Talk:Students' Federation of India

Names of Office Bearers

I think it is inappropriate to mention the names of office bearers at state and unit levels in an encyclopedia article like this. If others agree, I will remove them.

Also, I think there should be more material about SFI's programme and history. I can volunteer to do this, but I don't have access to a copy of the Programme. If someone is in a position to mail me an electronic copy, please leave a note on my talk page. Jyotirmoyb 12:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I also think the same .I was a functionary of SFI ,stiil i relish those days.naming subhashda and buddhada is ok still to be debated,tomojeet with all his talent has done enough for us.still in this part of world the American journalists get all the left feedbacks from him, but he has also discouraged this type of hyping.he is stil young though important for international journalists .we are proud yet we should cite them all as products of SFI encouraging all college goers to follow suit not to spread this individual centricity.WE CAN REMOVE THE NAMES OF ALL and put their name in the bracket as PRODUCTS OF A GLORIOUS MOVEMENT. User: DR.S.SINHA

The wikipedia is a sort of international documentation and hence the inclusion of the names of the national leaders is ok. However, the addition of names of State level functionaries shows a sort of one-up-man-ship on the part of the State leadership and hence it must be removed. I would suggest that the Programme and Constitution be put up. That would serve the purpose of the Students' Movement. Alos few other modifications made considering this a mass movement organisation. Vikram Vincent

• There are 93 National office bearers for SFI. I agree that putting up state leaders or the whole list of central committee is inappropriate. However, it's important to add the names of All India Joint Secretaries and All India Vice Presidents of the organisation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashique2020 (talk • contribs) 22:44, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

classes being conducted by corporate colleges i andhra in mid summer

classes being conducted by corporate colleges i andhra in mid summer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.198.149.251 (talk) 14:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

"Martyrs"

The "List of SFI Martyrs" sections is unreferenced and inherently non-neutral. It has no place in this article. Wikipedia is not a memorial. For these reasons I'll once again remove it. Huon (talk) 17:20, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

SFI torture rooms in Kerala need a mention in the page

Former high court judge P.K. Shamsuddin’s report suggested that colleges and universities in Kerala have ‘torture rooms’, points to SFI role [1]. A student body using torture as a means should be a grave enough crime [2] to be mentioned. Why are people deleting it? It amounts to vandalism!

--YoloSCIS (talk) 19:45, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

YoloSCIS cause the report violates WP:NPOV. Wikipedia need not be used to further the rivalry between SFI and NSUI. Vikram Vincent 05:45, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Honestly I'm kinda surprised any mentions of them are missing at all, given the considerable WP:RS coverage. LΞVIXIUS💬 18:59, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

A subsection on COVID-19 activities

Three activities of SFI is important to note: 1) The petition representing students to wave off their rents due to covid-19. Its the only petition in SC. All others are representing migrant labourers. (https://www.deccanherald.com/national/lockdown-sfi-moves-sc-for-rent-waiver-for-outstation-students-845408.html) 2) The development of WISK during covid-19, by their engineering wing. its the first time and the only organisation which has engaged in developing walk in kisok. I think this activity is importatnt nationally. (https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/kozhikode/kerala-sfi-develops-walk-in-sample-kiosk-to-fight-covid-19/articleshow/75891902.cms) 3) The TV challenge in Kerala, to combat digital divide. Its not only a huge movement in kerala, but needing huge financial mobilization. Student org doing it is important to acknowledge. (https://www.edexlive.com/news/2020/jun/05/we-are-against-online-education-and-digital-divide-vp-sanu-on-why-sfi-started-its-tv-challenge-12464.html)

The period of human survival and collective action during covid-19 is important to acknowledge in history.Ashique2020 (talk) 09:09, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Sounds good, you may add it along with the other activities of SFI during COVID-19 pandemic. A subsection for the same does seem to be in order; just keep it brief, providing only relevant information. SerChevalerie (talk) 09:49, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

unreasoned additions/deletions

Hi @Arjun Muraleedharan Madathiparambil:! Before making any more additions/deletions please discuss why you are making them since your edit summaries are empty and the reference you added had nothing to do with the content. Your edits have been reverted as they appear unconstructive. There is a discussion opened at WP:ANI regarding your approach in this respect which you are encouraged to participate in. Vikram Vincent 03:41, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Idimuri?

User:Tayi Arajakate, Please address your concerns in detail in the talk page before edit warring. Regards. LΞVIXIUS💬 18:50, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

My concern is that nearly all your edits displays a blatant disregard for policies and involve addition of poorly supported polemics, this is not your personal blog. If you want to be able to edit constructively, you need to read up the policies that have been linked to you numerous times by now. I've re-written the section you introduced and attempting to accurately summarise the handful reliable sources there were, I'm unsure if the section is due anyways particular in the state the article is in at present. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 04:09, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not accusing you of having any vendetta against me, but please do not target/remove well-sourced information from an article in the pursuance of the same. The information you removed does not violate WP:OR and by removing information, the only major NPOV violations I see were committed by you. It not only speaks bad faith to me, but it hurts the website as a whole. I'm afraid if you do not refrain from targeting me or hounding the pages I've edited as a proxy, I'd have to further this issue.

I'm once again asking you to 'list your specific concerns with the edits', and providing blanket statements like 'this violates WP:OR' absolutely does not cut it, because I do not see how it could possibly do that, and you're too busy going through my edit history and undoing my edits than to actually open dialogue. I can see you're a somewhat experienced editor, and I'm sorry but for the sake of this decent website, this hostile spammy behaviour won't do. If you're removing entire sections from an article, you're supposed to provide an adequate explanation why. Thank you. LΞVIXIUS💬 06:56, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Pt. 2: Regarding the 'addition of polemics,' almost all of the content has been taken verbatim from the WP:RS that were sourced. Please go through them before completely whitewashing an article by removing any mentions of a controversy as big as this. I took extreme care to not accidentally add any policy-violating or defaming material, made proper clubbed citations and research to write that section in order to ensure just that. If you're not willing to go even properly go through it before removing and disregarding it completely, I'm sorry but, in the most polite way possible, it's you who's unwilling to edit constructively. If you have some issue with the polemics, take it up individually, don't whitewash an article. Of course, you've so far not even done that. LΞVIXIUS💬 14:28, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

If you wanted a response, the least you could have done is pinged me. I didn't have it on my watchlist (I've done so now though since it appears to be a pov magnet) and arrived here after your other unverifiable addition accusing someone of murder which you are well aware of. It is also not my responsibility to baby feed you or clean up after you everywhere but since you are apparently claiming that you don't see the blatant violation of WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:V; i.e the core policies in your addition, then here it is presented to you in a point wise manner below. The points below refer to the new iteration of your addition (Special:Diff/1075621558, Special:Diff/1075757381) which is even worse from what I can tell.

• The sub-section that you have added has the heading "Torture room in Colleges" representing the accusations of an informal commission as fact and as the first sub-section of "Activities". If you thought policies don't apply to headings and article structure, you are wrong. WP:V and WP:NPOV violation.
• The first sentence mentions a number of colleges and describes them as SFI controlled. The cited source does not verify that they are SFI controlled. WP:NOR and WP:V violation.
• The second sentence is again not verifiable, and is directly contradicted the previous source (the suicide led to the commission). The cited source is about the commission's report and doesn't even mention SFI. WP:V violation.
• Going beyond the verifiability issues, three key facts; that the controversy was primarily about one college (University College, Thiruvananthapuram), that the commission was about all students unions and that it concerned only student unions in Kerala is amply clear from the sources. This has been entirely omitted by you giving the impression that it is solely about SFI and concerns the entire national organisation. Couldn't get a more clear cut example of pov pushing and misuse of sources. WP:NPOV violation
• The fourth sentence fails to mention that R.V. Rajesh is from a rival students union. WP:NPOV violation.
• The fifth sentence is blatant cherrypicking. The Indian Express article cited for the sentence is the only one that gives a complete overview of the episode (in contrast to other news reports which are solely about the commission) yet hasn't been used anywhere else. It notes that SFI has folded its University College unit and contains an admission by a SFI leader that its college unit was filled with "criminal elements". The omissions give the impression that it's active and representative of the orgaisation. WP:NPOV violation.
• The sixth sentence is an accusation represented as fact. WP:V and WP:NPOV violation.
• The seventh sentence has no in-line citation and none of the sources above can directly support it. WP:NOR and WP:V violation.
• In the following three points, two of them are the incidents at University College and the other one is from another college in Kerala. The article isn't about the now non-existent University College unit of SFI; this is not even representative of its Kerala state unit. WP:NPOV violation.
• Then there is the other section "Controversy" where you had just repeated that the commission was formed and worded it as if it's a different one from the one mentioned above, followed by its conclusion ("noted the anti-democratic activities of SFI in Kerala") which neither of the two cited sources can directly verify. It then includes the only sentence about SFI's response, a superficial "they denied it" which is neither entirely accurate (see IE above) nor does it sufficiently represent their objection. WP:NPOV and WP:NOR violation.

You have been here long enough to know what you're doing. I had rewritten the section attempting to accurately summarise the sources but this time I'm not even going to do that and actually remove the entire thing for being undue. The article is about an organisation that has a more than 50 year old history, has a national presence and millions of members; a detailed account of a single university unit (one that doesn't even exist anymore) and the allegations of an informal commission against a state unit do not have sufficient weight for inclusion. The onus is to achieve consensus is on the one arguing in favor of inclusion even if the material is verifiable, while the unverifiable material is simply prohibited. You could have utilised the time to actually make a case for inclusion but you haven't done so and restored an even worse iteration of your polemic (as demonstrated above). You might think being open source and highly visible, this is a good place to rail against politics you are opposed to, but it is not. This is an encyclopedia, its tone needs to be encyclopedic and its content needs to represent a broad overview of secondary sources. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 06:29, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Secretly running school in summer holidays after declaration of summer holidays by government

Please warn my school to not conduct classes in summer holidays secreatly 2406:7400:35:678B:2175:4961:3316:C6FD (talk) 12:57, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Criminal cases

The criminal cases being mentioned in the very beginning of the page seems like an attempt to paint a negative image of the organisation. Most of the sources cited are biased against the SFI and its associated organisations. AlavienJasper (talk) 03:01, 18 March 2024 (UTC)