Talk:Save Indian Family/Archive 1

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Mainstream media and most people believe that Save Indian Family Foundation stand for conservative and outdated views that are offensive to women.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.

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)

Claim of paid editing
[Redaction of unsourced claim of paid editing]

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There is nothing "conservative or about outdated views" about the SIF as a whole, and as for individual members, they have a free right to their own viewpoint without having to provide anybody an account for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 But if you have proof that SIF stands for "conservative and outdated views", please prove it, also proving just what qualifies as "conservative" and "outdated", and why that is or should be a problem.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

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

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.

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

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.
 * 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.

Citecheck
The following notice was placed on the article:

This article or section may contain inappropriate or misinterpreted citations. References may not verify the text. Please check for any inaccuracies and discuss the issue 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 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. 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)

False Allegation of Partiality
A Wikipedia editor has tagged this entry with the POV (or "Article is not Impartial") notice:

'''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)

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)

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)

The Tag "Unbalanced" is added neglecting the "Stop Before You Edit" notice. Moreover, no evidence in Talk Page was provided to substantiate the claims. Any disgreements with the Save Indian Family's ideas, viewpoints does not necessarily make this article "unbalanced". I consider the Tag "Unbalanced" is placed with malicious intent aimed at promoting vandalism. So, I will remove the "Unbalanced" Tag. NewageIndian 06:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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)

Unbalanced?
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)

Removal of {fact} tags
My Wikidness removed citation tags, with the edit summary "(Factual statements do not need 'citations', but must be proved false by themselves)"

In my opinion, this is incorrect. A good editor does not post assertions which stay up until someone can prove them wrong. A good article demonstrates the truth of the 'facts' asserted, by using sources to back them up.

I am restoring the citation tags, until the facts which are tagged can be verified, by My Wikidness or another user. -FisherQueen (Talk) 22:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * This article is a classic example of how Vandals can attempt to prevent truth. Facts need no citations. For example, there are 7000 "reported" dowry deaths of women in India. This is a fact. You can find it from official sources using any dumb search engine. Any Wikipedia article, in which each sentence refers to newspaper links or PDF documents belonging to Nation Crime Bureau website, is extremely ugly. This articles already has got tonnes of links and citations. One must not be allowed to demand infinite amount of citations just to make "a good article". FisherQueen, Do you want a citation that there is a country in this world called "India"? Do you want a citation that there is a word called "dowry" in dictionary? This is the height of absurdity. Is wikipedia all about asking citations for each word of an article? I being a Wiki Newbie have no problems in providing citations for each word of the article "Save Indian Family". If the enlightened vandals desire so many citations, then I feel they should better create an extra citation page for this article rather than vandalising the article by asking citations for trivial facts in almost every line. I propose that citation links be removed from the article. Newageindian 19:26, 5 Januray 2007 (UTC)


 * NewAgeIndian, you are right in characterizing the actions of FisherQueen as vandalism. When every other stratagem has failed, the hypocrites recourse to a pretend academicism.  Interestingly, this "academic insistence on 'citations'" for everything, including whether we breathe or not, is only selectively applied, as the hypocritical and insane mania for citations is not imposed on the vast majority of Wikipedia pages.  As I have stated before, in the face of such obvious, in-your-face malice, 'good faith' is impossible to assume.  I am hereby removing FisherQueen's vandalizations.  My Wikidness 13:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I object to my good-faith edits being referred to as 'vandalism.' No, I do not want a citation that there is a country called India, nor that 'dowry' is a real word.  There are, however, several facts in this article that do not appear to me quite as clear:
 * The number of people whose suicides can be directly linked to the enforcement of the law
 * The number of women who have admitted to making false claims under the law
 * 80% of lawsuits have been demonstrated to be false
 * Any Indian goverment official has stated that only women, and never men, are victims of domestic violence
 * Any feminist group directly associated with this issue has stated that it is opposed to equal rights for all before the law.


 * I have looked at the source you provided above, and while I see columns for murder and burglary, I don't see any statistics that specifically relate to dowry-related deaths.
 * -FisherQueen (Talk) 12:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes of course, you act in good faith!!! Your good faith is something that makes you incapable of seeing things that are very clearly visible.


 * You ask whether "Any Indian government official has stated that only women and never men are victims of domestic violence" when I have directly quoted from the National Commission for Women, which is a Government body. Oh, but of course, you write in good faith!!!


 * You ask whether "Any feminist group directly asscoiated with this issue has stated that it is opposed to equal rights for all before the law", when I have shown that the National Commission for Women, which, while being a Government body, is nevertheless also a Feminist & Femofascist body directly connected with the issue, has already officially pronounced in public on this issue in response to the Indian Ministry of Law & Justice's proposal to make adulterous women equally prosecutable by their husbands, with the NCW stating directly that women are always victims and never offenders. Oh, but of course, you write in good faith!!!


 * We are overwhelmed with your good faith; it is too rich and gives us indigestion. Therefore, we request you to please spare us your generosity.


 * My Wikidness 19:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I do not see where you have directly quoted from the National Commission for Women. The quotes in the "Criticism of SIF" section are from an opinion article on One World South Asia (which does not directly quote Girija Vyas), an article from the Hindustan Times (which is not about domestic violence but about adultery law), and two letters to the editor from DNA online.  Only one of the four cited sources is even a newspaper article- the others are opinion pieces.  Is there a direct quote from someone with the NCW somewhere else in the article that I didn't notice?  -FisherQueen (Talk) 19:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

News articles section
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)

External links section
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)

A general note on consensus
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)

FisherQueen's Vandalism
You must not take us to be a bunch of fools, although, in private, that is your prerogative. Your effort at pulling wool over our eyes does not work, and is insulting. Your editing of this article is very evidently directed at maliciously gutting it, a form of vandalism, and also a form of censorship, intended to suppress the truth. You are therefore warned hereby to cease and desist from these mischiefs. My Wikidness 19:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I see that you're returned all of the links I removed, except the one that was nonfunctional. Thank you for agreeing with me that the dead link should be removed.


 * Can you explain your reasons for wanting this article to include news articles which are not about SIF in the 'News articles' section? I think this article itself can provide the context for the debate, and that all the news articles in this section should be about the SIF organization itself, while articles about the dowry law in general would be more appropriately placed in the page on Dowry law in India.


 * I'm confused about the relationship between SIF and the other men's rights organizations linked in the 'External links' sections. I see that you've added "an SIF affiliate" to the links to them.  I didn't see anything when I was looking at the pages which indicated that they are part of SIF, but maybe I wasn't looking in the right place, or maybe the groups' pages doesn't make their membership in SIF clear.  If we have a link to the main SIF page, I don't see why we need links to so many affiliate groups, which, as affiliates, are presumably linked from the SIF page anyway.  I especially don't think that links to SIF blogs are appropriate here- Wikipedia:External links specifically advises avoiding linking to blogs.


 * Please stop accusing me of vandalism. I'm willing to work toward consensus with you to build a completely fact-based and unbiased article together, and it would be easier for me to keep a cool head if we could do that in a spirit of cooperation. -FisherQueen (Talk) 19:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Getting ready to work on the article
Tomorrow, I'd like to start working on the body of the article. I'd rather do it in partnership with you, My Wikidness. Before we start, can we agree that we are both working toward the goals laid out in Neutral point of view, and work together to keep all the important facts about SIF, remove bias (on either side), and finish with an article that people on both sides would agree is true? -FisherQueen (Talk) 20:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * This My Wikidness is pprobably a SIF owmer with vested interest.please check.Most of Fisherqueens observations are valid.why dont they publish the registration of SIF foundation who is the owner and beneficiary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.2.84.74 (talk • contribs)

The sif howmpage contains the helpline numbers all over India. This article already has citation 1. Sucide stats 2. Justice saldhana's judement 3. NCW opposition to making laws gender neutral 4. Links to media reoports on its Activities which give the names of visible players in the SIF in case you are interested in knowing about individuals 6. The link to SIF also publishes its all india telephone number and anyone interested can meet its folks and understand its organisation structure & key people in detail. 7. It is true that harassed and legally dusdvantage of men is not studied in detail. 8. For everything that SIF stands is an opinion of SIF just as any utterance of NCW is an opinion of NCW. 9. SIF being probably the biggest group of activities. WIkipedia is not meant as portal or a reseacrh on SIF where in every opinion of facts are to be linked. 10 you are more interested in SIF then you are free to visit SIF, call up SIF all india helplines take and appointment and understand. Bharati —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.64.67.149 (talk • contribs)


 * Yes, My Wikidness has acknowledged above that she is a member of SIF. I'm just trying to do everything in my power to be a good Wikipedian and give her the chance to work toward consensus, even though her comments above make it clear that she doesn't really want to work with me.  -FisherQueen (Talk) 11:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The changes I've made in the article
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)

I've removed a lot of the more emotionally loaded and biased language. There were also places where the article became more about the men's rights movement in India in general, and not really about SIF. I tried to focus the article on this organization and its goals, while keeping enough of the more general information to provide context for the reader who is unfamiliar with Indian law and custom.

I removed all of the 'Social concerns' section, because the information in it fit better into the SIF goals that had already been discussed in previous sections- it was more about 498a abuse, as I read it.

There are some places where the language is unclear- I think the article's original author speaks English as a second language, and while the usage is good overall, there are a few spots where I'm doing my best to convey the original author's intent but may not have understood what she was trying to say.

The 'Criticism' section mostly was about why the critics were wrong, but included very little sourced information about what critics of SIF are saying. I'm googling in vain and finding very little online information about SIF on either side. Again I removed quite a lot of language which was emotionally loaded and unsourced, and which didn't seem to fairly represent the views of critics based on the resources I see here. I also removed information which wasn't about SIF, but more generally about gender relations in India.

I returned to my previous edit of the links section, which removed news articles that didn't mention SIF and links to a lot of men's rights organizations which, if I understand the article correctly, are part of the SIF umbrella organization- I think that if we have a link to the main org then we don't need to link to all the sub-organizations, just as the Boy Scouts article doesn't link to individual scout troops. I've removed the links to groups that fall under the umbrella of SIF, including "Forgotten Women," because the main link will adequately cover those organizations, in my opinion.

I still have grave doubts about the notability of this organization. Almost all of the sources cited in this article are related to the men's rights movement in India in general, and very few of them even mention Save Indian Family. I would, at this point, support an Article for Deletion (although I opposed the original one), because during the time I've spent working on this article, I just haven't found much independent news coverage of SIF at all, and what I've seen is tangential- SIF members being quoted in articles on the subject, but no articles about SIF itself that I've seen.
 * 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)

This is just a first pass, and I'm totally willing to negotiate changes, but My Wikidness, please don't just revert everything I've done- let's work together to make this article work. -FisherQueen (Talk) 12:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)