Talk:Save Indian Family/Archive 1

message: Mainstream media and most people believe that Save Indian Family Foundation stand for conservative and outdated views that are offensive to women. The main claims of the foundation do not have any evidentiary backing and at best can be considered speculation.
This article needs to have a neutral perspective. As of now, it reads like a Save Indian Family Foundation advertisement.
--fatmuttony 15:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality of the article is suspect:

message: This article as presently written does not show that this organization is sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. It also does not cite any notable publications -- just non-notable blogs, web groups and web sites. See WP:N, WP:V, WP:CITE, WP:CORP, WP:RS. --A. B. 17:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This article proposed for deletion 

message: Pariwarik suraksha sanstha has nothing to do with this organisation. please delete our referance given without permission.
It does sound like an advertisement.maybe for lawyers sevices thru helplines. 
whatever the social problem, it should not be allowed to be marketed and cashed in on by some organisation.
Victim 498a 19:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: false claims

message: A Wikipedia editor has tagged this entry with the POV (or "Article is not Impartial") notice: 
	The neutrality of this article is disputed.  Please see the discussion on the talk page.
I move that this notice was placed with malicious intent and is not justified.  I move to have it removed.  I will wait for three days, i.e., until Monday, November 27, 2006.  If not removed by then, I will remove it myself, unless compelling reasons are provided for retaining it.  My Wikidness 14:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The POV notice has been removed as per my above 3-day notice, which, in fact, I have permitted to run over by one extra day. Please note that not a single objection or reason for maintaining the POV notice has been lodged. Regards. My Wikidness 14:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  False Allegation of Partiality 

message: A user, AniVar, vandalized this page by reinstating the "POV" tag which was removed after due notice was provided requesting its justification, as above.  This action was an underhanded and cowardly vandalization of the page, and I have requested and request admin assistance against such vandalisms, and have also given a first warning to the Vandal AniVar.  I have also removed AniVar's vandalism.  
My Wikidness 14:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have found that "AniVar" is most probably Anivar Aravind, who operates the "Liberalist" website MovingRepublic.org.  It is interesting that Anivar Aravind is involved with the Countercultural "World Social Forum" etc. and ALSO advocates the superstition that "only men wrong women, and that women never wrong men"!  Which brings to mind the truth that "There is no one so antisocial, so illiberal and so misanthropic as the Socialist, the Liberal and the Humanist!"  That is why the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact AND the Katyn Massacre happened! My Wikidness 17:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  AniVar's Vandalism 

message: This entry has had the "POV" tag restored by various vandals despite the discussions on this talk page, therefore, in order to prevent any pretensions that these vandals have acted "innocently" in ignorance of the discussions here on the talk page, I have put up a 'Stop before you edit' tag on article.  Please read the discussions on this talk page carefully before you make any changes with this entry.  My Wikidness 17:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see WP:AGF. Also, please note that critical viewpoints are expected in most controversial articles; their absence is a lack of balance. Hornplease 11:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Masculist issues are as valid as feminist issues given the fact that suicide rates of men and even boys is so high compared women all over the world. Anything which is critical of radical feminist ideology can not be termed as "controversial". So, this article is not controversial.Gender equality is important and wikipedia must give "equal" emphasis to issues related to both genders. Do we consider every feminist article in wiki as controversial? No. Accordingly, its time people accept masculism as a parallel and equal ideology as feminism rather than terming it as male chauvinism. Women's issues are noble, but that does not give people a licence to terrorise innocents especially old and sick people. Moreover, world is not flat. One can not look at the whole world from an "American Prism" and operate policies of wikipedia accordingly.NewageIndia 07:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''Stop before you edit''' 

message: This article has come under attack several times, and using different methods.  "Unbalanced" is merely another cowardly attack.  There is no rational means by which any sane person can assume "good faith" for such malicious vandals.  There simply is no "good faith" on the part of the person who put up that tag.  
I believe that contributors must abide by the principle of discussing any proposal on this talk page before making any major alteration to this article.  
My Wikidness 19:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unbalanced? 

message: There were several links in the "news articles" section which didn't include any mention of "Save Indian Family," so I removed them.  I also removed a news article which was a dead link- the story, I think, must have been taken down since the link was added.
The remaining linked articles  seem to be primarily about the Indian dowry law, and include quotes from members of "Save Indian Family."  I wanted to add a link to a news article which has the organization "Save Indian Family" as its primary subject, but am having trouble finding one- when I Google "Save Indian Family," I mostly get the group's own pages and references to the group on various internet forums.  If anyone else knows of a major news source that has written about the organization as the primary subject of an article, I hope you'll add the link, and in the meanwhile, I'll keep looking. -FisherQueen (Talk) 13:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  News articles section 

message: There were several links in the "external links" section which were more generally about Indian dowry law, and not about "Save Indian Family," so I removed them.  I'm editing from work, and "www.forgottenwomen.org" is blocked by my firewall, so I left it up until I can check from home and see if it's a site about "Save Indian Family" or not.  Other than the "Forgotten Women" site, all the remaining links are to SIF-run pages.  My googling has not yet yielded any link to information about SIF other than their own home pages, but if anyone else has a link to information about the organization, I hope you'll add it. -FisherQueen (Talk) 13:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: External links section

message: I'm interested in improving this article.  I think that the article on Abortion and its talk page are an excellent example of how people on both sides of a controversial issue can work together to make a good article. 
Right now, I think that the article is rather seriously biased in favor of this organization.  I am not interested in turning the article into an anti-men's-rights article, but rather in working together to create a version of the article which people on both sides can agree is accurate, and which doesn't promote either side's point of view.  I hope that the other folks who are watching and working on this article are willing to work toward the goal of a genuinely neutral article. -FisherQueen (Talk) 18:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A general note on consensus

message: I'm still confused about the relationship between SIF and other men's rights organizations in India.  The article itself says that SIF is an umbrella organization that includes most of the men's rights organizations in India, as well as some in Bangalore and the United States, but I didn't see a lot of references to SIF on the web pages of those linked organizations.  I'm doing the best I can to preserve the meaning of the article but could use some sourced clarification on which organizations are part of SIF, and the exact nature of the relationship.
::Fisherqueen, people from different cultural background behave differently. Because world is not flat. The organisations 498a.org, rakshak.info in US are partners of SIF. But, they do not refer to SIF in their home page just to maintain a different online identity. Same way, the organisation asha kiran in Bangalore is a part of SIF. The citation is available. But, you deleted it without even doing a google search. So, I do not consider you as someone who is acting in good faith. You are quite heavy handed in deleting the content and references just by citing your own confusion.Please note, Indian media has not yet developed a skill to behave in a non-patriarchal, gender neutral way and it is not very comfortable in covering the news related to Men's Rights. Newageindian 12:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: FisherQueen, after vandalising the article, you can always proprose for its deletion. please note, this organisation is quite big and is also growing rapidly. So, deletion of this article (which is unlikely) will backfire pretty badly. The original article contained very few links and then the "good faith" vandals (in posts in beginning of talk page) asked for all citations. So, the links to all partner organisations and media articles were provided. Now that you have removed all of these citations, you have prepared ground for the vandals to attack again. You, yourself have doubts if this organisation is notable because you refuse to see all the references in Media and in TV and you want Oprah Winfrey to interview SIF founders. Till that time, you can choose to say this article is not notable. Is it a prerequisite that a complete article is a must (in Media) for establishing notability of any organisation? Organisations are known based on what they do and not based on a full article written by any biased newspaper. I guess, you are a feminist, you want to negotiate by bending the rules (of wikipedia) and you finally want to propose deletion. The kind of editorial scrutiny that you are bringing in here, could very well have been of great value in false articles like Bride burning which deserve deletion. But, unfortunately, you have citations from media (including Oprah Winfrey)on such false topics and hence people like you consider such articles to be notable. Is wikipedia a copy of biased Media? By the way, there are complete articles on SIF in newspapers in India. But, not every Indian newspaper retains the links to old articles, so we retain the images of such articles(here is an example). I would like to say, editors like you with leanings towards politically correct views and feminism, tend to be high handed on any article about men's rights and related neglected perspectives. The best evidence is the article on Bride burning. In fact, the article on Dowry death directly gets redirected to Bride burning as if both are the same, but editors like you will not do anything about such mischief in wikipedia, as it propagates feminist alarmism. The "good faith" goes for a toss for articles on feminism and vandalism in articles which give alternate perspectives. Finally, Men's Rights and Family rights movement in India is synonymous with SIF and its partners. If you disagree, then you can give citations proving me wrong. Newageindian 11:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The changes I've made in the article