, grandparents, great grandparents. It is a big team, in which the team members are supposed to synergize to create stability in the lives of family members. It is not mandatory that all the members of this big team have to stay under one roof. India does not have a social security system and proper old age homes. So, elders are heavily dependent on the children in their old age. Children(especially sons) are socially and morally expected to take care of their elderly parents in their old age. This comes in conflict with women's rights(rather wife's rights). The phrase "Save Indian Family" can mean saving this bigger team from misery and pre-empting a possibility of the whole family getting imprisoned. As the law enforcement system is highly corrupt[11], the families often face blackmail or extortion. If a family anticipates a Section 498a lawsuit and if it gets proper legal awareness in time and acts accordingly, the family can often save itself from imprisonment, if the lawsuit is frivolous. Please note, laws against perjury or malicious prosecution are ineffective in India.--Newageindian 09:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

According to Benjamin Franklin, "Laws too gentle are seldom obeyed; too severe, seldom executed". This law Section 498a is too severe, so real victims may not use it, where as the rich and influential misuse it in a corrupt system. It is fine if people are arrested for couple of hours (and get bail), when they get accused of intimate partner violence. But, in case of section 498a, the accused family is imprisoned for 2 days to 10 days without conducting any investigation. In India, the social standing is very important for a family and it gets irrepairably damaged once the family gets imprisoned even for a few days. The facilities in most Indian jails are worse that of concentration camps.--Newageindian 09:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Family is a POV loaded word in many contexts, not just India. Consider the US, Family Friendly which means censored for children. WP must use the name they have adopted. The WP description on the other hand must be neutral. It is obvious even to someone from another culture what the main concern of the organization is: I quote from the article (before I NPOV'd the wording) "SIF is primarily dedicated to fighting the abuse by some Indian women of the Indian anti-dowry laws." "Social" is not wrong, but its a very general class & therefore meaningless as the main descriptor, & the same is true about "human rights." I added Human Rights as a category, for it is appropriate. There is nothing particularly derogatory about "Men's rights", or so I would hope.

The place for a general discussion about the Indian legal or penal system is not here, and neither is the role of gender in Indian society. This article is about the work of one particular organization. If there isn't an article on Indian penal reform, write one--it seems a reasonable topic. DGG 03:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

An article on Indian penal code exists. But, it needs to be improved. I will do it in a months time.Newageindian 06:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Gokulpr 07:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC) Reposted the Protect Indian Family article and reinstated the link on Save Indian Family article Gokulpr 07:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Gokulpr before you repost it may I ask why (within the Wikipedia guidelines) Protect Indian Family needs a seperate article - would a section within this one not be more appropriate?--Cailil 14:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

For everybody's information, it seems Gokulpr did recreate the article, but it has been changed by another user to a redirect to this article once again. --Slp1 14:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Slp1 I just saw that now. Personally I would agree with the situation as it stands. IMHO if protect indian family is a part of SIF a note about it here would be sufficient. PIF would only require (under WP:N) a seperate article if there was a large amount of independent, verfiable sources that differentiate from the SIFF. Even if this was the case there would still be a very good argument for merging the 2 articles.--Cailil 15:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

A different template for the top of the article

I've replaced the STOP BEFORE YOU EDIT template because I'm not sure about its place there. My Wikidness is welcome to explain it if he likes. For the time being I've added a template of my own:

It's neither offical nor perfect. But it is more appropriate to this article. Another tag could be added to show this page is being clean-ed up but I'm not a 100% sure that it's neccessary. I'm also going to tag this talk page as part of Project Gender Studies seeing that it is about an organization whose core issues are gender and gender law related--Cailil 15:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC) P.S. thanks to Slp1 for typo correction in the tag : )--Cailil 17:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Editing notes

Hi all, I have begun the footnoting as suggested by Cailil above, and moving some references to more appropriate (to me) places. I have only got part way, as you can see!
I have deleted only one reference, the WHO elder abuse report, since it is talking about elder abuse and not the SIF or its particular concerns. It is too bad that so many of the other references substantiate the issues but do not mention SIF.
I have also reorganized the concerns sections a bit, putting all the legal concerns together in a section and in chronological order, thinking it may read better this way. I hope this is okay with people --Slp1 03:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I have been thinking more about this article and am going to suggest that the subsections within the criticism sections be limited to a brief description of the law/situation and then SIF's concerns. The other information (about the Centre for Social Research India, Supreme Court decision, Renuka Chowdhury etc) should be moved to the WP articles about the Laws etc, and not be here. This article should be about SIF not about the rights and wrongs of the issue per se. I am proposing to do this in a day or so if there is no disagreement. --Slp1 04:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I made a similar suggestion above and I would agree with your approach Slp1. But I would add that other users may want to keep the references that they added to the article since my suggestion- perhaps a synthesis of the two ways of thinking will be reached with your rewrite - no pessure or anything ; ).--Cailil 22:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Since there have been no objections (and Cailil's support) to the idea of streamlining this article to focus more specifically on SIF, I have started to edit this article. I will certainly try to keep any and all of the relevant references that have been kindly found. Any larger sections that I remove (including references) are or will be found in the relevant articles about the laws. Any comments, suggestions and improvements very much welcomed, since this is a work in progress. I hope I don't crack under the pressure!

I have a question though. Should the article be renamed Save Indian Family Foundation, since that seems to be the official name, based on the website? --Slp1 15:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Certainly a redirect from Save Indian Family Foundation would be appropriate - even if a name change is not.--Cailil 18:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

All seems to be have been quiet here for a while. I hope that is good! There are still a number of uncited statements in this article. I am hoping that people can source them in the next few days. I will try and find sources too, but if I can't I think the time has come to delete them boldly. --Slp1 04:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure who keeps editing out the justice Saldhana's reportage of 44% of the dowry detah calims being unjustifiable. This is vandalism to the core. Now do I have to keep putting it back every day ? bharati
I have edited out the siff claism of 23000 men being driven to sucide for the simple reaon it was reported in midday bangalore and exists as a central claim by siff in in its website. Since mentioned as a claim we need to have support of evidence of its claim not actual fact whether 23000 men were driven to sucide or not. bharati
The actaul fact of te 23000 number is based on the statistical method called factorial analysis 219.64.78.64 19:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC) bharati

Hi Bharati,

I have put back the citation needed tags because there seems to be a bit of a confusion about what they are there for. Those tags are there because the statements (that SIF claims that bride burning figures are exagerrated, for example) have not been cited properly. In other words no one has come up with a reliable source that says this exactly. I think the confusion may be because on the editing page the code-tag says "fact" which might have caused your confusion. It sounds like you may know of places where at least some of these statements can be verified. Rather than deleting the tags, it is important to find the references and then add them as a footnote. Then you can delete the tag with good conscience!!! For some of the "citation needed" tags the SIF website would probably do but for in most situations we need to find a source that Wikipedia finds reliable, which is not always that easy!!

I am hoping that I can count on you to help find some appropriate sources for the statements. --Slp1 21:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Possible removal of the "Harassed husbands far outnumber wives" link under "further reading" - it links to a statement by SIF, but could instead link to the original source of the information - the publicly available NCRB report at http://ncrb.nic.in/CD-ADSI2009/table-2.10.pdf - to find the relevant numbers, you can just search "dowry dispute" - the SIF claim appears to be incorrect when you examine the NCRB report as well. LikaTika (talk) 04:32, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Claims about bride burning

At the bottom of the accurate reporting section there is an (as yet) unsubstantiated line: "SIF claims that incidence of Bride burning is exaggerated." In line with the other posts on this page such a claim needs not only to verifiable but to be notable. I've been looking at this line for a whole month now waiting for someone who can vefy it to do so. As it is the line looks like a WP:POVPUSH because it is unsourced and not particularly notable - unless newspaper articles and/or books are written about SIFF's objection to Bride Burning claims that sentence will have to be reviewed.--Cailil 17:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Further to my request above, and the lack of any response, I have done a google search as well as a look through the SIF website and all the references in the article. I cannot find any [[WP:RS| reliable source] for any of the following sentences and therefore have removed them from the article. If anybody can find a reliable source for this then we can certainly add them back.

• SIF claims that it is an independent organization, without links to any conservative or religious organisations.
• SIF claims that incidence of Bride burning is exaggerated
• They claim that many married men in India are driven to suicide by their wives.
• In 2006, in order to meet a growing need, the SIF opened these services to women in abusive relationships.
• They (feminists) claim that SIF members will lose the sympathy of women due to its anti-feminist stand, and they fear that the SIF can injure the women's movement in India

--Slp1 17:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

GA Fail

I didn't do the whole review, though I read the whole thing. I quick failed it based on the fact that there were no images and the article was far from thorough, missing key information about who founded it as well as actual example of their work as opposed to what their goals are, read way too much like an "About us" page on the company website.A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 12:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I am wondering if you could clarify your quick fail of this article for good article status. I can't seem to find any information about "quick fail" on WP, which is part of my problem, so maybe you could help by pointing me in the right direction! I am a bit confused by the decision, because none of the criteria listed on the tag apply to this article, and as part as I read the Good Article criteria, images are not desireable but not required: "It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic" WP:GA?. The information that you suggest is missing would require original research to provide, which I am sure you would not advise!! As you will have noted, the article is very well cited, which has been part a concerted effort in the last few months by a number of editors (including myself) to remove unattributeable information material, and we wouldn't want to go in reverse, surely! --Slp1 22:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The reasons are above. I am not sure I get why this information would be OR. Good luck with the article.A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 01:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I realize that the reasons you gave are above. My points are that A) images are not required for GA and B) the additional information you suggest is needed (about the founders for example) is not available from any reliable source, and therefore if somebody came up with some names it would currently be non-verifiable original research. I would still be interested in where the 'quick fail' criteria are written up --Slp1 03:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

There's some info on when and where quick fail should be used on the quick fail template page{{GAquickfail}}. Like you Slp1 I wasn't aware that not having an image was a fail standard - as I read the policy there was a proviso that image should be used where possible indeed the criteria specify that: (b) a lack of images does not in itself prevent an article from achieving Good Article status. I do agree with you A mcmurray more factual info is neccessary but that may have to wait till something notable is published--Cailil 15:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

quick fail has been removed from the GA criteria and a new speedy delisting has been introduced (or reintroduced) to delist articles that are not up to GA standard.--Cailil 13:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I took some time away from the article so I could take a fresh look and assess A mcmurray's points. In all honesty they're correct. The Aims and Objectives section is inappropriate to Wikipedia - this was the original position of myself and Slp1 and Fisherqueen but we had to compromise in the name of WP:AGF. Perhaps it was a case of interpellation that we came to accept this section. I making atemporary rewrite now. If anyone feels anything impoirtant has been removed please add it ONLY if you can source it from a reliable source (see WP:ATT).--Cailil 13:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

March 31st Revisions

I've made a number of drastic alterations to the page. First is the reorganization of sections. I've split SIFF Aims into 3: Stated Aims, Issues and Support. the sections, stated aims and support, conatin ONLY the information pertinent to either SIFF's sated aims or its support network and nothing else. The issues section contains the majority of the information moved from SIFF Aims section. It has been reworded in places for NPOV and clarity. Everything that has been removed (including the paragraph on "accurate reproting") has been removed because it hs not been covered with enough notability or uses references that are not about SIFF or uses refs "like an essay" which violates WP:SYNT. My expansion of SIFFs aims is on the very limit of notability. The only "published" source is from their own website. If anyone wants to expand this more notable sources would be neccessary. The final thing that the page needs at the moment is information about its leaders and a picture. If anyone can provide that info it would vastly improve the article.--Cailil 14:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

No need to use 'alleged'

It is unnecessary to use 'alleged' before 'misuses of domestic violence legislation such as Section 498a of the Indian Penal Code (1983) and the Protection of Women Against Domestic Violence Act 2005' in the 'Issues' section. The misuse of Section 498a of the Indian Penal Code is a well-known fact and has been discussed by many circles of Indian media (although relatively few than those discussing women's issues) and by many organizations and people (obviously not by feminists). So it is unnecessary to put the adjective 'alleged' while pointing the misuse of Section 498a of Indian Penal Code. Otolemur crassicaudatus 12:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

If it is a well-known fact, it will be easy to find Reliable Sources showing that it is the mainstream view that the law is misused. Then 'alleged' can certainly be deleted. Thanks! --Slp1 12:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Bharati- would a judgement by a supreme court of India suffice as reliable source ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.95.11.152 (talk) 15:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

there can never be completely reliable source . Mens organisations may not considers areliable many sources but still we do not use alledged—Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.161.145.240 (talk • contribs) 16:38, 18 November 2007

IP user 59.161.145.240, it is not a matter of what any group off wikipedia or any individual on wikipedia defines as a reliable source - it is a matter of site policy (see WP:RS). Claims must be verified and primary sources (in this case Save Indian Family organization websites and documents) can only be used for descriptive purposes (see WP:PSTS). This means that SIF's material can only be used in the article if it is stated to be SIF's pov. Hence the use of "claimed" or "alleged". If third party reliable sources can back this claim up then it should be attributed to them--Cailil ^talk 18:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Changes in "Criticism" part

Please review the changes. The old parts are commented out, with my notes/explanations.

Prabhakar (talk) 07:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Alert regarding User ForesticPig

I note that user: ForesticPig Contribs is travelling around trying to delete all Wikipedia references to Save Indian Family. This user is on a mission. I don't have any time to police her deletion spree, but encourage others involved in this entry to keep a watch on her edits. 58.165.74.59 (talk) 00:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I have to say that I agree with Forestic Pig's edits in this regard. Internal links to this article have been being gratuitously inserted in many articles, often most inappropriately in my view, and possibly as a means of publicising the organization. And by the way, may I ask why do you assume FP is female?. --Slp1 (talk) 02:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Editing help

I have tried to add some information about the NGOs allied to SIF ideologicaly, with their links, but have found it edited out by Cailil. I find that Cailil from Ireland, belongs to a 'Feminism Task Force', and hence may have a vested interest here. This is what I found edited out.

CRISP

CRISP (Children's Rights Initiative for Shared Parenting ) is an NGO working for the joint/shared custody of both parents in cases of seperation/divorce [12]. Akin to similar men's organisations around the world, it fights the brainwashing of one child against the other parent, by alienating that parent.

All India Forgotten Women

Spearheaded by Uma Challa,[13] the NGO fights for the rights of women affected by the anti-male laws as 'collateral damage'. [14]

How to Seek Help/ Volunteer

Please call your nearest SIF contact number given in their website http://www.saveindianfamily.org.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Parthasarathy B (talk • contribs) 11:08, 1 December 2008

I'm very glad to see that you are discussing edits on the talkpage, Parthasarathy, rather than just reverting. That's great. Thank you. But in fact I agree with Cailil's edit.[15] This is an encyclopedia. It is not a place to advertise or promote Save Indian Family or any other organization. We don't include information about how to contact the organization, for example. See WP:PROMOTION for more details. Material must also be of neutral point of view which the above certainly isn't. Cailil also removed a whole host of external links, very appropriately per WP:NOTLINK. BTW, please comment on the edits, not the editor, as you did about Cailil above. Assuming good faith is important around here. --Slp1 (talk) 02:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I wish people were polite, and pointed out any discrepancy they might have noticed, and not wiped out a whole important section, namely the allied NGOs of SIF - which is what I have edited, WITH references.

Secondly, I might be new around here, but am shocked by whole sections being wiped out, and called 'editing' by a person who claims to be from a feminist him/herslf, and from Ireland. He can leave out 'How to contact' section, if he finds that disturbing his/her feminist sensitivities, but why not the allied NGOs? Thats totally unethical by itself!

Parthasarathy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Parthasarathy B (talk • contribs) 05:19, 2 December 2008

Multiple people have politely pointed out discrepancies with your edits, Parthasarathy, and I'm glad to see that you are now understanding that these concerns need to be paid attention to. This is an encyclopedia article about Save Indian Family. As I have explained above, this is not the place to include links to and summaries of allied organizations. You'll surely understand that if these things were permitted, Wikipedia would cease to be an encyclopedia and become a directory (of lists and links) instead.

Once again, you need to stop your speculation about Cailil and his motives please. Such assumptions of bad faith are conduct unbecoming to a Wikipedia editor. Note Cailil has acted very much within policy, and his edits are being supported by other editors. BTW, when you edit a talkpage, you can sign with four tildes (~). That will automatically add your username and a time stamp. --Slp1 (talk) 03:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Recent edit

I have just spent nearly two hours doing a major edit of this article. This was motivated by the need to remove large quantities of original research and unverifiable material. For future reference, it is important that any additions follow these policy requirements. Citations to this article need to come from reliable sources that actually mention SIF. Citing material from other, related organizations (e.g. www.498a.org) is not acceptable for the views and objective of SIF. Nor is it acceptable to combine information from different sources to make a point per WP:SYNT. Wikipedia is also not the place where you can promote an organization or your views per WP:SOAPBOX. Please do not reinsert this material without discussing its appropriateness here on the talkpage first.--Slp1 (talk) 16:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Some of the sources (bare sources, which look like "[16]", [2], etc.) were removed. --Joshua Issac (talk) 18:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Recent changes

The recent additions, (likely by supporters of this organization) are quite problematic. Some tags have been added to the article, and I will attempt to clean it up in the next little while, using edit summaries to explain my edits. In particular, there are large chunks of unsourced text which attempt to argue the positions of SIF. This is not the place to publicize, argue and advocate the group's concerns. Instead, it is an article about SIF.

My first step has been to request deletion of the gigantic figures. These have been copy and pasted from internet sources without appropriate permissions, and thus will likely be deleted as copyright violations. I will also shortly be deleting from the "Further reading" section any article that does not mention SIF. As mentioned above, Wikipedia is not in the business of making collections of indiscriminate links or information. External links need to add information about SIF. --Slp1 (talk) 14:46, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I have begun some of the work here. As can be seen from the edit summaries, I have reworded some sentences to make them of NPOV. I have added some citation needed tags. And I have deleted one section about suicides which contained copyright infringing graphics as well as obvious original research and advocacy. The point (that members of SIF point to male married suicides as an example of the distress of men,) was already sourced and included in the section above. I also remove the "Domestic Violence Awareness Month" section for similar reasons.

The last few sections are also unsourced and are making an argument, as well as being not of NPOV. I have tagged them as such for now, but the sections will need to be sourced and rewritten for them to remain for the longterm.--Slp1 (talk) 19:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Slp1 , "My first step has been to request deletion of the gigantic figures. These have been copy and pasted from internet sources without appropriate permissions, and thus will likely be deleted as copyright violations."

Why will the suicide data be under any copyright.Please point out what sort of permissions would you need to publish data that has been published for the government for distribution in the public . The data on the suicide of husbands has been sourced from a report the was published for the general public by the Indian Government's National crime records bureau and did not infringe on any copy rights. This data has been authorized to have been shared and distributed to raise awareness . The data was sourced from http://ncrb.nic.in/ADSI2007/Suicides07.pdf and that did not have any details related to copyrights . --129.33.1.37 (talk) 15:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The second screenshot of the misuse of section 498a has been sourced from the site 498a.org which is an allied NGO with SIF and we henceforth have the permission to quote this data . This data again has been obtained from openly distributed data by the government of India and does not infringe any copyrights.--129.33.1.37 (talk) 15:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. You will need to go to check the licensing at the Commons. It's fairly complicated, but the short version is that unless you have taken or made the picture/graph yourself OR the picture/graph is specifically stated to be freely licensed (including commercial use) then it is a copyright right infringement. With the graphs you uploaded neither is the case. If you have permission to use the 498a graphs then you will have to go through the process of confirming the permission, as noted here[17], because obviously it is impossible for the Commons adminsistration to be sure that this is really the case without official confirmation. However, the graphs are not suitable for inclusion in any case, since they are not of neutral point of view: instead they are trying to prove SIF and 498a's point, including very polemic titles. I think the fundamental point that needs to be understood is that this article cannot be used to try and justify or convince people about SIF's arguments. It can report the significant positions they hold (that have been reported in newspapers for example), but it cannot be used to try to prove that what they say is either correct or incorrect, unless this too has been pointed out by a reliable source.

BTW: Did you also take all those photos you uploaded to Commons? If not, those are copyright infringements too and will either need permissions sent or the photos deleted. Sorry about this, but copyrights infringements are very seriously dealt with here. --Slp1 (talk) 16:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Second BTW. You mention "we" above, suggesting that you are a member of SIF. If this is the case, then it is important that you read the conflict of interest guidelines, and then adhere to them. While editing with a conflict of interest isn't forbidden, it can be problematic and needs to be done with care. --Slp1 (talk) 16:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

--Arnab221 (talk) 23:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC) Hello Slp1 , The photos are my personal property since I took them in SIF rallies. I still could not understand the neutrality point of view in the 498a.org data. When I am just stating that this may people have been arrested on a charge vs this many have been acquitted how can I be partial ? The data has been provided by the government , does plotting the data on a graph become partial ? It is for the reader to infer whatever he may want to feel about it after reading the graph. Also the data on suicides is completely neutral since it just shows the number of suicides in a year in India . It is again for the people to infer the data after reading it . Lastly would you be satisfied if I provide the data in tabular format myself without the graphs without the polemic titles ? Would it be impartial then ? , Please advice . --Arnab221 (talk) 23:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying about the photos. That's great. We just need to work on the captions, which I am sure you will agree are not exactly neutral!!! The problem with the graphs is, as I said above, twofold. First, the graphs you used were copyright violations. Second, the data you wish to include (whether presented in a graph or a table form) is being presented in order a make a point dear to the organisation to which you belong. These data are primary sources that, as you can see from the policy cited, have be used with great caution because of the danger that they are misused. WP summarizes what reliable sources say about SIF. If you can find some secondary sources (newspapers, books) that discuss these questions, then we can include the information. Otherwise, the graphs/data would be giving undue weight to arguments that nobody else has found significant enough to mention.

Just to put this in context... I suspect that there are other graphs and statistics from the National Crime Bureau that members of the SIF wouldn't want to have included here. For example, it might be possible to include a graph showing the reported dowry deaths against women. Somebody who opposed SIF might come here, and want to include the graph and say how wrong SIF is because of this. This would not be allowed either. Nobody can use WP as an extension of their campaigning. --Slp1 (talk) 00:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

--Arnab221 (talk) 23:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC) Hello Slp1, Whats the reason behind removing the You tube links alongside the Marital law misuse in popular culture section . Can't I put a link that allows the viewer to watch the youtube video that depicts the misuse ? Is this too considered copyright violation ? I have also edited the Women in SIF section and written facts and statements that I believe are just facts ( according to your explanation above ) . --Arnab221 (talk) 23:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Youtube is not considered a reliable source for content because the videos can be very easily doctored and appear to be copyright violations. But most importantly, the whole section appeared to be your personal opinion and research using the youtube videos as examples, which is not allowed here.

It's good that you have reworked the section on women. However, do you have any sources for all of this or is it just your observation and personal knowledge? It is also not of NPOV. The use of "biased marital laws" makes this obvious. I'm sure not that everybody would agree that the laws are biased; am I right??!!!--Slp1 (talk) 00:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

--Arnab221 (talk) 01:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC) Thanks Slp1 , I got the drift of WP now( this was my first time editing WP ). I will try to source the data that has been mentioned in the graphs from some newspaper reports and articles that discuss the deaths of husbands in India . I will also change the captions on the photos as you have said!! The line with Biased marital laws is now replaced with the following and is obvious from the photos that I have posted . "Normally hundreds of women activists are seen publicly protesting with Men in almost all of SIF's rallies against misuse of Indian marital laws." --Arnab221 (talk) 01:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I do realize that there is lots to learn about contributing here. It took me a while too too get the hang of it, and it took some studying to figure out all the policies etc. Thank you for being so open to learning and making the changes you have. However, the thing with neutral editing is that you really need to disconnect from your personal views and think what someone who knows nothing or who holds very opposing views would consider neutral. So... when you look at the pictures, do you honestly see evidence that "Normally, hundreds of women activists" or could you see that other people might see it more like "one occasion, some women...."? The goal here is to be accurate and to be objective, and to be a neutral Wikipedian. You might find this essay quite interesting --Slp1 (talk) 01:45, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

--Arnab221 (talk) 02:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC) Renamed all photograph captions as recommended . Removed any instances of men/husband from the captions , replaced with Indians. --Arnab221 (talk) 02:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

It's an improvement, but your changes didn't really solve the problem of neutrality. E.g there is still the assumption that the laws are biased and need to be made more gender neutral (which is clearly a matter of opinion in India). I'll have a go to show you the sort of thing that needs doing.--Slp1 (talk) 21:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

--Arnab221 (talk) 01:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC) I am cool with the new photo captions , looks ok to me . Now lets move to the next sections 1) Marital law misuse in popular culture . 2) Supreme court advice to Incident . This incident got a lot of attention in Indian and you can see the sources too.

--Arnab221 (talk) 01:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Good. The main problem with those sections is that the first section has no references at all and appears to be somebody's (your's?) personal opinion about the themes of some films; the second section has 3 references, but none of them mention Save Indian Family. This is an article about SIF. Any material added needs to have a direct, documented connection to SIF using a reliable source. If newspapers/books mention the films or the court case as being quoted etc by SIF all is well; otherwise this is what is called original research and synthesis. Hope that helps. --Slp1 (talk) 02:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• Just seeing this again after a few months and I have to agree with Slp1's initial response (even after Arnab221's explanations). The page should be reverted to this version. Currently it is an advertisement for this organization - which breaks every rule on wikipedia. The sources cited for much of the new information are about issues of Indian family law not the organization. To be very clear these sources do mention the organization but they are not about it. There are other sources which coming from the organization itself fail to meet WP:RS criteria. Also while the pictures are a good addition there are far far too many on the page. Please see WP:MOS for our style guidelines--Cailil ^talk 16:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

--Arnab221 (talk) 02:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC) Cailil,

Your suggestions are but a clear example of how feminists try to gag the information that offer a different opinion from them . There has been a huge debate your feminist ideals and the way you vandalized the articles when they were first created and I do not want to go into them again. Slp1 seems to be a moderate and I am working with him to neutralize the article according to his instructions .I request you to let both of us deal with the articles . SIF was a very small organization when it was launched 3 years back and now it is global organization with over a 100,000 members in India itself. This was done without WP's help or advertising ( as you were there regulating the articles) and we do not need it even now as we have millions of blogs not only on SIF but on mens rights all over the internet. Today Men's rights brings in 72 Billion search hits in google and women's rights brings in 52 million and SIF is just a drop in that ocean. However coming back to the SIF , the articles that were written in 2007 to represent SIF did not do justice to its reach and current size now and hence this article attempts to do that in a neutral way ( where I am bring guided by SLp1). I was also looking into the WP page for feminism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism) and I see that while a ton of ink has been spilled on the what feminism and done and achieved over the ages it hardly refers to the immense destruction it has caused or project the other side of the view. I am sure writers would have wanted to write about that too , but were gagged by people like yourself. --Arnab221 (talk) 02:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Arnab, but you are mistaken on a couple of fronts. Abiding by policy is paramount and arguments about gender has no place here. Specifically, Cailil is male, and despite your guesses, Slp1 is female....

Answer me honestly, are you surprised? As a matter of personal growth, consider why you assumed I was male. More importantly, now you know my gender, will you pay less attention to what you called my "moderate" views?. I sincerely hope not, as since surely you agree that people, like books, should not be judged by their gender/cover. If you thought I was reasonable/moderate when you assumed I was a man, why would this change now you know I am a woman?

As it happens, both Cailil and I agree that your additions are contrary to policy. There are no sources for your contentions and arguments in the article or incidentally for your allegations above. I've been quite gentle and patient about your editing, because I have been happy to see that you are willing to learn about what is appropriate, and am fairly confident that with time and explanation you will see that without reliable sources what you have added is not suitable for a Wikipedia article. Cailil has been more direct. Different styles. Different approaches. Once might argue difference in a male (direct) and female (indirect) approach, in fact. But whatever the style, it's the same message. I suggest you read our policies carefully. I think you'll see that despite our differences in gender both Cailil and I are singing the same tune. --Slp1 (talk) 03:30, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

--Arnab221 (talk) 08:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC) Slp1 ,

Thanks for the explanation .Firstly, my assumption that you were male was just coincidental and not calculated. Actually I am not at all surprised that you are a woman.Most people believe that Feminism is controlled by some women who are really radical and physiologically disturbed .Surprisingly that is not at all the case.Militant Feminism is a creation of men and men have created it with the sole intention of using it as a weapon to control other men or make profit .The biggest controllers and supporters of feminism are all big Male politicians( The current US Vice President ) , Male industrialists and Male thinkers who use feminism just as they use taxation and other policies to control and keep the population submissive. Radical feminism is a creation of men and is being totally funded by men although men are never in the limelight. On the contrary most support that men's rights movements get today are not from men but from women( at least in India).In the press releases that I had( and you removed) you will see that 90% of those have been written by Indian women journalists. Women journalists and bloggers write the most about us while the Male Judges and Politicians just pay us lip service. The male judges and politicians may abuse and torture their wives at home but when the reach office they turn into feminists and pronounce verdicts and statements against men just to keep their guilt in check and to convince themselves that they support the cause for women.That is exactly why I have mentioned the role of women in SIF.

Just to give you a simple example . A newspaper baron ( 99% chances he is a man ) wants to improve sales . He sees that in his area there are 100 homes which are all joint families ( Like in India ) . That is parents children and grandparents all living under the same roof . They all share the same paper and and his sales figures are 100 papers per day. He brings on board a feminist who starts writing radical articles in papers advising women that being married is uncool and you could get money and benefits by being being divorced and women should not adjust and live in a joint family . This goes on for 5 years. It is a lot easier to influence women than men.After 5 years of propaganda the 100 families start to break as husband and wife divorce and the 100 families become 200 families ( Husband and wife spilt ).Now if each family buys a paper the sales are now 200 per area(100% rise). Now extrapolate the same to Real estate , apartments and houses , Automobiles , Televisions and consumer electronics and basically everything that is needed in day to day life is sold twice once to the husband and then to the wife.Feminism is a dream come true for industrialists( most of whom are men). Why do you think US is the largest consumer in the world ? Both the government and the common people are are bankrupt to the hilt in debt but they will not unite and share resources simply because their family system has broken beyond repair due to radical feminism with an intention to profit and control. India has so far been protected because Indian thought process and religious beliefs are ancient and preach a united family.The feminists who are now being increasingly been booted out of US are now flying in droves to India to "reform" our ancient civilization with "modern" thoughts and create a second Wave of Family destruction.Now you will get a picture of what militant feminism is really all about .

Feminism's origin has nothing to do with women in the same way Mens rights activism is nothing to do with men.This is a battle against right and wrong , between truth and lies. --Arnab221 (talk) 08:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Can you check the talkpage guidelines please? This talkpage (like the article) is not the place to describe or advocate for your personal theories of life, the universe and feminism. It is to discuss improvements to the article. --Slp1 (talk) 13:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC) --Arnab221 (talk) 17:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

You are absolutely right ,no more personal talk.I am looking for some newspaper articles to substantiate the the last 2 sections according to WP guidelines .If I am unable to find them then I will change/remove it . --Arnab221 (talk) 17:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your understanding. While you are looking, please bear in mind that the articles need to be about SIF and their views, not just supportive of the point itself. And please look for material to source the section on women too. The references there don't support the claims made.--Slp1 (talk) 18:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

It's been 3 weeks now, and no sources have emerged. I have deleted the problematic unsourced original research sections lacking (with neutrality problem to boot) per my and Cailil's comments. Some useful new sources have been added to the article, including in the further reading section. I will go through them to include any useful information and will also clean up the rest of the article in the next few days.--Slp1 (talk) 22:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Corrections

Save Indian Family is a men's rights organisation and it is not exactly a domestic violence advocacy group. So, it should link to Men's_rights_movement_in_India in stead of Outline_of_domestic_violence. The other alternative is to remove this line redirection like altogether.Newageindian (talk) 03:25, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree and removed the line. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 16:55, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Dear Sonicyouth86

As I am not so good to understand about the content, but feel the below 3-link is from reliable source and the same to be added in Save Indian Family page. Would request you , please add the same in appropriate place . Would appreciate your effort in advance.

Men's rights group to raise marital rape issue on I-Day 'Harassed' men set up meet Spare a thought for innocent husbands — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruproy1972 (talk • contribs) 04:10, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Dear Sonicyouth86

The two news I found as per seems from reliable source about two new NGO set up by SIF umbrella organizations . Would request to add the same in appropriate way in Save Indian Family.

Forum for abused men – SIF- BHAI

An abusive wife?

Thanks in advance for your kind support and understanding.

Ruproy1972 (talk — Preceding undated comment added 09:43, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Dear Sonicyouth86 and others Found a article which i feel to be added in SIF page. Would request to add the link same in appropriate place. Men’s rights activists want commission on lines of NCW Ruproy1972 (talk) 09:37, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Dear Sonicyouth86 and others

Found today more article about SIF , would request to add the same in appropriate place in SIF page , if you feel the same as per Wiki policy as reliable source Times of India : Mens rights bodies under banner SIF call to solve Problems SIF News : Men suicide increasing Ruproy1972 (talk) 04:20, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that Save Indian Family be merged into Save Indian Family Foundation. These two appear to be one and the same thing, the activities (e.g., opposition to criminalizing marital rape) and activists (Swarup Sarkar) appear to be the same. I don't see the need for two separate pages. SonicY (talk) 11:59, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Save Indian Family is a movement under that many NGO works, Like Save Family Foundation or save Indian family foundation, Haridaya, Vastav,Daman to name few are individual NGO. A Individual work for many NGO and the name Swarup sarkar also have many individaul , there is no restriction to work in multiple NGO. Any activity done or announced by Save Indian Family, many NGO followed.

So , the same should not be merged. If required any NGO can be merged to Save Indian Family not other way , as it will be injustice to others NGO also working for Save Indian family movement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruproy1972 (talk • contribs) 11:42, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Sonicyouth86, I am not an expert on Wikipedia policies. But, a lot of users who directly work for the group Save Indian Family have edited its page with WP:PROMOTION violating WP:NPOV. There is also some Wikipedia:Vandalism in both pages, which you suggested for merging. Newageindian (talk) 11:56, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

The Save Indian Family page is chock full of advertisement, unneeded data, original research and it needs to be heavily cut down. After that there won't be much left that deserves its own page. --SonicY (talk) 15:04, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

There are many officially registered men's rights organisations in India, often having similar sounding names. For example, one source in June 2015, refers to (Swarup Sarkar) as president of a registered organisation called "Save Family Foundation" and the wikipedia user Ritwik Bisaria is member of this organisation. Please refer sources SwarupSarkar, RitwikBisaria and Save Family Foundation. The wikipedia page for "Save Family Foundation" does not exist. So, I do not know if merger of both articles is appropriate. The other possibility is to suggest renaming of Save Indian Family to "Save Family Foundation." Thanks. Newageindian (talk) 11:56, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Sure, but only one of them appears to be notable. If you search for "Save Indian Family" in reliable sources what you get in most cases is information about the Save Indian Family Foundation. I doubt that SIF is notable without SIFF. We can go ahead and remove all incorrectly or unsourced content from the SIF page and you'll how little will remain. So I suggest that we merge SIF into SIFF and mention in the SIFF article that SIFF is part of a larger collective of organizations called SIF (and yes, I'm aware of how ridiculous that last sentence sounds read out loud). --SonicY (talk) 15:04, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes exactly , there are many NGO like Save family Foundation, Vastav , Daman , Haridaya who works for the movement Save Indian Family. Now all NGO does not have separate page. Then why only a single NGO Save Indian family foundation will have page and injustice to other NGO. It had been clearly mentioned , not a single NGO can claim Save Indian Family is their own . Either both page should continue, as news links are different, related to SIF to be link in this page and nes realted to SIFF to linked to SIFF page. Or Let SIF continue and all NGO can post thier news link including SIFF, SFF, Vastav, Daman, Hariday, it will give more knowledge to people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruproy1972 (talk • contribs) 12:17, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• Although nobody has voted here yet, it seems to me that there is strong support for the idea of merging, and no opposition at all. I was also going to weight in and support the merger, so I would actually suggest that the proposer boldly perform the merger at this point. Transfer useful content to the destination page, and redirect this one there. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:50, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry merging will be injustice. Sif had own indentity and all citiation available. I do not vote for merger. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.39.32.227 (talk) 16:45, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with concept of merging Save Indian Family and Save Indian Family Foundation. Although on surface, both look similar, yet these two have different philosophy and goals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.254.104.15 (talk) 17:04, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I have cut down the SIF page significantly and organized the page around their core issues/concerns/fields of activism. Unsurprisingly, SIFF and SIF support and oppose the same things, the merger would be smooth. The SIF page isn't an eyesore anymore and both pages are of appropriate length now but I still think that merging the two makes sense. Newageindian and IP, would you support a merge of SIFF into SIF? --SonicY (talk) 20:11, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

As you had allready removed many protion in SIF there is no need to merge. SIF and SIFF different ajd different reliable source their. Request to withdraw your mergal proposal. There are enough reliable resorce will be coming out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.39.32.227 (talk) 01:55, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Sonicyouth86 Corrections helps maintaining the right content on wikipages indeed and I believe necessary corrections are done on the Save Indian Family page by you. While tracing back on origin of the names confusion, I found the 1st ever reliable Source which mentions both Save Indian Family & Save Indian Family Foundation dating 20 September 2007 SIF. The source mentions Save Indian Family Foundation as 1 of the NGOs while the Article also mentions Save Indian Family separately. Then also found other reliable sources like SIF, SIF, SIF, SIF and many others which mention Save Indian Family as an umbrella organization while almost all other links mention Save Indian Family Foundation as one of the NGOs. So proposing SIFF into SIF looks a very sensible option. Though I also found another source [Save Family Foundation] which shows activist (Rajesh Vakharia) as President of Save Family Foundation. Save Indian Family Foundation page also writes Rajesh Vakharia as a Leader. So merging a NGO into the Umbrella organization looks apt. Otherway round may invite concerns from other NGOs who identify to Save Indian Family but not to Save Indian Family Foundation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.59.111.164 (talk) 04:14, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

SIF is an umbrella group of various NGOs across the globe, and SIFF is an individual NGO, so both are different. In case there has to be a single page it should SIF. Many references to this effect are already quoted above by earlier contributors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gokulpr (talk • contribs) 04:39, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Dear User:Sonicyouth86, various sources posted on Save Indian Family page were from authentic sources. Would request you to reinstate them while I will ensure that content is lesser (lesser number of original words). On the question of merger input shared by User:newageindian looks coming under violation of WP:NPOV as the user being a contributor of Save Indian Family Foundation page and also admin of SIFF Website. Hence, the inputs from the user may not be from Neutral Point of View. In case there is a merger anticipated, a single NGO merging into an umbrella organisation (or as a sublink) may have lesser concerns from other NGOs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ritwik.bisaria (talk • contribs) 04:46, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Dear SonicY As there is no concession , would request to withdraw your proposal to avoid any confusion to readers. Save Indian Family is a umbrella organization where many NGO can attached , where as SIFF is one of NGO born from Save Indian Family, even the same can bee seen from the history also, some one changed earlier Save Indian Family to SIFF for own interest. Also would request to add many reliable source links i had given you in your talk page. Hope you will close your proposal at the earliest. Ruproy1972 (talk) 04:50, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Sonicyouth86, please note that there is a redirection of the wikipedia page Men's rights movement in India to Save Indian Family Foundation. If there are more than one men's rights organisations with credible sources, then they can be included in that page, if you remove the redirection of "men's rights movement in India" page to Save Indian Family Foundation. It appears that a few of the above users are suggesting that Save Indian Family is a kind of proxy for the Men's rights movement in India. Thanks. Newageindian (talk) 17:15, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Sonicyouth86 I totally disagree , the original page was SIF , not SIFF , the foundation word added after words, even the website domin also does not say saveindiandfamilyfoundation , it says saveindianfamily , unable to understand how wiki editors accept the word foundation added by admin of website owners as reliable source. it had been changed after words for self interest only as evident in the history. For example, Cricketer , why we make individual page for a particulate cricketer ? For actors, why we allow individual page of actors. Even redirection of men's rights movement to SIFF is also wrong. SIFF is a individual NGO , where as SIF is a umbrella movement where many NGO are part of it. Would request to remove the mergal proposal on urgent basis and do not allow some individual NGO to take undue advantages for their self interest.Ruproy1972 (talk) 04:29, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Dear User:Sonicyouth86 from the discussion and various notable sources it concludes , SIF a umberala of various NGO and SIFF is one of them. The necessary corrections had been already done . So once again request to remove the merger proposal as it had already pasted more than 30 days. Ruproy1972 (talk) 06:42, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Dear User:Sonicyouth86, to end the Merger proposal, unfortunately, the page Save Indian Family has been redirected to page Save Indian Family Foundation. This is a major issue as a group named SIFF (Save Indian Family Foundation) is being viewed by Victims across the world as SIF (Save Indian Family). Which means that a victim in distress while searching for SIF, is reaching SIFF because of this wrong redirection. This has created lot of issues and legality around it too for following reasons. SIFF Website points the victims to a Limited Liability Company i.e. Confidare. Please see the Government of India, Ministry of Corporate Affairs output of SIFF website redirection to Confidare, which is a Limited Liability Company. See Confidare MCA Page. You may check the same on your own with the details in the given screenshot. Hence, by redirecting Save Indian Family Wikipedia page to Save Indian Family Foundation, you have effectively directed every Wiki user to a Limited Liability Company, thus misleading Internet users, searching for brotherhood help on Save Indian Family to a Profit seeking LLP named Confidare. Thus, any user can claim misleading information being provided on Wikipedia page and thus questioning the reliability of this great Online Encyclopedia. Coming to the query shared by you on Save Indian Family not being a movement, thus not allowed to have it's own page, is definitely against Wikipedia policies as any user can see many many Social movements finding space on Wikipedia. A Simple search gave this Wikipage of 'Movement'. If these many social movements can have their Wiki Page, why cant Save Indian Family? 101.57.192.216 (talk) 11:00, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

@101.57.192.216: The article on SIF did not adhere to Wikipedia's policies and standards and therefore stood to be a candidate for deletion. User: Sonicyouth86 redirected the article before the deletion proposal could be discussed. The issue of contention was not that article was upto Wikipedia standards and not 'confusion' caused by the similarity of names. -- Rohini (talk) 20:21, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Dear User:Rohini, thanks for your response. As I can see on this Merger proposal, the first proposal initiated by User:Sonicyouth86 was "I propose that Save Indian Family be merged into Save Indian Family Foundation. These two appear to be one and the same thing, the activities (e.g., opposition to criminalizing marital rape) and activists (Swarup Sarkar) appear to be the same. I don't see the need for two separate pages." So the proposal of merger 'because of same activities' was misdirected towards a policy violation by a User:Newageindian. I also see another valid input from User:Ritwik.bisaria siting, "On the question of merger input shared by User:newageindian looks coming under violation of WP:NPOV as the user being a contributor of Save Indian Family Foundation page and also admin of SIFF Website. Hence, the inputs from the user may not be from Neutral Point of View." Hence, a proposal initiated for 'similar activities', if was converted to Wiki Policy perspective, does show WP:NPOV by User:Newageindian. Though, if Save Indian Family page was violating content related wiki policy, merger to a wrong group is not the solution. The moderators could have raised the alert to users for corrections. As I see, users, in general, have adhered to any alerts raised by wiki moderators. Penalizing 'seemingly wrong' updates on 1 page, does not justify redirecting it to a wrong page. e.g. if there is an unintentional wrong edit to say a page on Mathematics, redirecting or merging it to a page of Science isnt correct. Similarly, both Save Indian Family Foundation & Save Indian Family are 2 different organizations, movements, websites, people and hence merger or redirection is wrongly directed. Please help in maintaining sanity for wiki users by avoiding this mis-direction. 115.245.0.149 (talk) 07:30, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Save Indian Family Foundation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110522132350/http://ibnlive.in.com/news/a-helpline-for-harassed-hubbies/27345-3.html to http://ibnlive.in.com/news/a-helpline-for-harassed-hubbies/27345-3.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:05, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

SIF is different and SIFF is different

I have read the merger proposals which happened earlier and the respective discussions. But SIF is different and SIFF is different. SIF is run by Swarup Sarkar and others; while SIFF is run by Rukma Chary and Rajesh Vakharia. Confidare is a subsidiary of SIFF to voice out depressed men. While both the organisations' goals are same, more or less; they are different and independent entities altogether. If Wiki feels that SIF does not have notability, then at least do not redirect SIF to SIFF, instead let SIFF be SIFF. SIF may be included when there is notability. Thank you! - Veera.sj (talk) 12:16, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Save Indian Family Foundation.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:53, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

edits on November 19th 2022 reverted

Along with significant copyright issues as dealt with by Diannaa, there were also massive problems with sourcing and inaccurate editing, including BLP concerns and synthesis.. I will give a couple of examples here, but there are more, and so I have reverted entirely.

1. The sentence added said "SIFF was founded in 2005 by Rajesh Vakharia after his ex-wife filed a false complaint under Section 498Aof IPC . It took him 5 years to get acquitted. His legal journey during the case encouraged him to set up a civil rights movements to protest against the misuse of the law." The source given [18], from a dubious source (Deccan Chronicle- see past comments the RSN), states that Rajesh Vakharia was "a founding member", not that he was the founder. The assertions about the "false complaint", are cited to Vakharia in the article, but here has been reported in wikivoice, with no qualification.

2. The sentence added said "It was observed in the Deccan Herald in 2013 that around 64,000 men commit suicide every year due to alleged misuse of section 498A." The source is dubious (The Deccan Herald), but in any case the Deccan Herald did not observe anything: they cite "D S Rao, president of Hridaya-Nest of Family Harmony" as stating it.

3. The sentence added said "Similar numbers are reported in National Crime Records Bureau statistics on male suicides in India", citing National crime records which make no mention of Save Indian Family. An obvious example of original research to make a point.

As I said there are many many more, but I don't have the time or energy to explain them all. Slp1 (talk) 15:58, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't have time or energy to even read through the lengthy comment from someone who did spend considerable time writing the same. Seems this is the place for people like you to prosper. Thanks. Boolyme बूलीमी ^{Chat बोलो!!} 17:34, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

I am sorry that all your time and work was wasted. But if you are going to have your edits here remain you must follow WP's policies and guidelines. Although you have been an editor for over 10 years, you didn't follow basic rules about verifiability, copyright, reliable sources and no original research. Also possibly conflict of interest given the claims on Commons. If you want to prosper here, that's what you have to do. If you are interested in learning, follow the links above and I can also give you more guidance if needed. Slp1 (talk) 17:16, 21 November 2022 (UTC)