Talk:Save Indian Family

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Save Indian Family article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Good article Save Indian Family was a nominee for good article, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Archives
Archive 1


Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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. ”[1] 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.[citation needed] The organization is also concerned about the rate of male suicide claiming that many married men are driven to suicide by their wives.[citation needed] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)
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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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:

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) P.S. thanks to Slp1 for typo correction in the tag : )--Cailil 17:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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)