Talk:Save Indian Family Foundation

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: A suggestion for proceeding

message: 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.  ”(November, 1 2003). "Fascist Congress Govt implements Anti-Male Law".  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  SIF Concerns section 

message: 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)
thread_title: Proposal: Indian Editors to work on the Article

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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 and Amnesty International is supporting it. 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: One can imagine someone driving "Formula One" cars on muddy indian roads. UN, Amnesty international with lobbiests 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(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. 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)
replies: text:  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 [] 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)
thread_title: Feminists attempt to Vandalise the article

message: 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:
	This article or section contains information about an on-going social or political group or campaign. Please try to avoid recentism by keeping posts notable, verifiable & within an historical perspective. Information may be changed or developed as events occur.
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)
thread_title:  A different template for the top of the article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Claims about bride burning 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: There's some info on when and where quick fail should be used on the quick fail template page.  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: GA Fail

message: 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)
thread_title:  March 31st Revisions 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  No need to use 'alleged'  

message: Please review the changes. The old parts are commented out, with my notes/explanations.
Prabhakar (talk) 07:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes in "Criticism" part 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Alert regarding User [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ForesticPig ForesticPig]

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

message: 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%27s_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)
replies: text: I agree and removed the line. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 16:55, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Corrections

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text:   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)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Save Indian Family Foundation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  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.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:05, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  SIF is different and SIFF is different 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:53, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: 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 , 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  edits on November 19th 2022 reverted