Talk:Save Indian Family

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

propose speedy deletion and ban in future on the author in view of the deceptive commercial intentions

This article was nominated for deletion on November 12, 2006. The result of the discussion was No consensus.

[edit] Neutrality of the article is suspect:

Mainstream media and most people believe that Save Indian Family Foundation stand for conservative and outdated views that are offensive to women.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) The facts are corrected relating to jusgment of SC of 19/7/2005.

[edit] This article proposed for deletion

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)

[edit] Article orginally submitted as part of MyWikiBiz paid PR blitz

This article was originally submitted as part of the MyWikiBiz program of paid article editing and submission for PR purposes in violation of WP:ECOI, WP:COI. See this note and the links within it for more info: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#MyWikiBiz.com spam articles. --A. B. 17:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rebuttal

The above statements are a bunch of speculations and are malicious, insulting and derogatory remarks that do not belong in civilized society.

Truth is not made by speculations of what the MSM and unspecified "most people" supposedly believe.

Personally, as a victim and as a member of the "Save the Indian Family" organization, I know that it is composed largely of young men who have been victimized by crimes masquerading as 'laws' and who have got together to fight them unitedly.

There is nothing "conservative or about outdated views" about the SIF as a whole, and as for individual members, they have a free right to their own viewpoint without having to provide anybody an account for holding those beliefs. But if you have proof that SIF stands for "conservative and outdated views", please prove it, also proving just what qualifies as "conservative" and "outdated", and why that is or should be a problem.

In my previous avatar as a member of Wikipedia, I had commenced an article on the largely misogynist phenomenon of Acid attacks. I have also campaigned on the net against several social evils. I therefore need no reason to apologize for being part of the SIF.

It should be obvious that the above remarks were made in order to gag and suppress legitimate voices of dissent against legislative and feminist state-sponsored terrorism.

As for the allegations about "advertisement", SIF is not a commercial body but makes social propaganda, just as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the ACLU or Greenpeace does. As such, SIF and its affiliates do not need to make any apologies for that.

My Wikidness 05:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The article is still largely opinion passing for fact, as is evidenced by the absence of any citations for any of the information.

For example (quoting from the current version of the article):

"The genesis of SIF is mainly due to large scale abuse of Indian "anti-dowry" law and cruelty/harassment laws by many unscrupulous Indian women."

Is the contention that there is large-scale abuse of Indian anti-dowry law verifiable with statistics? Please provide statistics or citations of published statistics to back this up.

Similarly:

"The Indian Men's & Family Rights Movement was started by Ram Prakash Chug in New Delhi in the early 80s soon after draconian laws were passed in favor of women by the Indian Parliament and women began to exploit these biased laws to perpetrate domestic violence against men, husbands, their parents, siblings and friends."

This paragraph is projecting opinion by using adjectives such as "draconian" to describe the legislation that has been viewed by many as a means for women to protect themselves in cases of harrassment for dowry.

The section on Male Suicide also has no citations to back up any of the claims it makes.

On the whole, this entire article needs many more citations if it wants to move away from being opinion and closer to being an encyclopedia article.--fatmuttony 03:23, 09 November 2006 (UTC)

The Article is factual. Wikipedia is not exclusively the domain of Academics, and very few articles actually measure up to "academic standards". This is, I have been given to understand, the hallmark, and even the "virtue", of Wikipedia. Or is there a different set of standards for groups that challenge the "sanctity" of Pseudo-Liberalism-Misanthropy's "holy cows"?

Any person doing a Google search will quickly find several independent media reports on the situation of oppression created by the present set of Pseudo-Feminist laws, whether it is VAWA in the US or the DV Act in the Indian Union. These laws are patently illegal and criminal for they act on the totally illegal basis of criminalizing all men, presuming that it is only women that are victims of sexual harassment and domestic violence at the hands of men and "infallibly" "certifying" that men are NEVER victims of violence and harassment at the hands of women. Such a presumption is neither law nor science. There is a precise word for it: Superstition. That is what you, Fatmuttony, is defending.

These "laws" are also "draconian" because they rob their victims, not only men, but also their mothers, sisters, sister-in-laws and other women, of their rights before the law of being presumed to be innocent until proven to be guilty.

There is nothing legal or innocuous about these laws. And one cannot justify commiting crime against innocent people by a vacuous justification on the premise that "Oh, but it is protecting at least some women!" That is simply speaking, just more superstition, and nothing but that.

Fatmuttony, you want us to "provide you with academic proofs". We do not acknowledge the responsibility of satisfying you or any person with obvious malicious intent. However, since we are it, please certify how the above superstitions can be legal and just. If you cannot, cease bothering us. We have far more important things to do than bother with such superstitions and malefactors. My Wikidness 11:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SIF: A Force to reckon with

Women organizations and their cheer leaders, some of whose comments as above, are under direct threat as a result of the pledge organizations under the umbrella of "Save Indian Family" have taken to uproot and defeat their nefarious designs. Husbands and men in general have long been suffering in this society at the hands of such oppressors like women organizations who are hell bent on sullying the image of men and downgrading their contribution to society.

By the way, Save Indian Family is the single biggest organization working 24x7 for the cause of husband and families. The members include people from all walks of life...which include doctors, engineers, software professionals, technicians, women(oppressed by other women in the name of biased laws and propaganda spread by women organizations) and a lot of other intellectual people.

What makes me proud to talk about Save Indian Family is that it is probably the only organization i have come across which works purely on the concept of sharing and giving help without expecting any return. The organization consists of precisely those people who have in reality undergone the trauma at the hands of biased laws and biased propaganda spread by women organizations. They are the first hand victims of these women organizations and have seen and felt them from closest quarters.

It is a SELF HELP group in true sense. People who have been marginalized by society, judicial system and one sided biased laws are the ones who form the building block of this organization. There are "no" direct funds, fees associated with this organization. People who have actually suffered are members and form the strength of this organization. It is nothing but a mass movement on the verge of exploding and dwarfing all the false propaganda by women organizations. The women organizations thriving on 1) external funds raised by fooling and capitalizing on public sympathy 2) Well disguised but widespread blackmail and extortion racket. 3) Political affiliations and corruption. are running for shelter now that they see this mass movement in form of SIF. SIF umbrella has created branches in all major metropolitans of India and is the fastest growing organization on web. More than 60 people a week are joining it and the rate it expected to shoot higher in coming months as the woman organizations step up the peddle to oppress men even further.

IIT, India Engineer 01:09AM, 7 November 2006 IST

[edit] Keep it

The article has been cleaned up and a lot of citations are provided including the warning by Consular General of US at Kolkatta. The facts can be traced more easily. It is a fact that women get abused all over the world. Does that mean men (espcially in developing countries) should not have a voice? The article is by Wiki newbies and it will take sometime for them to get used to writing in wiki.

[edit] false claims

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) Gokulpr 10:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)Keep itGokulpr 10:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC) If SIF was not accepted and unwanted how did the media invite SIF members for the debates on the occassion of Domestic Violence Act coming to force on 26th of October, in India. Search You tube or google videos for video clips of these debates and Television programs.

Why to go much further, the request for deletion itself is an example of some lobbies not wanting SIF to grow. so SIF is now an unavoiable presence in India when it comes to gender baised laws concerning families. We are a group of around 1600 individuals in the yahoo groups, and much much more on the ground level(offline). It cannot be branded as a men's right movement too, its a movement for familial harmony, it has many women members who are facing the wrath of gender biased laws in India

• • • • it is all a deceptive game played by owners of SIF foundation, which is an Non govenmental organisation eligible for donations.they are always trying to get donations from the yahoogroup.while not telling members that they are NGO.why else would they need try to brand efforts by all aggrieved persons of 498a abuse. people are fighting against the law but these oversmart, deceptive NGO SIFF owners are trying to encash their misery.

They try to take over hard working on ground NGO's by any means They were invited on TV shows only because the feminists need some abusers on the show to make it look balanced. It is evident that in all interviews their representatives had no knowledge of Domestic violence laws.they just want coverage, even bad coverage.They can continue what they are doing without the owners trying to benefit from it. Such intention is clear from the entry.their tall claims are corrupt and ridiculous.

[edit] Citecheck

The following notice was placed on the article:

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 Tuesday, November 21, 2006. If not removed by then, I will remove it myself, unless compelling reasons are provided for retaining it. My Wikidness 11:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I have also added the citation for the suicide statistics, which also mystefies that if women face domestic violence in home then how come their suicide rate does not increase after marriage and decreases in stead.

The timing of the notice for deletion worries me specially when it has come after SIF got noticed more broadly. [[[User:219.64.64.105|219.64.64.105]] 06:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)} bharati.

The citation for prevalanece of misuse is provided in the judgement excerpt of Justice Saldhana including the case number. Anyone can buy that law book and read the same judgement

The Citecheck 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 Citecheck notice has been lodged. Regards. My Wikidness 13:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] False Allegation of Partiality

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)

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)

[edit] AniVar's Vandalism

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)

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)

[edit] Stop before you edit

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)