Talk:Tahirih Justice Center/Archive 1

Autobiography, neutrality, and reliable sources
A few gentle reminders to the editors—present and future—of this article:


 * Autobiography : Avoid writing or editing articles about yourself, since we all find objectivity especially difficult when we ourselves are concerned.
 * Neutral point of view : All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly and without bias.
 * Reliable sources : Caution should be used when using company or organization websites as sources. Although the company or organization is a good source of information on itself, it has an obvious bias.

Please keep these points in mind, and happy editing! Kirill Lokshin 03:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Controversy Flag: The Tahirih Justice Center is involved in two major lawsuits regarding the rights of American men to say hello to foreign women - Neutrality is Necessary
(Ubercryxic): Your mother is a volunteer for Tahirih who is on the committee for the fundraiser on September 27th. Please cease and desist any further manipulation of Wikipedia. I have alerted the press. Please study up on IMBRA and question what your mother is involved in. This is a political organization first and foremost.

Jeff: Whoever you are, please be fair. Your Bahai affiliation should not cleave you to the agenda of the TJC although the original Tahirih (who was cool) was of that "faith". I just made very few edits considering all the free advertising the TJC just asked the 19 year old son of a volunteer to make in time for its huge September Fundraising Drive. Criticism of the IMBRA law belongs front and center although it would be smart for all concerned if the entire article just mentioned IMBRA and its restraining order briefly and moved on to more important issues such as Honor Killings and Genital Mutilation.

Considering all the horrifying things happening to women around the world, it is alarming that the TJC just had the son of one of its employees beef up the anti Online Dating rhetoric weeks before the huge fundraising events on September 12th (Bamian Restaurant in Falls Church, Virginia) and the September 27th Fundraiser Ball in Washington DC.

People will open their pocketbooks to stop genital mutilation. You don't want to associate that with an online dating controversy that is about to explode in the media.

The article won an award and peer review? For advertising? For saying "helps women" instead of "states their mission as helping women"? There is no neutrality in the former and no harm done in making it neutral. Do the editors yet know that once per week there is a newspaper article condemning Tahirih in the press for its IMBRA involvement? Look at the reference to the Cumberland Times here. That article was encased in a series of back and forths in the Cumberland Times castigating Tahirih.

Go to http://www.Online-Dating-Rights.com and read six months worth of cogent commentary on Tahirih.

I also recommend http://www.VeteransAbroad.com and everyone should read the opposing point of view on the Encounters Case at http://www.veteransabroad.com/encounters.htm. If an investigation was made, TJC employees may be going to jail for fraud in service of a political and financial agenda (TJC wins grants for "protecting women").

Meanwhile, fundraisers of Tahirih should not be begging for the media to report on how they are using manipulation of Wikipedia to raise funds for their controversial agenda of litigating the rights of online daters. Before this needs to get edited further, take a look at the shameless way that someone told the son of an employee to mention "genital manipulation" once or twice but "marriage broker" more than a dozen times. Was that supposed to rake the fundraising money in?

There is no such thing as a "Marriage Broker" except for maybe some religious organizations that Tahirih politically realized could not be included in the definition of "Marriage Broker." This political gutlessness leaves real marriage brokers unchecked: the ones where families really do force their daughters into arranged marriages. Islamic marriage brokers, honor killings, etc are left untouched by Tahirih's "efforts".

So we are talking about dating websites here. Less than 1% of the contacts made via such sites result in marriages. Less than 5% result in anybody ever meeting each other at all because it is quite a hassle (not to mention expensive) for anyone to travel around the world for a date. So what happens is people exchange a few friendly emails. It is the continuation of penpal services, except that IMBRA now makes snail mail contact illegal (it would be impossible for a dating website to send background forms to most foreigners by snail mail and get a response, if ever, within 3-6 months).

The official US government definition of "Marriage Broker" is now a dating website with more than 50% foreigners, thanks to the lobbying efforts of Tahirih. Since all dating websites have an unequal fee structure (Match.com does not charge young American women who do not initiate contact with males), the final definition of a "Marriage Broker" in IMBRA is simply a website that has more than 50% foreigners.

The phrase "Mail Order Bride" is worse than "Nigger". I removed the title "Mail Order Bride" and replaced it with "Foreign Women Who Marry American Men". That is neutral and accurate.

Nobody has any business calling anyone's girlfriend a "Mail Order Bride". There is no such thing and has been no such thing since the 1800s. That is racist and I won't stand for it. We can take this to appeal with the owners of Wikipedia if you think its OK to use the phrase "Mail Order Bride" without caveats. This is like saying "Nigger" in a crowded Harlem grocery store. It is beyond the pale for Wikipedia to allow.84.56.26.19 12:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Here is a copy of the part of the law that Tahirih wrote and is defending in two court cases. Just replace the word marriage broker with online dating website and you will see why there are two lawsuits:



For women without computers, it would take six months to comply with the draconian requirements for their approval as mail service is slow and telegrams would not suffice for this. For those women with only phone numbers, contact is banned entirely. If the restraining order was not in place, the entire industry would have been destroyed six months ago. Now do you see why Tahirih is controversial? EnglishGarden 17:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay UberCryxic, let us discuss this reasonably. First, please disclose how much of your college tuition is coming from the Tahirih Justice Center. Then explain what your mother does for the organization and how much money she gave to it.

If you want to blatantly advertise, OK, but you cannot use the word "nigger" to describe any human being and you cannot use the word "mail order bride" to describe another human being. Also, an international dating website is not a "marriage broker". We can take this to mediation if you want. But you're only 19 and you're clearly not qualified to talk about online dating industry and slander men like me who date European women all the time. Please read the restraining order on the law Here is the TRO.

Speaking of controversy
Your edits are highly POV. Furthermore, you are trying to include your website and its contributors in the lead. This seems like advertising, and since you guys are not that notable, it is wholly unnecessary for that information to be placed anywhere within the article, but especially not in the lead.UberCryxic 18:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

About the mail-order thing, there are plenty of references in pop culture to these women as "mail-order brides." Not only that, but this is in fact the dominant designation. There is even a website called that. And the Wikipedia article also has that label. In media, print...almost everywhere, they are referred to by that name.UberCryxic 18:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Changes to the lead must be notable. Tahirih is heavily engaged in litigation at all times. As such, I don't see why the information you want to include matters. Create daughter articles if you feel it is that important. Then you can put them in a See also section.UberCryxic 19:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Ubercryxic: You are the one using Wikipedia as a Soapbox because you get to be the webmaster to put forth your organization's views in the actual article. If I explain below how the "mail order bride" slanders in the article need to be corrected, that is legitimate:

When reading the law and definition (images provided on this page), you will see that IMBRA covers much more than just the sites that market themselves with the word bride. It covers sites like Match.com if Match.com's foreign membership were to climb above US membership. It covers gay websites too. Anybody can take the word bride off their site but the law, which is not in effect for people introducing themselves, would still consider a website a "marriage broker" if the database was more than 50% non-American. The law covers anything dealing with social referrals, which may include some quasi business networking sites.

The term "Mail Order Bride" when used affectionately, is fine. In this you would be correct. When used to demean the women, it is like saying "nigger." Neither the dating sites nor the customers mean to demean the women. The detractors do mean to demean them. They act like American women are more sophisticated and smart and choosy and they imply that the kind of guy who would prefer to meet the foreign woman is the kind of guy who was already rejected by the superior Americans. Read the 98 page "finding of fact" written by Tahirih on this. Your phraseology reflects this deliberate misperception. In reality, the East European women I know tend to speak a few more languages than your average American and actually play chess very well. I can talk about the Battle of Austerlitz with them even. Soviet citizens were feminists in the 1950s when Americans didn't know the meaning of the word. They aren't stupid and they don't need to see a man's background history before the man can even say hello. Here in Europe, there is no background check paranoia like there is among many people in the USA. The US Congress cannot be allowed to legislate that all women worldwide need to background check men before saying hello to them.

The argument with you last night was puzzling because I know from something you wrote elsewhere on the Internet that you would fly to Italy or Albania to meet someone you met online. I can't imagine that you've decided to meet only Americans for the rest of your life. We're talking about dating. And the sites that say "bride" just happen to define geography, mostly East European, but the word really doesn't mean anything non-geographic. Most of the women your age on the "bride" websites are mainly into just dating like anywhere else. They are more into having fun than marriage and most do not want to "escape" their countries. Russia is now the leading oil exporter in the world. Russia is like Saudi Arabia now in terms of the billions of dollars in cash flow. In Moscow's center, you can find dozens of 19 year old women in places like the Bolshoi Ballet and Pushkin Cafe whose families are worth millions.

I think what's happened is that the Tahirih theorists, if they believe what they say, think that if a young woman in say Serbia or Romania agrees to be on a site with the word "bride" on it, then she is naive and being exploited somehow...while Italian women on an Italian dating site are not thought of as being used (even though the Italian site is now a "marriage broker" as well).

I can see how that misperception can come about. If I took pictures of attractive American women on the beach in Florida and told them I would put them on a dating website with a cool name, they might give me their contact information assuming that the site would be cool. If they later noticed that they were on a website called "Florida Brides - Find a Traditional Florida Wife," they would be so upset and immediately phone me demanding that they be taken off the site. But that comes from cultural conditioning. I know first-hand that many Florida women would gladly give their contact info to be on a Beach Bikini Matchmaking site. But they would kill to make sure they are not featured on a "Traditional Bride" Matchaking site.

Tahirih wouldn't bat an eyelash at Florida women wanting to be on a Beach Bikini site nor Adult Friendfinder where they are marketed as "Girls that want to have fun". But they get upset that an East European woman would be so "naive" as to allow herself to be "marketed" as a "traditional bride". Meanwhile, in Eastern Europe, they don't see an insult or cultural stigma problem in the word bride being on the website they are featured at.

I swear that this is just a cultural difference. There is no difference, generally, in the level of sophistication. They are not being naive, but rather smart to get onto a well-trafficked website that American guys may have found on a Google search for "Romanian Women" before taking a trip to the Black Sea resorts. There is nothing wrong with American guys having a good reputation is there? Hollywood helped.

If you click on the link you just provided, you will see young women whom you'd probably want to meet yourself and still can because of the restraining order. But since they probably don't have email addresses, a disastrous turn could take them offline for a few months while the company goes offshore. I can't imagine a single hetero male clicking on the above link and not contemplating how they would never have the chance meet any of those particular women if Tahirih had their way (Tahirih tries to close the loophole of these companies going offshore by making it so men have to answer questions on marriage visa application forms as to whether men met their wife/fiance via a "marriage broker"; but men can simply answer no to that question).

The biggest problem with the article is that there is the implication that if you were to want to date any of the women in the above link, you would be considered by the Tahirih people as an a priori criminal. The idea is that, because you made the decision to meet someone who can play chess and talk about Austerlitz, you fit into a dangerous subset of American male.

Read this link, however, to see that the INS (USCIS) has found only a 1% abuse rate compared to the US domestic average of 7%.



Editors: This link really should figure prominently in a one sentence rebuttal to the sentence in the first paragraph that says men who date foreign women are dangerous.

This 1% abuse rate is logical because guys like me and you, who speak several languages, play chess and know about the Battle of Austerlitz, are the least likely to be abusive to women.

It is the guys in the USA who don't have passports, probably including also illegal aliens without passports, who comprise the highest risk factor for abuse (7%).

I've seen Mrs. Miller-Muro on Fox News telling the audience that there is no statistical proof that men who date foreign women via online dating sites are more abusive than regular guys. She would know that the 3 "mail order brides" murdered in 10 years in the USA doesn't begin to match the thousands of American women murdered by US men every year.

The prejudice, described by Tahirih via the above link, is that the guys who date foreign women MUST be abusive because of a "power differential" resulting from economic and/or age difference factors. But the 3 murders were not over a power differential but over the woman wanting to leave the relationship...which is no different than a prominent reason for abuse that occurs between American men and women. Also, it is fairly easy for richer 40 year old American men to date much younger American women. So there is plenty of such power differential relationships among Americans.

So this power differential stuff just remains a theory as well as an ideology. I can't even imagine how anyone would think I might want to hit a woman because she's beautiful and young. It doesn't make sense. The only way this theory makes sense is if one assumes that the women are only using the older men to get a green card and that the men could be expected to get violent when they realize that they've been horrifyingly exploited. But one would think the animosity of Americans would be on those who supposedly want to victimize Americans in the first place. Instead the hatred is directed at the foolish American who basically "bought a foreign prostitute"...and Americans culturally really hate men who buy prostitutes.

There is more to this and I am, obviously, going to write a book about it.

Neutral Editors: Please paraphrase the remarks that slander American men who live in Europe so it at least comes across clearly that the sentiments expressed are a theory. Please use the link I provided above where the INS (now the USCIS) said the best statistical evidence only shows a 1% rate of abuse for men and women who meet online.

In the final analysis, it seems apparent that we are dealing with cultural prejudices and ideologies that Tahirih has found to be a fundraising money-maker. That is why neutral Wikipedia editors should not allow a marketing brochure to bring tons of money into people who want to take people's rights away.EnglishGarden 17:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * First of all, it's Mrs. Miller-Muro. For someone hellbent on "facts," you should probably get that right. Second, I will tell you again, stop using Wikipedia as a soapbox. Do you read anything you write twice? You should. 90% of this last statement is what you hate or dislike about the world. There is very little in there about actually improving the article. If this is the path you are headed towards, I would advise you to stop wasting my time because I have many other responsibilities in Wikipedia. As much as I would love to hear what you have to say about anything and everything, I do not have the time. Thank you.UberCryxic 18:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The above describes Tahirih's philosophy not mine. It is linked to via the 98 page document chronicling Tahirih's theories about Americans who date foreigners.

You state your name openly and everyone knows that your parents are on the fundraiser committee for Tahirih. You should have no responsibilities for this article.EnglishGarden 18:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Whether you like it or not, I wrote this article, so I at least have some responsibility for it. Do I own it? Absolutely not. No Wikipedia editor does. You have just as much of a right to edit this article as I do. However, your edits are disruptive and initially bordered on vandalism. But, according to Wikipedia policy, you still have just as much of a right to edit this article as I do. If you want to be a constructive editor, that's fine. We can work together then. But if you are here to be disruptive and slant this article with POV, you will not get very far.UberCryxic 18:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Every mention you make of "Marriage Brokers" is POV. You can solve that easily by putting it in parentheses and making it clear that it is Tahirih's opinion not the editors'. The link I just provided to the 1999 INS Report ought to be added with a simple "Critics say a 1999 INS report says, however, that American men who date foreign women are actually less likely to abuse women."

Why don't YOU make the changes and I won't need to bother with this.

Otherwise, I'd like the RFC editors to come and make changes. I don't need to be making any changes.

I find it boring to hang around here. Just make the changes yourself as you see fit, but be fair about it and read what I wrote on Tahirih theory and deal with those issues. There is no evidence that men who date foreign women via any kind of website are controlling or abusive.

My original changes were not vandalism. Not by a long shot. I was removing heavy POV not adding it. Neutral editors could go back and revert to what I changed. The only thing I wouldn't bother with would be the sentence describing why some people think Tahirih was executed.EnglishGarden 18:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Please do not make strawman arguments. Trying to gain an advantage in the debate by passing off the term "international marriage broker" as something that only Tahirih uses is dishonest. The term is used by the United States government, Tahirih, and plenty of media organizations and outlets, along with a significant proportion of the American population. Its use here reflects its dominant position, not POV. And again, the article says or implies nothing about the morality of American men.UberCryxic 18:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The general public doesn't know that the broker definition, as stated in the IMBRA law image on this page, includes social referral exchanges like MySpace and/or French dating agencies. Even if I agreed with the ideology on the left that felt this law necessary, gay rights groups and others are starting to recognize that elements on the political right can take this law a lot further because of the official definition of marriage broker covers a lot more than just the East European "bride" sites. IMBRA has opened a whole can of worms. I proposed below, however, to whitewash the controversy by simply saying that there is "some discussion about giving out information at the introduction stage." Ideally, that ought to be linked with the following link that you previously put way down at the bottom in the criticism section: iFeminist Article saying that IMBRA is great except the part about giving out information before saying hello.

As I remember as well, there is at least one superfluous paragraph on IMBRA that overdoes it way down in the text. But my concern is what people will read in the first 30 seconds of their visit to what is supposed to be a neutral and balanced article.EnglishGarden 19:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Regardless, you're making the term sound as if it's exclusively used by Tahirih, when clearly that's not the case.UberCryxic 20:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Ref tag style
Ok, the conversion is complete (I think), and I've merged all duplicate references (again I think). The next step in completing the formatting of the references is to use for the web references, so that the style is in complete accordance with the MoS. -- Jeff3000 15:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Example of what should be cut
I've copied a section from the article here, and highlighted the parts I think should be cut. The reason for the cuts are that they really should be in the the associated article, since they are not about the TJC. Intead the content in this article, and in the sections should be about what the TJC does or thinks about the topic. Blue means remove, green means add. -- Jeff3000 15:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Domestic violence
Women who come to the United States with immigrant husbands or who marry American citizens once they are in the country are vulnerable to domestic violence because of their unfamiliarity with legal rights in the United States. The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) allows immigrants who can prove they have been victims of domestic abuse and would otherwise be able to gain legal status the ability to self-petition for a green card. VAWA protects immigrant women who are victims of domestic violence in the United States by removing the threat of automatic deportation and removing an abusive partner's control of a woman's immigration status. The majority of Tahirih's clients are women who have suffered from domestic violence and whose cases can be covered under VAWA, the Violence Against Women Act. Tahirih has also initiated the Battered Immigrant Women Advocacy Project to advocate before the INS and immigration courts on behalf of battered immigrant women seeking lawful permanent residence.

Hmmm I'm a bit reluctant to cut out that information because it serves as a good background tool. Plus it's only a sentence or two.UberCryxic 18:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * But it's more than half of the paragraph, and has nothing to do with the TJC. Plus the whole section on Issues is written in the same manner.  You should move that information to the relevent article.  This article should really concentrate on the TJC, it's actions, it's views, etc, and move all other facts about other things to the relevant article.  The article is not supposed to be an essay. -- Jeff3000 18:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, it has a lot to do with TJC. Most of the cases Tahirih covers fall under VAWA, so obviously it is important that people know just a little about it. I will see if I can give more information about Tahirih's involvement in these issues, but I do not want to remove information about the issues themselves.UberCryxic 18:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You'll have to integrate the data in a way that relates to the TJC. Regardless you should shorten the info, because almost all of the issues subsection is data and not TJC info. -- Jeff3000 19:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I added some more information about what Tahirih does regarding those specific issues.UberCryxic 20:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at User:Jeff3000/Sandbox2, where I've changed the focus in many of the paragraphs in the issues section to what Tahirih does, and not on the specific acts. I would highly recommend the changes, as really the data should be in the linked articles, which is the beauty of the web format. -- Jeff3000 21:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I like it! I like it a lot actually! I've made the full changes. But do you know what happened to some of the references. There are now 36 whereas there used to be 38. One reference seems blanked out. Know what could be wrong with that? Thank you so much!UberCryxic 21:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I've fixed the reference issue; it was due to the fact that I deleted the sentence that first used the reference. The other references are not used anymore either, and so they don't show up in the References section. -- Jeff3000 21:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Cool. So what do you think now? Is it ready to hit FAC in the next few days?UberCryxic 21:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * There are still a couple places where I think we need some references in the "Issues" section. Let me post them, and then after you find them, let's do a re-read for spelling/grammar/etc, and I think it should be good to go.  FAC will no doubt bring about a lot more suggestions than Peer Review, so we'll see what happens. -- Jeff3000 21:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Image
The image at was uploaded, and now states that the image can be used for any purpose. I couldn't find this anywhere on their site. I think the image should be deleted from Commons, uploaded in Wikipedia, and given a fair use rationale. I think that's more appropriate. -- Jeff3000 21:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Issues
Why is crieria for assistance in a subsection under issues? It isn't an issue and could be rolled into the above paragraph.--Peta 05:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes I will do that promptly. Hey about your intext query, here's how I would reply. The 2000-2001 Annual Report stated that "Although the last publicly reported nationwide rate of approval for asylum applications was 23.3%, the Tahirih Justice Center's rate of asylum grants is 98%." The Wikipedia article says, "The last publicly reported rate of approval for asylum applications in the U.S. before 2001 was 23.3%, but the Tahirih Justice Center had a 98% success rate, a figure it continues to maintain." Your comment was that the statement implied that Tahirih had improved the US approval rate, but I don't see that implication at all. It just says what the last publicly released rate of approval before 2001 was, and that Tahirih's rate was better. Doesn't imply or say anything about Tahirih improving the national average. Anyway, if you still think it does, then please give me some concrete ideas about how to rephrase it. Until then, I will remove your comment. Thank you.UberCryxic 13:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I think its confusing/potentailly mislading to talk about the two numbers in the same sentence, since there is no demonstrated change to the US numbers are a result of the work of the centre. I'd make it into two sentences, or remove the US figure all together.--Peta 00:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Clarifications
Per the above comments, there is a misconception that my mother works at the Tahirih Justice Center. That is not true. She does not.UberCryxic 17:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Son of volunteer: That is not good enough to revert twice. She is a major contributor and it states she is a volunteer on the fundraising committee.

[http://72.14.221.104/search?q=cache:TUl_1Q0NcPQJ:tahirih.org/legal_tahirih_app/docs/TahirihNewsletterWinter06.pdf+kolasi+tahirih&hl=de&gl=de&ct=clnk&cd=1 Scroll down to see UberCryxic's mother as a volunteer for the 2005 Fundraiser Ball for Tahirih.

Your entire contribution is blatant POV that a 19 year old would know nothing about. You are the son of a volunteer for Tahirih and you ought to cease and desist vandalizing changes that try to ameliorate the blatant pro-Tahirih POV.

I am asking the administrator to investigate.


 * In this thread that you sent to my e-mail, you specifically say that my mother is a Tahirih employee. My mother does not work at Tahirih. I think I would know. Either way, I don't appreciate how personal this has become. You can discuss the substance of the article without getting into the nitty gritty details of my life. But if you don't want to do that, then fine. I'm sure you'll have a lovely time here.UberCryxic 17:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I will edit the employee remark but read the above link. Your mother is a fundraiser volunteer. Your mother is very closely linked to the Tahirih Justice Center. Please at least deny that your college tuition or college money is related to what you are doing here.

Please cease and desist reverting reasonable changes.

Why do you think you can get away with this? Did you even read the above law?


 * I will begin having proper conversation with you at the time when you drop personal discussions. Until then, you will be warmly ignored. Thank you.UberCryxic 18:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

OK. We will ignore the fact that you have not discussed your mother's volunteer fundraising efforts nor the fact that you have not disclosed whether you are receiving financial reward for being the Wikipedia webmaster for Tahirih.

From this point, I will discuss reasonable changes as if you are a neutral fellow editor discussing the battle of Austerlitz.

I will add the paragraph about critics being in the online dating industry and we will talk more tomorrow about how its unacceptable for Wikipedia editors to refer to dating sites as "marriage brokers" simply because Tahirih wants to define them as such.84.56.29.163 18:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The administrator told UberCryxic to cease and desist from editing what is a family conflict of interest. UberCryxic: You have no business here. It is has been shown that your mother is a fundraiser for Tahirih and the administrator has asked you to leave. I don't know if Kyrill knows about this, but UberCryxic, you have to understand how serious a matter this is.EnglishGarden 18:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Please only discuss information that pertains to the structure and content of the article. Thank you.UberCryxic 18:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Ubercyxic: You need to be out of here. Go edit Military History. You are clearly being paid for being the webmaster here. This must stop.

The structure going forward is no POV that slanders men. The last sentence of the first paragraph talked about exploitation as if the Wikipedia editors felt it was exploitation. You can only allow such a word if you say "what Tahirih considers exploitation". Because you as the webmaster chose to put the nonsense about the exploitation of women by unscrupulous marriage brokers, and make it look like the editors of Wikipedia concur that this is all an accurate description of what dating websites do...you made it relevant to change that sentence to a very neutral "Tahirih is involved in two lawsuits with dating agencies that introduce foreign women to American men." This is reasonable. It is true and verifiable. Most importantly, it is neutral.

But I should not be arguing with a paid webmaster. You need to be out of here. The administrator said that your family connection makes it a conflict of interest for you to be meddling with this article. EnglishGarden 19:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I should note something: User:Shazbot85 is NOT an administrator. Please stop misleading people. Thank you.UberCryxic 19:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Shazbot told you to lay off this article because of a family conflict of interest. It is only your opinion (and job) to stop anything that might show the critics' opinions of TJC. The two lawsuits are critical information. Why are you so worried that people will know about them? Have you read Online Dating Rights? There is plenty of discussion about Tahirih there. Why is there no link to them? This must not be allowed to remain an advertisement for Tahirih.EnglishGarden 19:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Shazbot also said this, "The edits look more like User:EnglishGarden is trying to put his own brand of spin on the page. I'm not an administrator though, but that's as it appears to me, a fellow editor."

There are many cases that Tahirih was engaged in or is engaged in. This is not about shame. The material has to be notable, otherwise it requires daughter articles.UberCryxic 19:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Your mother is a fundraiser for Tahirih. Please disengage from this article and let neutral editors take over your function.EnglishGarden 19:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Unseemly behavior
A few points:


 * Stop with the reverting already (and that goes for everyone involved). The three-revert rule is there for a reason.  The world will not end if the article is not in your preferred state today; discuss it first (ideally with the input of other editors; try an RFC, for example) and make changes later.
 * Anyone posting personal details about other contributors' families will be blocked.

To sum up: more polite discussion, less edit-warring and harassment, please. Thank you. Kirill Lokshin 19:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanx Kirill. I have proven that this young man's mother is a fundraiser for the TJC. He has admitted as much on the complaint board. He has not disclosed that he is not receiving remuneration as the webmaster for this article. There is a family conflict of interest and another member has asked him to steer clear of this board as a result.


 * For removing POV, the words "exploit" and "marriage broker" and "mail order bride" either need to be removed or placed in quotations so it is very clear that the editors do not pass judgement on the online dating industry where there is a restraining order on the IMBRA law in question. See Restraining Order. This is the son of a fundraiser for Tahirih who is obviously the chosen webmaster. He should take a step back and ask himself what he is doing. This topic is clearly not in his personal interest otherwise.EnglishGarden 19:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * To reiterate, if I was not sufficiently clear before: no more comments about "this young man's mother" or any other personal details aside from the content of the article itself. Your arguments may be good—I have minimal knowledge of the subtleties of this topic, frankly—but you will not be permitted to continue attacking other editors in this manner.  I would suggest opening a RFC on the article (not on the contributors!) rather than continuing this back-and-forth discussion, as it's clearly getting nowhere. Kirill Lokshin 19:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Kirill: Please ask other neutral editors to check this out. This is otherwise the subject for a major press release. Nobody cares that this is an award winning article if it is a blatant advertisement for a slanderous political agenda. There is no such thing as saying with a neutral POV that a dating website is a "Marriage Broker." You cannot say "exploitation of women" as if that is the editors' consensus of reality. Much of the self-congratulatory tone of the whole article is a sham and is wasting everyone's time and inviting media scrutiny. I'd be happy with a few changes, but a paragraph on the controversy with the online dating industry needs to be fairly high up in the article. I can come back after the weekend. There is no rush.

But we really do need more neutral editors here. The three reverts in one day has been disconcerting.EnglishGarden 19:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Your edits were mostly regarded as vandalism, hence the removals. Shazbot essentially agreed with me; you are trying to tilt this article so it better fits with your beliefs.UberCryxic 19:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

So it is not a belief to call a dating website a marriage broker? Not a belief to think the word "exploit" describes what dating websites do? This is silly.

Kirill: Please tell me how to open an RFC. If I click on the link, I just get words. Where do I actually go to open an RFC that is easy to track?EnglishGarden 20:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I've already opened one. Kirill Lokshin 23:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

a couple of comments-first, the recent edits today are part of an orchestrated effort to disrupt this article as documented on the www.online-dating-rights.com site. Next, the restraining order is not against imbra. I have read it and it applies to only a single mail order bride company. I also see that the court was just asked to cancel that restraining order. if anyone here has a pov, its pretty clear that's english who may be a sock for another disruptive editor over at the mail order bride article

Sign your name please. There is no orchestrated effort because I am the only one here. But others, who know the international dating industry very well, must be allowed to edit here. This is not the Tahirih website although it features #3 in a Google search for them. They understandably have to defend their brochure. They have a fundraiser on September 27th and one on September 12th. See? I actually know a lot about Tahirih. Check out the first edit I made and follow the links to copious amounts of information about Tahirih.

The IMBRA TRO applies to everyone as seen by the fact that no dating website is complying with IMBRA at the moment (some pretend to do so). It means nothing that the TJC asked the judge to lift the TRO. Legally it means nothing that someone asked a judge to do something.

Doesn't the public deserve to see the court documents and the account of the Encounter's trial including the coverups of Nataliya Fox's initial immigration status?

The bottom line is that data and information is being blocked here, not POV.

I am not a sock for anyone. I agree that Michael had been disruptive, but a reasonable solution was found there and it can be found here.

We must work on POV here: Dating websites are not "Marriage Brokers" except in the opinion of the TJC. We must be neutral.EnglishGarden 20:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * They are marriage brokers in the opinion of the Tahirih Justice Center and the United States government.UberCryxic 23:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The below image, officially describing the term "marriage broker," should be included in the article for readers to get context:



I personally just convinced the California Legislature to suspend consideration of a similar law in California indefinitely. All I needed was for a journalist to call and ask "do you really think that dating sites are marriage brokers?" The vote was 13-0.

Keep in mind that, when Tahirih tried to get a law passed against "International Matchmakers" they failed. They tried to pass a law against "International Introduction Services" and failed as well. Many assume that Congresspeople didn't actually read the law but just the title. You will be hard pressed to find a Congressperson who knows anything about what they voted on.

The above core-definition given by IMBRA describes all online dating websites as marriage brokers whether located in the USA or elsewhere (thus a French dating site based in Paris is a "marriage broker" according to IMBRA). That was a key victory for Tahirih. Then IMBRA goes on to "pardon" the type of American dating sites that could most easily get the ACLU on their side or big dollars working against politicians' reelection campaigns. So actual religious matchmakers that really do "broker marriages" were made exempt, including those that really do "arrange marriages." To save themselves the wrath of IAC Corporation and News Corporation (Match.com and Myspace.com) as well as Yahoo...an exception was made by the politicians and Tahirih for dating sites that had more than 50% American women on them (this amounts to protectionism against social globalism but a discussion of the true reasons for IMBRA is not necessary here).

But still, a foreign version of MySpace.com would not be exempt and would be considered a full-blown "Marriage Broker" by this law that has, defacto, never come into effect for anyone. The local French dating site that I might use when I'm in Paris would be a "marriage broker" even though it is, for French people, no more stigmatized than Match.com or Yahoo Personals would be in the USA. There is little chance that any foreign dating site will really comply with IMBRA's rules (lipservice is easy). For that matter, given the TRO that defacto covers all websites, there is little chance that any website will have to seriously comply with IMBRA.

British gay websites are included. But gay marriage is now legal in the UK, so maybe Tahirih was correct in getting Congress to call British gay websites "marriage brokers." The Republicans didn't sign on to IMBRA for the same reasons as the Democrats who wrote it.

You may say "But that is not what Tahirih meant"...but the big fear now is what Republican judges will do with IMBRA if Alito and Roberts aren't cool. A Republican judge in Ohio took a look at IMBRA and stated "The Supreme Court has never explicitly held that there is a fundamental liberty interest in an American contacting a foreigner for an intimate relationship."

Plus, MySpace.com is now facing a lawsuit claiming that everyone who goes onto a chatroom in the USA must verify their identities (which is needed to verify age). But Reno vs ACLU will probably work to defeat that lawsuit because the ACLU succeeded there in determining that no proof of age was required to view any images on any website (which I would assume would include voice and text). Please note that Janet Reno probably didn't agree with the law she was trying to defend, but had to defend it because a Republican Congress had made the law (forcing people to prove their age via credit card in order to view certain websites).

So sure, it is Tahirih's opinion and this one phrase "broker" did get in to one of several laws that describe dating services in one way or another. You are entitled to share the "opinion" of what to call them, but other disinterested editors hopefully get to agree or not, especially editors who know the online dating industry.

Like I said, when Tahirih tried to get a law passed against "International Matchmakers" they failed. They tried to pass a law against "International Introduction Services" and failed as well. Congresscritters thought "Why would I be draconian and pass a law against matchmakers?"

But then Tahirih finally found a word that would make Congressmen think the same websites must be evil "Marriage Broker". The word "Broker" has evil connotations of people being treated like cattle (you get cattle brokers but not cattle matchmakers), so it was used to replace "Matchmaker" although it was describing the exact same websites.

Qualified Dating Industry Wikipedia editors could agree on the word they want to use.

Now, specific officials at US embassies in Europe refuse to call these "marriage brokers" out of consideration for the fact that the name is descriptively inaccurate and inflammatory. It is true that part of IMBRA is being implemented in the form of visa application questions for fiances. Many people are simply writing "no" that they met on a "marriage broker" because they are not of the opinion that, for instance, an Australian version of "Hot or Not" could honestly be called a "marriage broker" although it is, by the above definition a "marriage broker."

So neutral Wikipedia editors are best calling these International Matchmakers or to at least abridge what I just said so people reading the Tahirih article understand the context in which the explosive word "Marriage Broker" is coming in.

The IMBRA law was tacked onto the back of the VAWA just before Christmas last year and that was attached to the Must-Pass Justice Department Appropriations Bill. The hurried vote was an unrecorded voice-vote.

Objectively speaking, "marriage broker" is the word Tahirih finally found to get a law passed that they failed to pass in years before when they named dating websites various things like "International Matchmakers", etc. The new word conjured up images of cattle being brokered, and it did the trick at 5PM last December 17th as the Congressmen wanted to go home for Christmas and made their hurried voice vote.

One big problem with Wikipedia is this crazy star-award stuff that goes to people who hang out a lot but don't get out into the real world to learn the realities of the subjects they might purport to write about. Where are the forms I thought Wikipedia had where editors were required to describe why they feel they are qualified to write about a subject? Why did Kirrill openly state that it is some kind of personal insult to ask what the star "writer" has for personal knowledge of the subject at hand? This star system feeds egos and it gives people feelings of ownership over articles. The star at the top of this page, practically giving ownership of the article to Ubercryxic needs to be removed by neutral editors who now know the controversy.

Why would an expert on Tahirih not be allowed his input in the article? The media is interested in what I have to say. More people are learning about Tahirih every day.

Ubercryxic implied that he thought Tahirih is involved in more than just the two current court cases against the dating industry. Wouldn't the public want to have those court cases spelled out? Are we assuming that Genital Mutilators are suing Tahirih for their right to mutilate girls?

Neutral editors won't assume that the opponents in those court cases must all be evil people who naturally need to be defeated and will be defeated because the Tahirih forces of good will surely prevail. In fact, for an amusing account of how many feel the fight is just the opposite, please check out this History of IMBRA FAQ that catalogues what the Tahirih Wikipedia brochure doesn't mention.

The brochure gets an award and "peer review" and it has apparently already been decided that this brochure will be "Featured for September" on Wikipedia's home page, guaranteeing exposure worth at least $50,000 in advertising fees. The appearance of this new brochure is just in time for Tahirih's Annual Fundraiser Ball where they need to make sure they get the $3Million needed to persecute the Online Dating Industry.

Meanwhile, neutral editors, who contemplate the impending "Feature Placement" plus the September 27th Fundraiser Ball, need to consider that Ubercryxic explicitly described Tahirih's desire to persecute the Online Dating Industry in the first paragraph of the brochure.

We could use a review of the brochure by editors who know the Online Dating Industry very well. There are some simple changes needed:

1) Brochure tone could be changed to something the New York Times would print. That's not asking much because they allow a lot of opinion to get mixed in. Readers shouldn't get the impression they are reading a brochure, however.

2) Because dozens of words like International Matchmaker and International Introductory Service were tried by Tahirih over the years in bids to get laws passed...neutral editors could standardize on one of those that everyone can agree on. Or else, "marriage broker" needs to be in parentheses with a clear statement on its first use that many call these matchmakers or that the law that put that term in use is under challenge in two federal courtrooms. After all, most men who even bother to visit foreign women they met online, don't marry them. I never married anyone I met online. The word is a provocation being fought with two lawsuits.

3) Adjectives like "unscrupulous" are unprofessional. In fact, the only backup Tahirih has for saying that any American dating site was ever "unscrupulous" was the Encounters Case where I have already shown that there is another side to that story.

I ask that professional editors who've handled the Online Dating Industry on Wikipedia, should review this article for professionalism and neutrality, not to mention knowledge.

Wikipedia needs to value knowledge, not marketing.

Finally, it should be prominently mentioned somewhere in article that Tahirih is very proud of getting a judge in Ohio to declare "The Supreme Court has never explicitly held that there is a fundamental liberty interest in an American contacting a foreigner for an intimate relationship."

If Tahirih is proud of winning this preliminary statement in the 6th district, they should tell the world (that AODA vs Gonzales case will possibly be dropped if not needed).

There is a difference between knowledge and POV and nobody can say that I don't have a lot of knowledge about Tahirih to go along with any POV. If someone doesn't like any POV I might have, the knowledge still could be mined and used in any serious Wikipedia article.

I'm a good resource for legal precedents, for incidence (Tillman vs Miller, Elrod vs Burns).

The Tahirih article can remain a brochure for all I care as long as the vicious wording against international dating websites (matchmakers, introductory services) is put in context somehow. EnglishGarden 08:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * My main interest is the labeling. Frankly, you are using Wikipedia as a soapbox, something which you really shouldn't be doing. Anyway, I'll ignore that for now. We have....


 * -this
 * -this
 * - and that


 * These sites make references to "marriage brokers" because, essentially, that is what these companies are. By definition, a marriage broker is an entity that tries to arrange a marriage between two people. These marriage brokers are special because they operate outside of the United States, so we call them international marriage brokers. Hope that's clear now. This is not difficult.UberCryxic 16:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

As stated above, YOU are the one using Wikipedia as a soapbox because you've taken control of the article itself which is filled with slander.

You are getting $50,000 worth of free advertising with a brochure as a Feature for September, just in time for the big Tahirih fundraiser. Wikipedia managers should investigate your interest in Tahirih. It is insane that you are still posting here. Neutral editors need to take over. I've already explained that 95% of the sites effected by IMBRA do not call themselves "Marriage Brokers" and cannot be thought of as such. Even after that, there is proof that the type of American man who would visit a website like the ones you just linked to have abuse rates of only 1% statistically towards women compared to a US national average of 7%.

Here is more evidence from an INS (USCIS) Report that "mail order brides" are not abused by their American husbands as much as American women are abused by American husbands:



This shows that much of what you wrote in the article shows POV that cries out for at least a one sentence rebuttal. Neutral editors can look at the evidence and agree that a rebuttal is warranted.

The current article is a Soapbox and a Brochure. Neutral editors need to take over. You publish your name openly in your profile and your Mom is a fundraiser for Tahirih.EnglishGarden 18:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Please stop talking about my mother. Also, please stop making unsubstiantiated claims. Ideally, Wikipedia editors are not supposed to question each other's motivations. The arguments about the content of articles are the only things that matter.


 * On another note, keep in mind that this is, in fact, not an article about IMBRA, which you are focusing on so heavily, but one about the Tahirih Justice Center. If you have problems with IMBRA, then create an article about it. But what you can't do is presume that IMBRA dominates Tahirih's life and operations, since that is not true at all. The main problems with what you want to change is that they take the article completely out of context, making it more issue-driven when it's not supposed to be. This article is supposed to describe the organization, and other Wikipedia editors thought it did a good job at that. That's why it's a Featured Article. Thank you.UberCryxic 18:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Ideally, Wikipedia editors should not have a conflict of interest. You state your name openly and its on the Tahirih Fundraiser Sheet for September 2005. Yes. The article is about Tahirih. But it is unprofessionally written except as a brochure, in which case it is quite a good one.

The four separate mentions of IMBRA can, therefore, be cut down to two and any slander about men who date foreign women can be augmented with the link to the INS Report stating the opposite.EnglishGarden 18:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The article in no way states or implies anything slanderous about men who are looking for foreign women. In the most relevant comment that I could find, it says, "The international marriage broker industry has grown in response to a demand by American men, some of whom turn out to be sexual predators, for traditional wives from countries such as the Philippines, Russia, and Ukraine."


 * It does not say that American men are sexual predators. It does not imply that either. All it says is that some American men turn out to be sexual predators, which is true. That's true for American men, Chinese men, and well, men in general. Some turn out to be sexual predators. What exactly is objectionable about that comment? If you have no factual basis for dispute, then drop your complaint.


 * You should not care whether I do have or do not have a conflict of interest. The only thing that should matter to you is the arguments you are proposing. Those are the only things that matter. Discuss those and we'll be in good understanding with each other. Focusing on personal matters will resolve nothing and will only create unnecessary animosity.UberCryxic 18:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

OK. Let's try to work together anyway. I will take it on good faith what you just said.

1) "and to end the exploitation of mail-order brides by international marriage brokers."

Let me think about what we can do with that because it says that there is an ongoing problem of exploitation that must be finally stopped.

I am OK with "and to stop possible exploitation of mail-order brides by international marriage brokers."

EnglishGarden 18:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes that sounds fair and NPOV. I changed it.UberCryxic 18:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Great. "The Act gives important information to women". This whitewashes the law and pretends there is no controversy and everyone is following the law without talk of TROs. I can imagine the following coming right after.

"Most feel the law provides a needed measure of protection at the US visa application stage, but there is some discussion about Americans giving out private information at the introduction stage."

That avoids discussion of lawsuits and restraining orders. It is a whitewashed, highly compromised sentence, but I can live with that and call it a day.EnglishGarden 19:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I was about to go swimming and forget about Wikipedia for a year. But I am detecting that we still may have to have RFC help on this.

Although I am against all parts of the law that aren't repetitions of statutes already in existence, I know its true that "most feel the law provides a needed measure of protection at the visa application stage". The key part of that sentence which needs to go in an unbiased article where IMBRA is praised, is but there is some discussion about Americans giving out private information at the introduction stage.

The link to the iFeminist article then makes the entire article fair enough. Neutral editors cannot allow IMBRA to be simply praised.

RFC Editors: The above is a very reasonable edit, the kind I've made elsewhere with no objection. Nobody who claims neutrality would object to but there is some discussion about Americans giving out private information at the introduction stage at the point where IMBRA is praised, seemingly by Wikipedia itself.

EnglishGarden 19:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * If the context is appropriate or if the information has not been somehow included there before, then there would be no problem about including some of this information in the Criticism and Response section.UberCryxic 20:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

No. It sounds like we need RFC help and/or press releases about Wikipedia fraud.

The context is appropriate immediately after you praise the law and unprofessionally put the word "important" before information. Since, at the intro stage, men can simply lie, the information is useless but the requirement to get approval on it is what Tahirih knows will destroy the whole introduction process and put the websites out of business.

But I wouldn't argue the value judgement "important" considering that you and I both know what is going on here.

The criticism and response section is a very bad joke. It just has the ifeminist article followed immediately by blistering attacks on men and the international dating industry. The whole section can be deleted and the ifeminist article moved to a simple sentence after the first mention of IMBRA.

This nonsense is going too far. You know that what I proposed would be normally excepted into any neutral Wikipedia article, but you also know that this one sentence would cut the donations considerably from those who look up Tahirih after they get invited to the fundraiser.

That one sentence is perfectly reasonable and is all that is needed to break the blatant POV everywhere else.

RFC Editors, please interfere.

By the way, this sentence is blatant POV but to heck with it, I won't argue it: "The international marriage broker industry has grown in response to a demand by American men, some of whom turn out to be sexual predators, for traditional wives from countries such as the Philippines, Russia, and Ukraine."

This sentence doesn't state a problem so it isn't necessary at all unless you wanted to be direct and say "Increased international dating means a possible increased exposure of foreign women to the sexual predators in our society". That sentence says the same thing without the ideological insinuations and irrelevant mention of "traditional".

But we have a bigger problem and you know what that is. You cannot praise IMBRA in the second paragraph and talk about women getting important information without adding "but there is some discussion about whether Americans should give out private information at the introduction stage.EnglishGarden 20:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Well the section cannot go because it is an important part of the article. Your characterizations about the statements there are a little wild. I wrote the section in as reasonable a tone as I thought possible. It may need to be expanded, and I'm fine with that. We can expand it together. I don't see what the point about "Wikipedia fraud" would be. That will just alienate you from the community. There is no fraud here, only conspiracy theories and incorrect statements on your part.


 * But again, your comments seem more directed against IMBRA then against Tahirih. Because Tahirih is not exclusively confined to this little IMBRA world that you have dreamt up, being anti-IMBRA does not necessarily mean that one would have to be anti-Tahirih. I really would advise creating an article about IMBRA and then about the controversies of IMBRA. It seems that's what you're looking for. Otherwise, you're jumbling your criticisms.UberCryxic 20:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I should also note that criticisms have to come from reputable sources. These criticisms from you mostly reflect original research. As such, you are not a reliable source at all. Where criticism regarding this issue was reliable, it was noted in the article.UberCryxic 20:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

RFC Editors: Please investigate the conflict of interest here. The edit is being reverted although it is intended to be the only half sentence in the entire article that might show a little bit of criticism. The article is now a brochure, as unprofessional a Wikipedia article as I have ever seen. How this got featured is a scandal.EnglishGarden 21:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Not only is there no conflict of interest, but it should not matter anyway. The arguments and the proposals are the only relevant aspects of this debate, or at least they should be. Of course, I realize why you are exclusively paying attention to the alleged conflict of interest. It's a nice way to forego talk about actually improving the article.UberCryxic 21:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The edit is perfectly reasonable. It will end the entire edit war and I won't even bother with a press release about Tahirih manipulating Wikipedia. But you know I have all the evidence that this is what has been going on. Stop this blatant obstructionism. You cannot praise IMBRA in the second paragraph without a minor half sentence saying "there is some discussion about the logistics..."EnglishGarden 21:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Please remain civil. The edit is not reasonable in the context of the lead. There is also no edit war. I have seen edit wars personally and they are much more brutal than this. This is more like an online scuffle.UberCryxic 21:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The edit is perfectly reasonable and totally appropriate and in context...except it is not in line with what a brochure should be. Don't revert it. Sleep on it and we will get RFC editors in to take a look. Remember, since I am not going to fight with you about the dozens of otherwise necessary POV corrections, this is the only issue I am going to fight over.EnglishGarden 21:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

EnglishGarden's Website
By the way, I am more than familiar with what you are writing about me at your little site. I actually requested that you delete that thread because the information contained there was offensive and incorrect. You did not. Fine, that's your prerogative. Unlike this article, that may be a site that you actually own, and so you can write pretty much anything you want on it. I only ask that you be civil in anything that you write. We are working together because it is the spirit of Wikipedia, something which you don't even believe in, not because you called a "bluff."UberCryxic 20:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Calling your bluff is exactly what I did. You are stonewalling. There is no conspiracy theory about your profile and what your family does for Tahirih. They are fundraiser/volunteers.

There is nothing incorrect about what I wrote on a forum that I do not own. This is going way too far.

And of course I know you've been checking that forum every ten minutes for the past 24 hours because it is so important that you win this fight to keep the article totally biased. The page views are overly high over there for one thread. You are way too concerned about this Tahirih Justice Center article and we all know why

The change I made was proper and fit perfectly. Leave it there and we are through arguing.

But you know the effect of the sentence would be to break Tahirih's fundraising potential, even though it would be a normal change in any other article to reflect balance.

We cannot mention the IMBRA law without at least that half sentence with the ifeminist link. This dovetails perfectly well with the praise about the law.

RFC Editors: Please let's stop pretending. My accusations are proven.

Here is the link showing the guy's parents are on the fundraising committee:

http://72.14.221.104/search?q=cache:TUl_1Q0NcPQJ:tahirih.org/legal_tahirih_app/docs/TahirihNewsletterWinter06.pdf+kolasi+tahirih&hl=de&gl=de&ct=clnk&cd=1

There was nothing at all wrong with the change I made if everyone here is really a neutral editor.

But let's stop pretending what is going on here.

This wasting a lot of time.

This is a one sentence change that will alter the entire POV of the brochure. I am willing to let the entire article remain a brochure, but not with the whitewashing of IMBRA as giving out important information to foreign women and then the criticism of the law buried way down at the end of the article in a pile of links that condemn the dating industry.


 * I have requested, for the umpteenth time now, that you do not talk about my family. Yet you still continue. Please be civil in our conversations.UberCryxic 21:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

RFC Editors: Will you investigate the conflict of interest here? This is outrageous what he is doing here. The edit I made is all that is necessary to end an edit war. It is perfectly reasonable. EnglishGarden 21:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * My problem is not with your edit per se, but rather with where it was placed. Material like that belongs in daughter articles or in the Criticism and Response section.UberCryxic 21:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

No it doesn't. That critic section is at the bottom and is filled with pro-Tahirih links to offset the devastating iFeminist article. You know as well as I do that the iFeminist article is capable of getting IMBRA overturned by itself. It must have been horrifying for Tahirih to see that a prominent feminist felt that IMBRA went too far by asking men to send criminal background checks before they could even say hello.

You understand as well as I do that you can have your entire marketing brochure and I won't argue anything about it. But if the iFeminist article on IMBRA is placed anywhere near the first place where IMBRA is mentioned and praised, the entire marketing effect of the article is lost and Fairness and Balance will result that Tahirih would not want.

That one half sentence would convince dozens of potential donors to at least ask questions.

Tahirih wouldn't want the questions asked.

It shouldn't matter to you. You are not, yourself, presumably a fundraiser nor should you have any financial interest in this.

This shouldn't matter so much to you. The half sentence belongs where it belongs.

Again, I repeat, this should not matter so much to you.

Give it a rest.EnglishGarden 21:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * There is something very important that you need to understand: IMBRA is not praised in the lead. IMBRA is mentioned in the lead to let people know why this organization is important and notable. Why should Wikipedia members and the world know about Tahirih? Mentioning IMBRA works towards that goal. It's not meant to say anything about how great or bad IMBRA is. Stuff like that belongs in other parts of the article or in other articles completely.UberCryxic 21:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

IMBRA does NOT give women important information at the intro stage. Men can lie. You describe the law in a praising way. Technically, you can take the description out and argue that discussing what IMBRA is belongs further down...but it shouldn't matter to you so much. Wait for RFC editors to come and take over. You should not be the owner of this article. I really don't want to waste too much time arguing over this. The ifeminist article is a powerful description of what IMBRA is by way.

The ifeminist article clearly describes what the law is and what is good about it. It then says it goes too far in one area. For its clear way of describing what this law is, the ifeminist article belongs where IMBRA is first mentioned. If you weren't on guard here, it would be fine. I know Wikipedia editors in general and this, for a disinterested person, is a perfectly reasonable edit.EnglishGarden 21:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually the disinterested person would find the phrasing awkward (logistics?), but that's another matter. The main point has still not been addressed: the dynamics of IMBRA cannot be talked about in the lead because this is not an article about IMBRA. This article is about an organization.UberCryxic 21:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The article is a blatant brochure for the organization. It bears no resemblance to the typical Wikipedia article where, if there are opposing sides, they compromise and work with each other.

You won't work on this in a reasonable manner.IMBRA is praised with an inaccurate description of what it does, further aggravated by the word important. My edit is reasonable and the only edit necessary to avoid a further issue. But everyone at Tahirih would resist this edit for good reason.

You should have no interest in fighting this so hard. The edit fit perfectly. This whole ordeal has been outrageous especially knowing the circumstances.

I request that RFC editors, investigate the matter carefully.


 * Please stop making unfounded allegations and be civil.UberCryxic 22:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying that your parents are not on the Tahirih Fundraiser List via the above link? Yes or no?EnglishGarden 22:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not saying anything about that because it is not related to the article. You keep talking about things that are actually not related to this article. I humbly request that you stop.UberCryxic 22:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, Wikipedia is not a soapbox for your personal views and conspiracy theories.UberCryxic 22:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

OK RFC Editors: There we have it. When asked why his parents are on the fundraising committee for the Tahirih Justice Center he answers "I am not going to say anything about that because it is unrelated to the article."

I have repeatedly tried to work with him in good faith. But he is terrified about the effect of the well-known iFeminist article that describes IMBRA well but adds that it goes a tad too far.

Please read the article and decide for yourself where it would go in a neutral article about an organization that seems so proud of a law like IMBRA.

Ubercryxic: Please recognize a conflict of interest and recluse yourself from editing here.


 * Once again, discuss the content of the article and leave out unnecessary material for your website.UberCryxic 22:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, because I haven't clarified this enough (or at all really), you do not own this article, so from now on do not tell me to leave. Thank you.UberCryxic 22:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, online-dating-rights is not EnglishGarden's personal webpage (although he spends a lot of time there). He does have two other webpages that he owns....http://www.imbra.org and http://www.veteransabroad.com. For better or for worse, whether I agree with him or not, those pages demonstrate where he's coming from. The imbra.org website has an entire section called "tahirih lies" which is quite enlightening. 195.225.104.228 22:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * That's very nice.UberCryxic 22:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Lmao......"9. DEPORTATION OF ALL FEMINISTS TO IRAN WHERE THEY MIGHT DO SOME GOOD" HAHAHAHAHAHA! That was good EnglishGarden. I gotta give you that lol....wow. Talk about conflict of interest.UberCryxic 22:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi User 195: Actually, I do not own IMBRA.ORG where that rhetoric is found but just borrowed the graphics because I was lazy. But VeteransAbroad.com is mine and it does have a lot of enlightening facts about Tahirih including a lot of fraud mentioned at this link

But I don't care about this Wikipedia brochure so long as the one ifeminist article is mentioned where IMBRA is first described.

Ubercryxic: You should do what is honorable under the circumstances. You know the truth. The rest of us are supposed to assume good faith. If there is a conflict of interest, please leave of your own accord.

You can put the ifeminist article in the first place that describes IMBRA and delete the ridiculous criticism section. It is saying a lot when a leading opponent of Tahirih is asking that the entire criticism section can be deleted. If you want to remove the inaccurate description of IMBRA {"important information" is nonsense}, then it will no longer count as the first place that describes IMBRA and you will have a point. But this shouldn't matter to you so much. Any editor looking for balance would have been fine with my edit.EnglishGarden 22:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, for the record, the article passed peer review and was elected to Featured Status long before EnglishGarden, who is leading an activist charge to overturn an Act of Congress, decided there were problems with it. If there really were problems with this article's POV, don't you think they would have been identified during the peer review and FAC process?

EnglishGarden has a serious issue with Tahirih, so I really don't think he has the credibility on this issue to justify marking up a featured article. Here are the self-stated goals of imbra.org from the website:

GOALS OF IMBRA.ORG

1. HAVE IMBRA FOUND UNCONSTITUTIONAL

2. DEFEAT MARIA CANTWELL AND 3 REPUBLICAN SENATORS WHO VOTED WITH HER WITHOUT EVEN READING THE LAW: Conrad Burns of Montana, Jim Talent of Missouri and Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania.

3. CLOSE DOWN THE TAHIRIH (IN)JUSTICE CENTER (TJC)

4. HAVE TJC INVESTIGATED FOR FRAUD (MAKING UP A PROBLEM SO CONGRESS CAN FUND THEM TO FIX IT)

5. REPEAL VAWA SO AS TO NOT FUND RADICAL FEMINIST FRONT ORGANIZATIONS

6. REINSTATE THE ANTI-FRAUD PROVISIONS OF IMMIGRATION LAW AND REPEAL THE I-751 WAIVERS

7. SAVE THE LIVES OF FOREIGN WOMEN WHO MARRY AMERICANS TO BE SAFE

8. PASS VAMA - VIOLENCE AGAINST MEN ACT TO PROTECT AMERICAN MEN FROM ABUSE AND FRAUD SUCH AS FALSE CLAIMS OF ABUSE IN ORDER TO STAY IN THE USA

9. DEPORTATION OF ALL FEMINISTS TO IRAN WHERE THEY MIGHT DO SOME GOOD

10. NO MARRIAGE RIGHTS FOR METROSEXUALS

195.225.104.228 22:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * EnglishGarden, I am only interested in the content of the article and have already told you that the dynamics of IMBRA are not appropriate for inclusion in the lead of this article. At the very least, please drop the conflict of interest argument. I could just as easily make it apply to you, but I am not because it is irrelevant to the article. Thank you.UberCryxic 22:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

User 195: You are talking about a guy named Michael's website. I think all that needs to be edited out and updated professionally to reflect the progress made since that was probably written in March. But it isn't my site.

Ubercryxic: You can take the line about "important information for women" out and save it for the first place IMBRA is actually described. Then put that in and add my half sentence with the ifeminist article. That would show good faith and give the IMBRA part of the article balance.

We really don't need to be fighting over the ifeminist article's placement in this article. It needs to be high on wherever IMBRA is described that is all.

This isn't rocket science.

We don't need people like User195 getting so upset about the inclusion of an ifeminist article that she has to rush here to try to discredit me for something she probably knows very well: I do not own Michael's website. I just borrowed some graphics.

By the way, I just noticed the remark "Since you guys are not that notable, inclusion of a link to Online-Dating-Rights.com would not be warranted."

I wouldn't say that ODR is not notable. There is a treasure trove of information about Tahirih at that website. Much of it belongs in this article, especially the allegations of fraud by specific Tahirih employees and the Arnold & Porter law firm. But I am only looking to get the ifeminist article placed where IMBRA is first described in this article.

Neutral editors are requested.EnglishGarden 23:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * By non-notable I mean non-reputable. You may have a lot of information, but it is not reputable. There are additional contextual issues about the statement that you want to include. IMBRA is described in the lead only to show an accomplishment of the organization. That IMBRA is mentioned is more about the organization rather than about IMBRA itself. I think this is the point you are missing.UberCryxic 23:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

This non-reputable remark is incorrect. Online-Dating-Rights.com links mainly to government sources like the 1999 INS Report that shows a 1% abuse rate of "mail order brides", etc. Otherwise, ODR and VeteransAbroad.com link to the California legislature and Minnesota Legislature and to court documents. That is all reputable.

Links to these websites belong in the links section solely because we're the ones with the actual court records, etc, that people will need to make up their own minds about Tahirih.

What is not reputable at ODR, would be the links to the ABC Television affiliate in Washington DC that worked with Tahirih to do the hatchet job on American men when David Dickerson was falsely accused last month of raping his wife. When it was proven that she was lying to get one of those "abuse green cards"...the ABC TV station did not issue a retraction of the hatchet job and Tahirih's Mrs. Miller-Muro did not issue an apology to David Dickerson. That TV station is not reputable and my linking to its video is an act of linking to a disreputable source.

Here is the ABC News Interview with Tahirih which was neither recanted nor apologized for later on. Tahirih owes this man an apology.

ODR is more reputable than Tahirih, whose directors may be going to jail if the information at ODR and at VeteransAbroad.com is investigated by journalists and this process is under way. The members of Online-Dating-Rights.com include lawyers and others who are only seemingly non-active now because IMBRA is under restraining order and will likely get a lower court permanent injunction in a few months. A neutral editor would put ODR and VeteransAbroad.com in the links section for sure. But, as I've said, the only thing I care about is that the ifeminist article goes into the first description of IMBRA. Then I'm out of here. I don't live in cyberspace.

That a few out of thousands of dating websites or international matchmakers market themselves as "marriage brokers" doesn't mean that the vast majority of the rest don't object to the new phraseology of what they are supposed to be called that was used to get IMBRA passed in a tricky fashion last Christmas that has left virtually no Congressman's office aware that IMBRA really exists. Neutral people call them international matchmaking agencies or websites. Knowledgable people see that gay matchmakers and social networking sites in England and France are also "marriage brokers" according to the restrained law.

IMBRA is not an accomplishment but a liability of Tahirih, or a "very highly controversial accomplishment of Tahirih". A neutral editor would at least take out the "signed by President Bush" which is superfluous marketing (designed to say "look, we're bipartisan") and replace it with "now under partial restraining order." No website is really sending men's information to women for approval before allowing contact to take place. This means the entire industry is ignoring the part of IMBRA that the Georgia restraining order has restrained.

This crucial fact must be mentioned when a supposedly neutral article discusses IMBRA as some sort of accomplishment.

The word "important" is POV before the word information. You're making a value judgement about what turns out to be a man's word of honor that he is not a criminal and not married (there is no requirement of proof when a man submits information to be allowed to speak to a woman). Thus the word "important" is POV. You could say "what Tahirih feels is important information".

I realize that, without the word "important", the line about giving information might set off alarm bells among civil rights people. It should. The list of information that a man is supposed to at least lie about includes every state he ever lived in and the ages of his children. And that only to be allowed to say hello to someone. See Copy of IMBRA Law page 12.

By the way, there is nothing "disreputable" about a website providing links to things like the actual text of a law or the actual text of a court restraining order.

Further down in the article, where IMBRA is again praised ad nauseum, one should link to the restraining order and the Ohio judge's pro-IMBRA statement (where he said "Americans have no fundamental liberty interest in meeting foreigners for intimate relationships").

But back to the top: If the line that describes IMBRA as "giving information to women" is appropriate in that second paragraph, then the half sentence about "there is some discussion about what point in a relationship such information should be given out" with the link to the ifeminist article, is also appropriate. The ifeminist article explains what IMBRA is from a feminist POV but then says there is one clause in the law that goes too far and brands men as a priori abusers. This article provides a very fair balance that anything but a brochure would allow. RFC editors are requested for this reason.

Removing the POV from the article is not rocket science. But we will need an RFC editor for that.EnglishGarden 08:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Outside view
I have skimmed this discussion page, and I have two comments. First English Garden, your behaviour toward UberCryxic, specifically revealing personal information, is directly against Wikipedia policies (see Harassment). If you continue such behaviour, you will not get the support of any other editor. The discussion on this page is about the Tahirih Justice Center article, and not it's editors. Do not attack the article by attacking the editor. Secondly, you apparently have some criticism of IMBRA law, and that criticism, if there are verifiable are reliable sources (i.e. not blogs, personal websites, forums, (should not be self-published)) should go in a page on the IBMRA law. In this page, we are talking about the views of the Tahirih Justice Center, and thus we only state that they support the IBMRA law, and their reasons for support. This is the only objective way to go about it. The interested reader will look up the IBMRA law article and decide for themselves if that decision by the TCJ to support the law is something good or bad. We don't pass judgement of it in this page. -- Jeff3000 15:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Exactly what is the Wikipedia policy, in general, on fundraisers manipulating their own sites? I remember last November a politician losing because his staff was caught manipulating the relevant Wikipedia article.

Furthermore, I've studied history and no free society has ever had a "no-judgement" policy about ethical violations. It wasn't too long ago when a man could be a real star, but if caught doing one dishonest act, they would all turn their backs on him. Are all Wikipedia editors really so non-judgemental about ethical violations?

Even further, the person in question revealed his own personal information in great detail on his profile and, knowing Tahirih well, I recognized the family.

Now about the article: no editor attack necessary to simply say that the entire article is written as a brochure. It is all POV. There is nothing objective about it although the current text could be quickly changed. I won't do that but I am honest enough to turn the article into something neutral despite my feelings about Tahirih overall.

Again, the article's main skeleton is fine, but the POV needs to be tweaked to be neutral. An RFC editor can do that.

Now, if you could alter the wording to actually say that it is the opinion of Tahirih that they support the IMBRA law, fine, but you cannot make it look like the Wikipedia editors think that the information given to foreign women is "important" instead of "private" or "sensitive." Better to put no adjective at all or state that Tahirih thinks the information is important.

You say the interested reader will look up the IMBRA law. I provided screenshots of public documents to that effect. Let the people have a link to the law when the law if first mentioned. Also, let them see a pro-IMBRA description and the ifeminist article. At all costs, link to a copy of the IMBRA law and the restraining order.

The restraining order is a huge issue regarding IMBRA. We cannot imply here that the law was passed and signed by President Bush and then it actually came into effect and everyone is obeying it. If it came into effect, you couldn't meet someone from Europe online tonight.

What you said about not passing judgement on IMBRA, that is great. So let's work to make sure the style of writing does not imply the editors think the law provides "important" information to anyone, etc.EnglishGarden 19:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * First, POV concerns raised during the FAC review process were thoroughly addressed. There were complaints that the article was written in the voice of the organization and I took care of those as much as possible.


 * Second, you have no evidence that Tahirih manipulated this article. I wrote this article completely. Furthermore, wouldn't it be wise for you to drop this line of argumentation? I will not state to others here what you write on your website, but needless to say you obviously have a very strong agenda. That does not disqualify you from editing this article-almost nothing can, barring something extreme-but it should give you enough decency to know when to quit making conflict of interest arguments.UberCryxic 20:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I completely disagree. Your parents are fundraisers for Tahirih and the fundraiser ball is in two weeks. You've written this like a fundraising brochure and you have refused to mention the restraining order when you mention IMBRA like its the most important thing Tahirih does.

Now you are hogging the stage and not compromising. That is a heck of a whole lot different from me coming here as an expert on IMBRA and politely asking that we compromise and get at least the ifeminist article properly linked when IMBRA is first described.

Almost no laws eventually get upheld that get restraining orders as quickly as this one.

It doesn't take a "strong agenda" to recognize that there is a restraining order on this. My website isn't the loud one with the jokes you were talking about last night.

So every mention of IMBRA in this article as if it is in effect, is ridiculous as well as scandalous. That is enough for a press release describing fraud by Tahirih.

But I am decent enough to wait to see if Wikipedia editors at least find a compromise or cover for you because how they handle it would be news as well. The general public does not think in the same manner as I've seen a few people here think.

Now about me having some kind of "strong agenda"...not really. Do you agree with "the Supreme Court does not recognize a fundamental liberty interest in an American meeting a foreigner for a relationship?"

Tahirih agrees with that. Do you Ubercryxic? Do you Jeff?

I don't think either of you have thought out what is going on here. No normal male would accept an IMBRA. Do you even understand what IMBRA is? Because that is the 800 pound gorilla here.

Maybe its time for people here to disclose their knowledge and agreement of IMBRA and Tahirih's agenda. Last night Ubercryxic implied that another man who wrote on his site a joke about feminists "had lost his credibility". Since when would that man lose his credibility for that? Wikipedia editors cannot all be so politically correct.

Don't try to imply that someone who doesn't like IMBRA would be an extremist or someone with a strong agenda. Most people who get the law explained to them accurately are horrified.

But most people who know about IMBRA have jobs and are just quietly waiting for the permanent injunction later this fall, etc.

I am still waiting for the RFC editors. If they need more information on the restraining order and its real effects, I can help with that.EnglishGarden 22:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Stop using Wikipedia as a soapbox. Seriously. I don't care what you think about IMBRA, and frankly you shouldn't care what I think about IMBRA either. That's that. Focus on the article and that's it.


 * About what you want to include: it has been addressed before. It is something inappropriate to include in the lead, which is about the organization, not IMBRA. That IMBRA is mentioned highlights why the organization is notable (and by implication, worthy of being mentioned in Wikipedia, which is a test that any article in this encyclopedia has to meet).UberCryxic 00:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * And again, please stop talking about my parents. It does not matter what they do. It is a logical fallacy to assume that has any relevance at all regarding the material put into the article. Analyze the arguments and not the possible motivations, otherwise you are just wasting our time. Your demagoguery is really bothersome.UberCryxic 00:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Because you constantly revert even small changes and refuse to take out the POV in the article, it does matter that your parents are fundraiser/volunteers for Tahirih Justice Center. You've admitted as such. At least we've made progress in getting you to admit that you are personally in agreement with the Tahirih ideology. What you think of IMBRA is of paramount importance. No male in Albania would have grown up to believe in the ideologies of Tahirih without being brought to the USA and experienced the US educational system. You know this is true.

But, if as you said above, you'd really like to discuss things, real men in the businessworld are direct. We can take such a discussion offline.

Meanwhile, we need a neutral RFC editor to settle on a neutral text. The son of Tahirih fundraiser/volunteers should not be allowed to stand guard. That is why the RFC is called.

For such an obscure subject, of course the only people who would hang out here would be those connected to the organization and those involved in lawsuits against it.EnglishGarden 07:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, I have not stated anything about whether I agree with Tahirih's "ideology." Know why? Because it is irrelevant to the actual article. Of course, I know that you would probably love for me to do that. It would make your day, give you more fodder. Sorry though, that's all irrelevant (get used to that word). You should not care about it. Nor have I admitted anything about what my parents do. Again, that is irrelevant to the article. And for the umpteenth time, stop talking about my parents. Thank you.UberCryxic 17:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * EnglishGarden, not only has this article passed Peer review, but it has passed Featured Article status, and thus a flurry of outside editors do not believe it is written as a brochure. Because you personally have a bias, against a certain law, which is supported by Tahirih, does not make everybody else wrong.  Your edits should be directed to the IMBRA law page.  -- Jeff3000 14:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

EnglishGarden's Extreme Bias
Ok I said I was not going to write anything about what EnglishGarden does outside of Wikipedia, but I decided to change my mind. You can see at his site that he is strongly against IMBRA and strongly anti-Tahirih. As soon as you get to the site, you are greeted by the lovely header, "Tahirih Justice Center's Fraud: Attacking "Mail Order Brides" to Save Them."

It then continues in the body text, "Read about the Tahirih Justice Center's Fraud...." and so on. More..."Bad laws often have flowery text that looks 99% reasonable to the stupid legislators who vote for them without having examined or even noticed the 1% of the text that is highly questionable."

Descriptions of Tahirih (charming I'm sure): "The main backer of the law, and the entity that pushed the US Government aside to defend it against lawsuits, is a radical woman's organization called the Tahirih Justice Center that provides some valid care given to a few foreign women who become victims of abuse in the USA...but which also advises non-abused immigrant women to lie or distort the truth for free citizenship that creates media publicity for American women to send donations and for radical laws like IMBRA to sail through Congress."

And even more: "They [Tahirih Justice Center] do not represent your interests even if good old George Bush thinks a women's rights group must be OK if it is named after an Iranian women's rights agitator who killed a mullah because he wanted her to wear a veil."

At the very least, the individual is unstable to comment on this topic neutrally. I still appreciate his presence, however, because it is in the spirit of Wikipedia to cooperate despite our differences.UberCryxic 22:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

That needs editing but yes, Tahirih is a radical feminist organization and its not extreme to say that. We can leave the word feminist out of the article if Tahirih is ashamed of the term however. If anyone here is ashamed of being called a feminist, no problem.

Ubercryxic: Please answer this question: Are you ok with "the court does not recognize a fundamental liberty interest in an American contacting a foreigner for a relationship? Yes or no?EnglishGarden 22:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Also answer: Are you OK with IMBRA personally as a single male?EnglishGarden 22:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

EnglishGarden apparently hasn't even read the sources to which he is citing. I was curious so I went and clicked on his links. The INS study does not state what he says it does (as anyone who bothers to read it can see). It also has some other interesting things to say, like: "An unregulated international matchmaking industry presents numerous opportunities for exploitation. These are relationships fostered by for-profit enterprises, where the balance of power between the two individuals is skewed to empower the male client who may be seen as "purchasing" a bride and a woman who has everything to gain from entering into this arrangement and staying in it, no matter what the circumstances."

and this: "Unlike dating services or personal ads, the mail-order bride transaction is "one where the consumer-husband holds all the cards." In using these services, the male customer has access to and chooses from a pool of women about whom personal details and information are provided, while the women are told virtually nothing about the male customer--or only what he chooses to reveal about himself."

I find it curious that EnglishGarden doesn't speak of these statements.

Also, he seems fixated on this restraining order. I don't think any of this has anything at all to do with this article, but just to be clear, there is no restraining order on IMBRA itself. If you click on EnglishGarden's link, you will see that the exact language of the order is, "Defendants are barred from enforcing the International Marriage Broker Regulation Act of 2005 against Plaintiff during the pendency of this temporary restraining order." Thus, the government cannot enforce IMBRA against the plaintiff, European Connections and Tours, that's one single agency. That's it, there's no massive overturning of this law.

But this has nothing to do with this article, as I said, I guess I'm just mentioning it because not only is EnglishGarden extraordinarily biased, but also as an independent matter, the information he provides is wholly inaccurate. Indeed, although I won't do it, one might consider opening an RfC on this user. 195.225.104.228 23:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

First of all, please identify yourself here. Also, disclose your affiliation with Tahirih. Nobody here is not connected in some way for or against. Not on such an obscure topic.

RFC Editors are invited to research how there are no dating agencies seriously complying with IMBRA because, defacto, the European Connections vs Gonzales restraining order prevents any government interference in Americans being introduced to foreigners.

Historically, laws that get immediately slapped with restraining orders get overturned.

In fact, US history has a huge graveyard of overturned laws including laws like IMBRA that never came into effect (I am referring to IMBRA's regulation of the introduction process of dating agencies).

Therefore, it is ridiculous to let Tahirih pretend that IMBRA was an accomplishment in time for their two big fundraisers this month.

The fact that the weirdo who wrote the INS report included his or her personal feminist theories about "holding all the cards" and other such nonsense is irrelevant. Why would I have needed to comment on the theory presented? Theory is only so much words. It comes from taking too many silly women's studies courses in college.

User 195 needs to comment on the actual statistics presented in the report.''' These show an abuse rate of "Mail Order Brides" of 1% or less. The fact that the INS report author seemed to want those statistics to be otherwise is scary, but at least the INS report author dutifully recognized that the statistics did not support her or his theories.'''

About the fraud committed by Tahirih: One of the worst was how they blackmailed Natasha Spivack, a female entrepreneur in the Washington DC area who had an international matchmaking site at Encount.com. They asked her to join Tahirih in condemning the male owned matchmaking agencies. They told her there would be a lot of money in this. Natasha refused to lie and destroy the lives of her friends and colleagues in other companies.

When Natasha refused to submit to Tahirih's blackmail and give up her business and become a spokesperson against the entire industry...Tahirih and Randy Miller of Arnold & Porter set about to destroy her. Several judges, unfortunately, threw out the ensuing Encounters Case. They should have taken the case and ruled in favor or Encounters. Because Tahirih finally found a sympathetic judge after another retired. What happened after that, including the conviction of Encounters for supposedly not telling a "bride" her rights is a nightmare. More than one lawyer for Tahirih knowingly helped cover up the fact that Nataliya Fox, who helped destroy her friend Natasha, lied to the court about when and how she actually came to the USA. There are plenty of details at this page.

Furthermore, Tahirih makes misleading statements all the time:

1)They often say that 50% of the battered women's shelters in the USA have dealt with foreign brides. Sounds logical. If 100,000 foreign brides had a 1% abuse rate, the 1000 abused brides would have dealt with at least 50% of the battered women's shelters in the USA.

In the ABC News hatchet job on what turned out to be an innocent David Dickerson last month, Mrs. Miller-Muro of Tahirih took the above and outright lied to DC television viewers, saying in a mealy mouthed manner that "some think 30-50% of brides are abused." What she meant is that people who don't understand the above statistics, get confused and believe an outrageous exagerration of reality.

2) Tahirih loves to cite statistics from a report that said a lot of Latin immigrants beat their foreign-born wives. They fail to tell the listener that these are Latin immigrants where most of the husbands are foreign born as well and that only 1% of those who beat their wives are men who met their wife through an agency or website. So Tahirih says "this report says that Americans beat their foreign-born wives far more than Americans in general abuse their wives." Well, yes, the report does say that for this specific Latin immigrant community where 99% don't meet each other online.

I can write up a short and cogent report on Tahirih "criticism" and maybe we can then rewrite at least the bogus "Criticism Section" now located at the bottom of the report.

I might be OK with letting the marketing brochure stay how it is above but the Criticism Section has to include the 1) Encounters Fraud Allegations and a short listing of how and where Tahirih uses language in a misleading manner.

RFC Editors are urgently needed here. Nobody here is neutral.EnglishGarden 08:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Provide reputable sources for your statements (your site IS NOT reputable) and please do not make this personal. If users wish to remain anonymous, that is their choice. Also, assume good faith. You know nothing about the user, and in such cases must assume they mean well.UberCryxic 12:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

OK. There is an expert who can provide reputable sources for the Encounters Case fraud. He will be back from vacation soon. The two consistent Tahirih statements that play with "50% of shelters having seen a foreign bride at one point their history" and the Latin American statistics trick...are easily found in Tahirih interviews like the above linked ABC News Report that convicted David Dickerson on air shortly before the police proved that the wife had made a fraudulent accusation for other motives. I can wait. Its a long weekend now.EnglishGarden 13:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Even when your expert returns, he is not considered a verifiable or reliable source. Please read those pages.  If a view is to be included, it must be published in a non-self-published source.  So personal communication cannot be included, a statement on a blog/personal website/forum cannot be included.  -- Jeff3000 14:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Heads up
I am going to archive these discussions sometime in the next few days because this is getting way too long. Just thought I'd let people know.UberCryxic 04:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

== Definition of "Marriage Broker" Includes Social Networking Sites and IMBRA Law is under restraining order. Fifth Amendment implies that a restraining order on a law for one company, must apply to all other companies. ==

1) It is about time that the Tahirih Justice Center article accurately defines "Marriage Broker" instead of just relying on the prejudices of readers who are being led on by the POV of the brochure's author. Although it would be more accurate to use the term "international dating agency", if the one author wants to use "marriage broker," he has to define it according to the IMBRA law's definition (all social referral websites with more than 50% non-Americans).

2) The Tahirih Justice Center article needs to explain the restraining order, showing that the organization itself just begged a federal court to lift it stating that the government could not prosecute anybody from any company as long as European Connections is protected by it.

See Motion to Dissolve TRO

The Wikipedia community is negligent in letting the current article go unchallenged, already more than one week, as if the above two points are not extremely relevant.EnglishGarden 13:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * In the wiki-style, marriage broker should be defined in the marriage broker article. Also the IBMRA definition should be mentioned in the IBMRA article.
 * This is not relevant to the Tahirih Justice Center but to the IBMRA law. It should be in that article.
 * Finally I have reverted your edits because not only did you insert criticisms without verifiable and reliable sources and used weasel words like "some critics", but you moved around the references that provided the source for the sentence immediatly before the added cricism so that it looked like it was a reference for the criticism. -- Jeff3000 13:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Jeff: You reverted all edits which is against Wikipedia policy. You are determined to keep the current POV in the article without compromise. There is no "outsider point of view" there.

And, no, use of a loaded term cannot be excused by saying that others can just go to read what might be an equally innaccurate Wikipedia article on what the term means. You know as well as anyone that people mostly won't click on links. Also, the article makes it appear that the IMBRA law is in effect. It is not where it pertains to regulating the introduction of people to each other.

It is also woefully inadequate and inaccurate where the author tries to define IMBRA as "providing important information to foreign women on prospective American husbands."

The word "important" needs to go and the word "husbands" needs to be more generalized to "pen-pal" or "contact". Regulating the introductory stage on social referral websites does not just regulate those who have an intention of marrying. IMBRA is broader than that. It regulates the process of making contacts and friendships.

Regarding "some critics"...you are correct, it should have listed a few of the online dating agencies actively involved in lawsuits against IMBRA. I wrote "some critics" to assuage those with heavy pro-Tahirih POV. It would have been your job to build on the edits by providing the names instead of the "some critics". The entire critics section needs to be made into a critics section instead of what it is now: two thirds pro-Tahirih rhetoric wrapped around the ifeminist article.

Why, Jeff, are you so scared of the ifeminist article? Would this kind of lawmaking be OK for Canada as well? We've got to see neutral editors dealing with this subject so it at least deals with the controversy regarding the Tahirih Justice Center coming even from other feminist organizations.EnglishGarden 14:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * EnglishGarden first of all it isn't against Wikipedia policy to revert when the first edits themselves are against Wikipedia policy. Please read WP:V, which is of utmost importance.  This article has gone through WP:FAC so most editors feel that there is no inherent POV. Note than WP:NPOV does not mean that every view under the sun should be represented; from that article "Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all".  Given that this article is about the Tahrirh Justice Center, it's views about certain subjects do not have to be qualified in this article, since it is about their views of the subject. This article is not an essay; but regardless a criticism section is included, and any specific difference of views about a subject should be in that subject article (i.e. IBMRA, not here). Secondly you should read the Manual of Style; articles are ordered in a specific way, and your additions to the lead of the article is now way are contextual to the subject of the article.


 * Finally the burden of work on evidence is not on me, it is on you to provide reliable sources for your statements, especially not that self-published sources such as personal websites, personal correspondance, forums, etc, are not usuable. Also the link you provided says nothing about Tahrih, so its inclusion here is not germane, it is germane however, in an article about IBMRA.  Remember this article is not fighting over the usefulness of IBMRA. -- Jeff3000 14:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

You're spelling IMBRA wrong. At least the article on IMBRA mentions the restraining order. The article on "Marriage Agency" that you linked to is irrelevant (but not filled with POV either so I won't complain). We've yet to let the public know what a "Marriage Broker" is officially defined as, however. It includes gay dating sites and social referral sites in other countries. The traditional "mail order bride" websites are only a tiny subset of what the Tahirih Justice Center managed to get defined as "marriage broker". The public needs to know that.

Also: The article must make it clear that American women and gays are now banned from making contact with foreign males without first having background checks sent to the foreign stranger and "approved" using email technology (IMBRA would have been impossible before Internet technology made it possible).

Therefore, the word "prospective husband" needs to be changed to "prospective spouse" at the very least, although the IMBRA law really refers to prospective "contact" or "pen-pal."

So it is not a "tiny minority view" to say that "Marriage Broker" needs to be defined according to the manner in which the Tahirih Justice Center got IMBRA to state. I have provided the definition in the archive section. People need to know why the Republicans jumped right on board with all this and why Senator Brownback himself is speaking at the Tahirih fundraiser on the 27th. The term "marriage broker" includes gay dating sites and sites like MySpace.com if the majority of people are not Americans. The term does not narrowly define "mail order bride" sites and agencies. But the article implies that the definition is only those sites that introduce "mail order brides". This is not true at all.

The Supreme Court constantly tosses laws out that, as you might say "only a tiny minority opposed". Mostly, the public only has a vague idea of what the laws are about (the version pushed by the laws supporters). The shocking thing is that, without an independent judiciary, any nation will democratically vote itself into not being free within a ten year period. It took only 2 years of the German judiciary losing its independence before the Nuernberg Laws took effect, banning German citizens from having intimate relationships with Polish and Russians. The Tahirih Justice Center is now proving (from the point of view of any neutral observer) that, in the USA in 2006, the American public can have a vague idea that a law regulating American contact with Russians might be a good thing. The operating word is that the public only has a vague idea of what this is all about. The current article defines IMBRA inaccurately as "providing important information to foreign women about prospective husbands. That describes only a narrow subset of what IMBRA is and this does a disservice to the independent reader. At the very least, the gender of the American citizen has to be neutralized and the word "husband" changed to "spouse."EnglishGarden 15:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think you are getting it.
 * The point of Wikipedia is not to publish original research, but to comment on already published material. So the comment about "We've yet to let the public know what a "Marriage Broker" is officially defined as" has no place in Wikipedia, unless a reliable and verifiable source defines it, and then it can be included in that article.
 * "Also: The article must make it clear that American women and gays are now banned from making contact with foreign males without first having background checks sent to the foreign stranger and "approved" using email technology (IMBRA would have been impossible before Internet technology made it possible)." – This is about IBMRA, not about the Tahirih Justice center.  Put it there.  That the Tahirih Justice Center supports IMBRA, is not reason enough to explain everything about IBMRA.
 * You're fourth paragraph above is exactly the same, a criticism of IMBRA, put it in the IMBRA article (with verifiable sources of course).
 * You're fifith parapraph above is exactly the same, a criticism of IMBRA, put it in the IMBRA article. -- Jeff3000 15:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The reputable source for all of the above is the IMBRA law itself. Screenshots of the public document PDF can be found in the archive link above. Add a few more "in which Tahirih believes will give important information..." and the article would be less outrageously an endorsement by the Wikipedia community. The article takes the time to define IMBRA inaccurately with a sentence. According to you, this definition also belongs in the IMBRA article. We cannot define the IMBRA law in objective terms as if it regulates only American men, because it regulates American women and gays as well. My problem is that the article is written like a third person is verifying that what Tahirih believes is reality, that dating and social referral sites are "brokers" and an overbroad law is more narrow than it really is. --Englishgarden.


 * Please note your recurring mistake, something I have been repeating for days now: the sentence does not, in any way, define IMBRA. What it does is show an aspect of IMBRA that makes Tahirih important. I have already explained to you that the statement is more about Tahirih than IMBRA, but you still keep talking about the latter.UberCryxic 22:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * One more thing, drop the claim that IMBRA is under restraining order. It is not. It is alive and kicking in the vast majority of cases.UberCryxic 00:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Not true. No dating websites are under attack from the Tahirih Justice Center, not least of all the ones listed in the recent request by Tahirih for the judge to lift the TRO because these websites were ridiculing IMBRA and/or Tahirih. In fact, Tahirih has been told by the US Attorney General's office that no prosecutions will occur against dating websites over IMBRA until after the TRO is lifted in the EC Case in Georgia. This situation fits with the Fifth Amendment "fairness clause" that says that one party cannot be given special treatment while others in a similar situation are prosecuted. Read the Tahirih document (the above link is actually only the appendix to the document). I have a copy of the real document but I don't know where it is published online. I will put it online at VeteransAbroad whenever I get around to it. What is interesting is that Tahirih wouldn't dare let the public know about its own court pleas. These court documents are reputable sources of information. But Tahirih apparently prefers to operate outside the gaze of the public and just feed the public sanitized opinions of its actions. If Tahirih is involved in a lot of court cases, then these cases should be proudly listed complete with the court documents from both sides, preferably published on the Tahirih site.

It is not as if the genital mutilation lobby is in any lawsuits with Tahirih. So, if Tahirih is fighting in the courts with anyone but the Online Dating Industry, let's see all the information at the bottom of the article. We need more information, not less.

Now sure, most discussion of IMBRA can go to the IMBRA article. But the issue here is the amount of verbiage dedicated in the Tahirih article to praising and describing IMBRA.

If you take away most of the discussion and inaccurate description of IMBRA, this article won't be so outrageous.

Do editors who know this subject think anyone is ever going to go to jail for violating IMBRA? Do they think that IAC Corporation and News Corporation (owners of Match.com and MySpace.com) will sit around and let IMBRA get upheld at the Supreme Court level? Or is it more likely that they are relaxing because it looks like IMBRA will be struck down without their intervention?

These are interesting questions for both sides of the IMBRA debate. And, yes, it is relevant to ask this question: considering the amount of discussion dedicated to IMBRA in the Tahirih article, does the author of the article believe himself that IMBRA is a reasonable law? Does he agree with the opinion of an Ohio judge that said "The Supreme Court has never held that there is a fundamental liberty interest in Americans meeting foreigners for intimate relationships?" Does he agree that, an immigrant who gets American citizenship...automatically loses his or her right to meet someone online from his or her home country...without first having to send tons of background information and get email approval from the person to be contacted...even if the other person doesn't have email? What would the First Amendment "Right to Assembly" mean to a recent immigrant to the USA who gets citizenship? Meanwhile, the description of IMBRA in the article needs to note that it is not just about men meeting women and not just about prospective husbands and wives, but any American meeting a foreigner for any social reason online.EnglishGarden 21:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)