Talk:Tahirih Justice Center/Archive 1

message: A few gentle reminders to the editors—present and future—of this article:
; Autobiography : Avoid writing or editing articles about yourself, since we all find objectivity especially difficult when we ourselves are concerned.
; Neutral point of view : All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly and without bias.  
; Reliable sources : Caution should be used when using company or organization websites as sources. Although the company or organization is a good source of information on itself, it has an obvious bias.
Please keep these points in mind, and happy editing! Kirill Lokshin 03:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Autobiography, neutrality, and reliable sources 

message: (Ubercryxic): Your mother is a volunteer for Tahirih who is on the committee for the fundraiser on September 27th. Please cease and desist any further manipulation of Wikipedia. I have alerted the press. Please study up on IMBRA and question what your mother is involved in. This is a political organization first and foremost.
Jeff: Whoever you are, please be fair. Your Bahai affiliation should not cleave you to the agenda of the TJC although the original Tahirih (who was cool) was of that "faith". I just made very few edits considering all the free advertising the TJC just asked the 19 year old son of a volunteer to make in time for its huge September Fundraising Drive. Criticism of the IMBRA law belongs front and center although it would be smart for all concerned if the entire article just mentioned IMBRA and its restraining order briefly and moved on to more important issues such as Honor Killings and Genital Mutilation.
Considering all the horrifying things happening to women around the world, it is alarming that the TJC just had the son of one of its employees beef up the anti Online Dating rhetoric weeks before the huge fundraising events on September 12th (Bamian Restaurant in Falls Church, Virginia) and the September 27th Fundraiser Ball in Washington DC.
People will open their pocketbooks to stop genital mutilation. You don't want to associate that with an online dating controversy that is about to explode in the media.
The article won an award and peer review? For advertising? For saying "helps women" instead of "states their mission as helping women"? There is no neutrality in the former and no harm done in making it neutral. Do the editors yet know that once per week there is a newspaper article condemning Tahirih in the press for its IMBRA involvement? Look at the reference to the Cumberland Times here. That article was encased in a series of back and forths in the Cumberland Times castigating Tahirih.
Go to http://www.Online-Dating-Rights.com and read six months worth of cogent commentary on Tahirih.
I also recommend http://www.VeteransAbroad.com and everyone should read the opposing point of view on the Encounters Case at http://www.veteransabroad.com/encounters.htm. If an investigation was made, TJC employees may be going to jail for fraud in service of a political and financial agenda (TJC wins grants for "protecting women").
Meanwhile, fundraisers of Tahirih should not be begging for the media to report on how they are using manipulation of Wikipedia to raise funds for their controversial agenda of litigating the rights of online daters. Before this needs to get edited further, take a look at the shameless way that someone told the son of an employee to mention "genital manipulation" once or twice but "marriage broker" more than a dozen times. Was that supposed to rake the fundraising money in?
There is no such thing as a "Marriage Broker" except for maybe some religious organizations that Tahirih politically realized could not be included in the definition of "Marriage Broker." This political gutlessness leaves real marriage brokers unchecked: the ones where families really do force their daughters into arranged marriages. Islamic marriage brokers, honor killings, etc are left untouched by Tahirih's "efforts".
So we are talking about dating websites here. Less than 1% of the contacts made via such sites result in marriages. Less than 5% result in anybody ever meeting each other at all because it is quite a hassle (not to mention expensive) for anyone to travel around the world for a date. So what happens is people exchange a few friendly emails. It is the continuation of penpal services, except that IMBRA now makes snail mail contact illegal (it would be impossible for a dating website to send background forms to most foreigners by snail mail and get a response, if ever, within 3-6 months).
The official US government definition of "Marriage Broker" is now a dating website with more than 50% foreigners, thanks to the lobbying efforts of Tahirih. Since all dating websites have an unequal fee structure (Match.com does not charge young American women who do not initiate contact with males), the final definition of a "Marriage Broker" in IMBRA is simply a website that has more than 50% foreigners.
The phrase "Mail Order Bride" is worse than "Nigger". I removed the title "Mail Order Bride" and replaced it with "Foreign Women Who Marry American Men". That is neutral and accurate.
Nobody has any business calling anyone's girlfriend a "Mail Order Bride". There is no such thing and has been no such thing since the 1800s. That is racist and I won't stand for it. We can take this to appeal with the owners of Wikipedia if you think its OK to use the phrase "Mail Order Bride" without caveats. This is like saying "Nigger" in a crowded Harlem grocery store. It is beyond the pale for Wikipedia to allow.84.56.26.19 12:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, it's Mrs. Miller-Muro. For someone hellbent on "facts," you should probably get that right. Second, I will tell you again, stop using Wikipedia as a soapbox. Do you read anything you write twice? You should. 90% of this last statement is what you hate or dislike about the world. There is very little in there about actually improving the article. If this is the path you are headed towards, I would advise you to stop wasting my time because I have many other responsibilities in Wikipedia. As much as I would love to hear what you have to say about anything and everything, I do not have the time. Thank you.UberCryxic 18:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Whether you like it or not, I wrote this article, so I at least have some responsibility for it. Do I own it? Absolutely not. No Wikipedia editor does. You have just as much of a right to edit this article as I do. However, your edits are disruptive and initially bordered on vandalism. But , according to Wikipedia policy, you still have just as much of a right to edit this article as I do. If you want to be a constructive editor, that's fine. We can work together then. But if you are here to be disruptive and slant this article with POV, you will not get very far.UberCryxic 18:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Please do not make strawman arguments. Trying to gain an advantage in the debate by passing off the term "international marriage broker" as something that only Tahirih uses is dishonest. The term is used by the United States government, Tahirih, and plenty of media organizations and outlets, along with a significant proportion of the American population. Its use here reflects its dominant position, not POV. And again, the article says or implies nothing about the morality of American men.UberCryxic 18:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Regardless, you're making the term sound as if it's exclusively used by Tahirih, when clearly that's not the case.UberCryxic 20:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy Flag: The Tahirih Justice Center is involved in two major lawsuits regarding the rights of American men to say hello to foreign women - Neutrality is Necessary 

message: Your edits are highly POV. Furthermore, you are trying to include your website and its contributors in the lead. This seems like advertising, and since you guys are not that notable, it is wholly unnecessary for that information to be placed anywhere within the article, but especially not in the lead.UberCryxic 18:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, it's Mrs. Miller-Muro. For someone hellbent on "facts," you should probably get that right. Second, I will tell you again, stop using Wikipedia as a soapbox. Do you read anything you write twice? You should. 90% of this last statement is what you hate or dislike about the world. There is very little in there about actually improving the article. If this is the path you are headed towards, I would advise you to stop wasting my time because I have many other responsibilities in Wikipedia. As much as I would love to hear what you have to say about anything and everything, I do not have the time. Thank you.UberCryxic 18:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Whether you like it or not, I wrote this article, so I at least have some responsibility for it. Do I own it? Absolutely not. No Wikipedia editor does. You have just as much of a right to edit this article as I do. However, your edits are disruptive and initially bordered on vandalism. But , according to Wikipedia policy, you still have just as much of a right to edit this article as I do. If you want to be a constructive editor, that's fine. We can work together then. But if you are here to be disruptive and slant this article with POV, you will not get very far.UberCryxic 18:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Please do not make strawman arguments. Trying to gain an advantage in the debate by passing off the term "international marriage broker" as something that only Tahirih uses is dishonest. The term is used by the United States government, Tahirih, and plenty of media organizations and outlets, along with a significant proportion of the American population. Its use here reflects its dominant position, not POV. And again, the article says or implies nothing about the morality of American men.UberCryxic 18:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Regardless, you're making the term sound as if it's exclusively used by Tahirih, when clearly that's not the case.UberCryxic 20:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Speaking of controversy

message: Ok, the conversion is complete (I think), and I've merged all duplicate references (again I think).  The next step in completing the formatting of the references is to use  for the web references, so that the style is in complete accordance with the MoS. -- Jeff3000 15:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ref tag style 

message: I've copied a section from the article here, and highlighted the parts I think should be cut.  The reason for the cuts are that they really should be in the the associated article, since they are not about the TJC.  Intead the content in this article, and in the sections should be about what the TJC does or thinks about the topic.  Blue means remove, green means add. -- Jeff3000 15:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But it's more than half of the paragraph, and has nothing to do with the TJC.  Plus the whole section on Issues is written in the same manner.  You should move that information to the relevent article.  This article should really concentrate on the TJC, it's actions, it's views, etc, and move all other facts about other things to the relevant article.  The article is not supposed to be an essay. -- Jeff3000 18:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it has a lot to do with TJC. Most of the cases Tahirih covers fall under VAWA, so obviously it is important that people know just a little about it. I will see if I can give more information about Tahirih's involvement in these issues, but I do not want to remove information about the issues themselves.UberCryxic 18:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You'll have to integrate the data in a way that relates to the TJC.  Regardless you should shorten the info, because almost all of the issues subsection is data and not TJC info. -- Jeff3000 19:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added some more information about what Tahirih does regarding those specific issues.UberCryxic 20:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I've fixed the reference issue; it was due to the fact that I deleted the sentence that first used the reference.  The other references are not used anymore either, and so they don't show up in the References section. -- Jeff3000 21:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

text: There are still a couple places where I think we need some references in the "Issues" section.  Let me post them, and then after you find them, let's do a re-read for spelling/grammar/etc, and I think it should be good to go.  FAC will no doubt bring about a lot more suggestions than Peer Review, so we'll see what happens. -- Jeff3000 21:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Example of what should be cut 

message: Women who come to the United States with immigrant husbands or who marry American citizens once they are in the country are vulnerable to domestic violence because of their unfamiliarity with legal rights in the United States. The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) allows immigrants who can prove they have been victims of domestic abuse and would otherwise be able to gain legal status the ability to self-petition for a green card.Most abused immigrants unaware of remedies Amanda Keim, Retrieved August 2, 2006
 VAWA protects immigrant women who are victims of domestic violence in the United States by removing the threat of automatic deportation and removing an abusive partner's control of a woman's immigration status. The majority of Tahirih's clients are women who have suffered from domestic violence and whose cases can be covered under VAWA, the Violence Against Women Act. Tahirih has also initiated the Battered Immigrant Women Advocacy Project to advocate before the INS and immigration courts on behalf of battered immigrant women seeking lawful permanent residence.
Hmmm I'm a bit reluctant to cut out that information because it serves as a good background tool. Plus it's only a sentence or two.UberCryxic 18:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But it's more than half of the paragraph, and has nothing to do with the TJC.  Plus the whole section on Issues is written in the same manner.  You should move that information to the relevent article.  This article should really concentrate on the TJC, it's actions, it's views, etc, and move all other facts about other things to the relevant article.  The article is not supposed to be an essay. -- Jeff3000 18:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it has a lot to do with TJC. Most of the cases Tahirih covers fall under VAWA, so obviously it is important that people know just a little about it. I will see if I can give more information about Tahirih's involvement in these issues, but I do not want to remove information about the issues themselves.UberCryxic 18:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You'll have to integrate the data in a way that relates to the TJC.  Regardless you should shorten the info, because almost all of the issues subsection is data and not TJC info. -- Jeff3000 19:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added some more information about what Tahirih does regarding those specific issues.UberCryxic 20:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I've fixed the reference issue; it was due to the fact that I deleted the sentence that first used the reference.  The other references are not used anymore either, and so they don't show up in the References section. -- Jeff3000 21:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

text: There are still a couple places where I think we need some references in the "Issues" section.  Let me post them, and then after you find them, let's do a re-read for spelling/grammar/etc, and I think it should be good to go.  FAC will no doubt bring about a lot more suggestions than Peer Review, so we'll see what happens. -- Jeff3000 21:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Domestic violence

message: The image at  was uploaded, and now states that the image can be used for any purpose.  I couldn't find this anywhere on their site.  I think the image should be deleted from Commons, uploaded in Wikipedia, and given a fair use rationale.  I think that's more appropriate. -- Jeff3000 21:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: Why is crieria for assistance in a subsection under issues? It isn't an issue and could be rolled into the above paragraph.--Peta 05:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Issues

message: Per the above comments, there is a misconception that my mother works at the Tahirih Justice Center. That is not true. She does not.UberCryxic 17:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In this thread that you sent to my e-mail, you specifically say that my mother is a Tahirih employee. My mother does not work at Tahirih. I think I would know. Either way, I don't appreciate how personal this has become. You can discuss the substance of the article without getting into the nitty gritty details of my life. But if you don't want to do that, then fine. I'm sure you'll have a lovely time here.UberCryxic 17:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I will begin having proper conversation with you at the time when you drop personal discussions. Until then, you will be warmly ignored. Thank you.UberCryxic 18:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarifications

message: By the way, I am more than familiar with what you are writing about me at your little site. I actually requested that you delete that thread because the information contained there was offensive and incorrect. You did not. Fine, that's your prerogative. Unlike this article, that may be a site that you actually own, and so you can write pretty much anything you want on it. I only ask that you be civil in anything that you write. We are working together because it is the spirit of Wikipedia, something which you don't even believe in, not because you called a "bluff."UberCryxic 20:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have requested, for the umpteenth time now, that you do not talk about my family. Yet you still continue. Please be civil in our conversations.UberCryxic 21:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

text: My problem is not with your edit per se, but rather with where it was placed. Material like that belongs in daughter articles or in the Criticism and Response section.UberCryxic 21:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

text: There is something very important that you need to understand: IMBRA is not praised in the lead. IMBRA is mentioned in the lead to let people know why this organization is important and notable. Why should Wikipedia members and the world know about Tahirih? Mentioning IMBRA works towards that goal. It's not meant to say anything about how great or bad IMBRA is. Stuff like that belongs in other parts of the article or in other articles completely.UberCryxic 21:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually the disinterested person would find the phrasing awkward (logistics?), but that's another matter. The main point has still not been addressed: the dynamics of IMBRA cannot be talked about in the lead because this is not an article about IMBRA. This article is about an organization.UberCryxic 21:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Please stop making unfounded allegations and be civil.UberCryxic 22:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I am not saying anything about that because it is not related to the article. You keep talking about things that are actually not related to this article. I humbly request that you stop.UberCryxic 22:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Again, Wikipedia is not a soapbox for your personal views and conspiracy theories.UberCryxic 22:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Once again, discuss the content of the article and leave out unnecessary material for your website.UberCryxic 22:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh, because I haven't clarified this enough (or at all really), you do not own this article, so from now on do not tell me to leave. Thank you.UberCryxic 22:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

text: That's very nice.UberCryxic 22:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Lmao......"9. DEPORTATION OF ALL FEMINISTS TO IRAN WHERE THEY MIGHT DO SOME GOOD" HAHAHAHAHAHA! That was good EnglishGarden. I gotta give you that lol....wow. Talk about conflict of interest.UberCryxic 22:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

text: EnglishGarden, I am only interested in the content of the article and have already told you that the dynamics of IMBRA are not appropriate for inclusion in the lead of this article. At the very least, please drop the conflict of interest argument. I could just as easily make it apply to you, but I am not because it is irrelevant to the article. Thank you.UberCryxic 22:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

text: By non-notable I mean non-reputable. You may have a lot of information, but it is not reputable. There are additional contextual issues about the statement that you want to include. IMBRA is described in the lead only to show an accomplishment of the organization. That IMBRA is mentioned is more about the organization rather than about IMBRA itself. I think this is the point you are missing.UberCryxic 23:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: EnglishGarden's Website

message: Ok I said I was not going to write anything about what EnglishGarden does outside of Wikipedia, but I decided to change my mind. You can see at his site that he is strongly against IMBRA and strongly anti-Tahirih. As soon as you get to the site, you are greeted by the lovely header, "Tahirih Justice Center's Fraud: Attacking "Mail Order Brides" to Save Them." 
It then continues in the body text, "Read about the Tahirih Justice Center's Fraud...." and so on. More..."Bad laws often have flowery text that looks 99% reasonable to the stupid legislators who vote for them without having examined or even noticed the 1% of the text that is highly questionable." 
Descriptions of Tahirih (charming I'm sure): "The main backer of the law, and the entity that pushed the US Government aside to defend it against lawsuits, is a radical woman's organization called the Tahirih Justice Center that provides some valid care given to a few foreign women who become victims of abuse in the USA...but which also advises non-abused immigrant women to lie or distort the truth for free citizenship that creates media publicity for American women to send donations and for radical laws like IMBRA to sail through Congress."
And even more: "They [Tahirih Justice Center] do not represent your interests even if good old George Bush thinks a women's rights group must be OK if it is named after an Iranian women's rights agitator who killed a mullah because he wanted her to wear a veil."
At the very least, the individual is unstable to comment on this topic neutrally. I still appreciate his presence, however, because it is in the spirit of Wikipedia to cooperate despite our differences.UberCryxic 22:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Provide reputable sources for your statements (your site IS NOT reputable) and please do not make this personal. If users wish to remain anonymous, that is their choice. Also, assume good faith. You know nothing about the user, and in such cases must assume they mean well.UberCryxic 12:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Even when your expert returns, he is not considered a verifiable or reliable source.  Please read those pages.  If a view is to be included, it must be published in a non-self-published source.  So personal communication cannot be included, a statement on a blog/personal website/forum cannot be included.  -- Jeff3000 14:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: EnglishGarden's Extreme Bias

message: I am going to archive these discussions sometime in the next few days because this is getting way too long. Just thought I'd let people know.UberCryxic 04:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Heads up