Jump to content

Talk:Friends of South Asia/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Question on Islamist links of FOSA[edit]

Would somebody with experience do some research into allegations of links between FOSA and the Radical Islamist cabals in South Asia? why is it that the practice of islam not open to tolerance as christianity is example such as the mocking of mohamed not seeing as funny? It would seem, from their recent resort to hate-speech against Hindus with regards to corrections in California Textbooks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Californian_Hindu_textbook_controversy) that portrayed Hindus as monkeys and cannibals, that they have many ideological commonalities with terrorists and radical communist elements in Kashmir and Orissa (respectively), both of whom stand to gain with the dafamation of Hinduism in America, and in turning the tide of popular opinion against Hindus. Also, their website routinely highlights Liberal and anti-patriotic propaganda. I would like a neutral third party (ie a non FOSA member) to look into this matter further and mention it under a new section of the article titled "Criticisms of FOSA". [Subhash bose] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.68.106.192 (talk • contribs) date.

Question on objectives of Friends of South Asia and Pakistan[edit]

As I understand this is an organization of Indians and Pakistanis.

Have FOSA ever protested the fact that the law in Pakistan is based on Sharia? Or that Pakistan has been declared to be an Islamic country?

If secularism is appropriate for India, why not for Pakistan also? Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy of Pakistan has said [1]:

"our mullahs were against secularism in Pakistan, but wanted secularism in India"

Well, does FOSA want secularism in Pakistan also? Or just in India?

--Cardreader 04:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FOSA: Never critical of Pak military[edit]

Apparently FOSA has never been critical of Pakistan military. Its one specific attack was againt an opponent of Pakistani military, the deposed Prime Minister Bhutto.

"Friends of Asia" is not "Friends of South Asia".--Cardreader 23:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about secularism in Pakistan[edit]

When will FOSA ask for "secularism" in Pakistan and Bangladesh?

It has only asked asked for secularism in India.

Will it support textbooks critical of Islam in California?

--Cardreader 23:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why would they? They themselves are Islamists. Fabindia 10:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV edits from Cardreader[edit]

Cardreader has been making a long series of POV reverts/edits to this article, suggesting that Friends of South Asia (an Indian-American / Pakistani-American peace group from the San Francisco Bay Area) is strongly biased against India and Indian Hindus, and biased toward Pakistan.

Cardreader's most recent series of reverts/edits involve the POV deletion of at least thirteen fully referenced statements, the POV addition of at least two statements, the (presumably accidental) addition of an obvious factual error, and the overall deletion of 17 references. Feel free to take a look for yourself:

Cardreader's blatant POV edits are best exemplified by his (?) persistent attempts to show Friends of South Asia as having a pro-Pakistani bias, e.g.:

  • deleting six fully sourced references (#11, #14-18) to FOSA's public criticisms of the Pakistani government, military, and political culture, presumably to justify his POV that Friends of South Asia is biased toward Pakistan (he also claims on the Talk page that FOSA is not critical of the Pakistani military, having deleted the evidence to the contrary)
  • changing the sentence "concerned about the threat of impending war between their two nations" to "concerned about the threat of military action by India as a result of Pakistan's support of terrorist activities in India."
  • deleting facts that don't jive with the theory that FOSA is a anti-Indian organization, e.g. the group's support for victims of the Bhopal disaster in India

He also adds that...

  • "FOSA representative Anupama Mandavilli participated in the meetings to ensure that the evils and oddities of Hinduism are clearly presented in the 8th grade California textbooks" -- an incredibly biased and POV gloss of the Californian Hindu textbook controversy

It's hard to take these edits seriously. - Anirvan 21:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV edits from Anirvan and the Pakistani connection[edit]

Anirvan has been deleting well-known and documented information from the article. FOSA is closely connected with some Pakistanis in the region. Anirvan has been trying to remove or camouflage the Pakistani connection.

Nothing wrong with the Pakistani connection. But with all the publicity FOSA has tried to get as a champion of "secularism" in India, the fact is that it has never questioned Islam as the state religion of Pakistan or Sharia as the law in Pakistan. If secularism is good for India, why not for Pakistan?

Anirvan has been trying to pass FOSA protest against Benazir Bhutto as a measure of even-handedness. The fact is that among the Pakistani politicians, she comes closest to being a secular politician and is well-regarded in India. Couldn't FOSA find a fundamentalist Islamist cleric or a military boss from Pakistan to protest against?

Why doesn't Anirvan want people to know about "Forum of Inquilabi (Revolutionary) Leftists" founded by Biju Mathew, the associate and guest of FOSA?

--Cardreader 22:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Cardreader. I appreciate your writing back. Here's my response to your claims, line by line. (For those following along at home, Cardreader has been making edits claiming that San Francisco Bay Area Indo-Pakistani peace group Friends of South Asia (FOSA) has a pro-Pakistan, anti-India stance.)

  • "FOSA is closely connected with some Pakistanis in the region."
    • Of course it is. It's also closely connected to some Indians in the region. That's not disputed.
  • "the fact is that it has never questioned Islam as the state religion of Pakistan or Sharia as the law in Pakistan"
    • According to the newspaper and online sources I cited (all of which you subsequently deleted), FOSA has held a major event critical of religious persecution in Pakistan directly linked to state Islamic religious law; the event featured academics and victims giving first-hand testimony. They've also co-sponsored the showing of films on the tension between religion and individual rights in Pakistan. It's hard to interpret that as anything other than criticism of Pakistan's state religious policies.
  • "Anirvan has been trying to pass FOSA protest against Benazir Bhutto as a measure of even-handedness."
    • You conveniently ignore the fact that you deleted references to FOSA's criticism of Pakistani military atrocities in Balochistan, and several events critical of Pakistani state violence, censorship, militarism, racial profiling, and religious violence. I presume that sponsoring events by dissident Pakistani anti-nuclear activists isn't a good way of showing support to the Pakistani state.
  • "Couldn't FOSA find a fundamentalist Islamist cleric or a military boss from Pakistan to protest against?"
    • I find it difficult to believe that you cite the group's failure to picket against "a fundamentalist Islamist cleric or a military boss from Pakistan" as proof that the group has pro-Pakistan leanings apparent to anyone with an NPOV. I can't speak for FOSA, but I presume that there aren't any fundamentalist Islamist clerics or military bosses from Pakistan being invited to speak at the Stanford campus (as was Bhutto, in the incident cited). You're setting up straw men arguments, essentially claiming that if the organization in the article hasn't followed your personal checklist of political tactics, then it's totally obvious to anyone with an NPOV that the group has pro-Pakistan leanings.
  • "Why doesn't Anirvan want people to know about "Forum of Inquilabi (Revolutionary) Leftists" founded by Biju Mathew, the associate and guest of FOSA?"
    • It's well-known that Biju Mathew co-founded the progressive Forum of Indian Leftists (later renamed the Forum of Inquilabi Leftists, presumably to make it more inclusive of non-Indian South Asians), but I fail to see how that has any bearing on substantiating the anonymous email correspondent's charge that FOSA has secretive "Islamist and Communist sympathies," or that Mathew supports terrorists. That is, unless, you believe that FOIL's use of the word "Inquilabi"--a term strongly associated with the Indian freedom struggle--is a smoking gun, proving that all FOIL members (and those inviting members to speak) support Islamists, Communists, and/or terrorists. As context, Prof. Mathew was also invited to speak on the same topic by UC Berkeley during the same book tour that would have brought him to Stanford; does that suggest UC Berkeley also has secretive "Islamist and Communist sympathies"?

It should be obvious to anyone with an NPOV that Cardreader is trying to push the article toward espousing a POV theory that doesn't appear to be borne out by the facts. - Anirvan 03:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]



Hi Cardreader. I noticed that you ignored my response, and performed your third (!) unexplained kneejerk article revert in as many days. (See revert #1, and revert #2, and revert #3.) Your persistent attempts to mass-delete facts that don't fit your POV are clearly documented. I've submitted this to Wikipedia:Third opinion, on the assumption that you're trying to engage in discourse, rather than engaging in persistent vandalism. - Anirvan 23:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Please stop removing important information. Please permit readers to view all the information and decide.

--Cardreader 14:22, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The Power of FOSA[edit]

America is economically and militarily the strongest nation on earth. It shares borders with friendly nations. It is perhaps the most secure country on the face of the earth. America is strong enough to withstand the presence of some peace groups.

Still it lost the Vietnam war. Some historians say that "it was lost not on the battlefields of Vietnam but in the streets of America." [2]. Peace movements can annul what might have been gained by an enormous military expense and death of thousands of soldiers.

India is still among the poorest nations on earth. It is surrounded on three sides by hostile nations. Separationists supported by Islamists have a strong hold on Kashmir. Separationist groups affiliated with missionaries virtually rule regions of Nagaland, Tripura and Mizoram. The LTTE, a Tamil Maoist separationist group that virtually rules regions of Sri Lanka has many supporters in India and were responsible for assassination of Rajiv Gandhi. Maoists are fast expanding in several regions of India. NGOs are springing up in India which support Maoists. India is a vulnerable country.

FOSA may be an organization of only 15-20 individuals. But it has emerged as a powerful organization capable of inflicting great damage to India, its culture and its expatriates in USA. It has build a coalition of well funded missionaries, anti-Hindu organizations, pro-Islamist groups. It is serving as a key link among the several interlinked organization of this type.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by ISKapoor (talk • contribs) 19:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cardreader and ISKapoor's POV edits, highlighted[edit]

Between April 26 and April 28, 2006, ISKapoor and Cardreader have done five straight reverts and associated POV edits, attempting to alter the article to fit an Indian nationalist and conspiracy theorist POV.

On this talk page, Cardreader has claimed that the organization referred to in the article is not critical of the Pakistani military, and doesn't support secularism in Pakistan; he then proceeded to delete externally referenced facts counter to his opinions 4 times. Also on this talk page, ISKapoor has claimed that the organization described in the article is comparable to Islamist separationists and Maoist rebels involved in killing an Indian prime minister, and that it "has emerged as a powerful organization capable of inflicting great damage to India, its culture and its expatriates in USA"; this is presumably why he deletes externally referenced statements documenting that the group works for peace between India and Pakistan.

Here are some of the deletions, changes, and additions that ISKapoor and Cardreader have been making (just from the first section of the article!). I believe every statement that these two Wikipedians have deleted has been backed by external references. It's difficult for me to read these as legit NPOV edits. Comments?

  • CHANGED:
    • Before: "[FOSA] is a volunteer South Asian American peace organization" (statement supported by 2 backing references, from India-West and Peace News)
    • Changed to: "[FOSA] is a South Asian American organization"
  • DELETED: "The organization was described by Metro Santa Cruz as 'a hodgepodge of mostly secular-leaning South Asian Hindus and Muslims—university students, Silicon Valley engineers moonlighting as activists, etc.—who regularly organize local vigils, poetry readings, films and speaker events relating to South Asian issues.'" (from an April 2006 article on FOSA in Metro Santa Cruz)
  • CHANGED:
    • Before: "FOSA was founded in 2001 by Indian and Pakistani expatriates concerned about the threat of impending war between their two nations." (supported by a backing reference from the San Francisco Chronicle)
    • Changed to: "FOSA was founded in 2001 by Pakistani expatriates with some Indian friends, concerned about the threat of military action by India, as a result of Pakistan's support of terrorist activities in India."
  • CHANGED:
    • Before: "FOSA has been involved with several other campaigns, including opposition to the Iraq War, the 2002 Godhra riots, Pakistani military actions in Balochistan (Pakistan), and the 2006 bombings in Varanasi, India, as well as support for victims of the Bhopal disaster, and advocacy for the civil rights of immigrants to the United States. FOSA has also specifically focused on highlighting art and activism linked to social change movements in Pakistan, including issues like peace with India, ending the Indo-Pak nuclear race, and opposition to censorship and religious intolerance." (supported by 11 distinct backing references, from Coalition Against Genocide, World Sindhi Institute, Students For Bhopal, South Asian American Leaders of Tomorrow, Ekta, Pakistan Link)
    • Changed to: "FOSA has been involved with several other anti-violence campaigns, including opposition to the Iraq War, the 2002 Godhra riots, and the 2006 bombings in Varanasi, India"
  • CHANGED:
    • Before: "FOSA was a prominent participant in the Californian Hindu textbook controversy, in which it joined a number of other groups in successfully petitioning California's Curriculum Commission to reject allegedly revisionist edits to California's textbook curriculum on Hinduism and India, as suggested by two American Hindu organizations. (See main article Californian Hindu textbook controversy for details.)"
    • Changed to: "FOSA was a prominent participant in the Californian Hindu textbook controversy, in which it petitioned California's Curriculum Commission to reject allegedly revisionist edits to California's textbook curriculum on Hinduism and India, suggested by two Hindu organizations. FOSA was joined by a number of groups, including Christian missionaries, Ambedkarites, a Tamil group supporting LTTE, groups working against Hindu communalism in South Asia, as well as 150 South Asian academics and 17 members of the California legislature. FOSA representative Anupama Mandavilli participated in the meetings to ensure that the evils and oddities of Hinduism are clearly presented in the 8th grade California textbooks."
  • ADDED: "FOSA has not demanded secularism in Pakistan, nor has it been critical of imposition of Islamic law Sharia in Pakistan. It has never protested the treatment of Hindus in Pakistan."

Again, I'd appreciate comments. -Anirvan 18:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a need to keep founders and spokespersons anonymous?[edit]

It appears that someone wants to keep the cofounders and spokespersons anonymous.

Why?

Is there a resaon to replace this:

It is not known who heads the organization, which is believed to have 15-20 members. Sabahat Ashraf [1] and Ali Hasan Cemendtaur [2] from Karachi are said to have been cofounders of FOSA. Anupama Mandavilli, a doctoral candidate at University of Southern California, has served as a spokesperson for the organization on a few occasions.

by this?

a hodgepodge of mostly secular-leaning South Asian Hindus and Muslims—university students, Silicon Valley engineers moonlighting as activists, etc.—who regularly organize local vigils, poetry readings, films and speaker events relating to South Asian issues."[4]

I agree that the second text is more romantic, but I would think that more specific information would be more useful.

--Cardreader 01:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]



Thank you, Cardreader. I did some research, and found at least three current solid external references suggesting that Anu Mandavalli appears to be the primary spokesperson for the group, which I've incorporated it into the text. Do you have specific references for Sabahat Ashraf and Ali Hasan Cemendtaur being cofounders, or the specific number of members (beyond "it is believed" or "said to have been" style hearsay)? Much appreciated, thanks.

--Anirvan 07:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Anirvan: You keep deleting specific information from the article, and keep complaining that I have been reverting the text. You appear to taken upon yourself to "defend" the group by

  1. deleting information
  2. deleting perspectives (for example the fact that Bhutto was deposed)
  3. adding diversionary text, for example rather than providing specific information about the organization you add some fuzzy description.

The article should be unbiased and informative.

Don't tell me that you had to discover the fact that Anu Mandavalli has been the primary spokesperson. She is in all the newspapers and reports. Sabahat Ashraf and Ali Hasan Cemendtaur have themselves mentioned about their role.

If you are not informed about the group, stop "defending" it. Let the facts speak for themselves.

If you know about the group personally, which I suspect is true, please help the readers by adding information, not by deleting it.

--Cardreader 17:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Cardreader. I'm always happy to talk about specific edits. Some responses to your specific statements:

  • "deleting perspectives (for example the fact that Bhutto was deposed)"
    • The fact that Bhutto was deposed is in my edits ("the deposed Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto")
  • "adding diversionary text, for example rather than providing specific information about the organization you add some fuzzy description."
    • The text you call "diversionary" is a current (April 2006) description of the group and its membership from a third party non-South Asian source. [3]
    • Per your recommendations, I added text about the group's spokespeople to the article yesterday. ("The group has had a variety of spokespeople through its history; as of 2006, Anu Mandavalli appeared to be the primary press spokesperson.")
  • "Don't tell me that you had to discover the fact that Anu Mandavalli has been the primary spokesperson. She is in all the newspapers and reports."
    • Yes, that's why she's mentioned in the text, backed by several third party references.
  • "Sabahat Ashraf and Ali Hasan Cemendtaur have themselves mentioned about their role."
    • Ashraf calls himself a co-founder and early member. I haven't seen a cite for Cemendtaur; I'd be happy to see citations, which I've specifically asked you for. It's also not clear to me if the group had one co-founder, or five, or fifty.

If you believe your edits are NPOV, then it might be helpful if you responded to some of my incredibly specific concerns, listed here and here. Thanks.

As before, I'd like to have third parties (preferably folks with no opinion whatsoever on India and Pakistan) look at the text; I've already submitted requests for comments and third opinions.

-- Anirvan 18:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anirvan,

You may have noticed a link just after Ali Hasan Cemendtaur. Did you look at it?

I don't know either how many co-founders the group had. But I found two. I don't know who heads the group and how it is organized. Apparently the group has kept the information to themselves.

I have to point out that you deleted Anu Mandavalli's name half a dozen times, before reluctantly agreeing to have it in there.

--Cardreader 19:53, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Cardreader. Indeed, you're right -- I hadn't read all the way down to the end of the SF Chronicle article. Thank you for researching that. Do you have any responses to the issues I've been bringing up for the past week, including the 21 deleted references? -- Anirvan 21:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FOSA's anti-Bhutto stance and corruption smoke-screen[edit]

I don't quite understant why FOSA protested against Benazir Bhutto. I don't also understant how it is supposed to counterbalance its actions against India.

Let me say this. I may be an Indian, but I want for Pakistan what I want for India. Freedom, democracy, progress and integrity.


Benazir Bhutto was a popularly elected Prime Minister. She was deposed by the military. Other popularly elected PMs in Pakistan were also deposed and/or killed.

Was Benazir Bhutto corrupt? Honestly I don't know. What I know is this - I don't know any --- I repeat I don't know any --- politician in South Asia who has not been accused of corruption. Indira Gandhi, Rajiv Gandhi, Vajpayee, Mujibur Rahman, Narsimha Rao etc. etc. Some even argue that some degree of corruption is needed in a democracy so that the parties can raise cash to contest elections.

Is Pakistani military honest? I seriously doubt it. Even if it is, I don't care. I have no respect for a military government.

What is needed in Pakistan, and in India, is democracy and enhanced transparency. That is the only way to minimize corruption.


Benazir Bhutto was in India in 2005, on a private visit[4]. She was accorded courtsey that she deserves. Neither her slain father not she can be called "good friends" of India, still Indians repect them as elected representatives of the people of Pakistan.

Let me ask this

  1. In what way protesting against Bhutto would achieve a "peaceful, prosperous, and hate-free South Asia"? What was the point?
  2. How does it counterbalance what FOSA has been doing towards India?

If FOSA wants to provide couterbalance, may I suggest

  1. protesting against Islam as the official religion in Pakistan (and Bangladesh and Maldives, they're South Asia too), and asking for abolition of sharia.
  2. stop working with groups that justify actions against the integrity of India.

--ISKapoor 02:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New POV edits[edit]

Vikramsingh just made a series of 16 edits, many of which appear to share a strongly negative POV. Here's a roundup of a few of my favorites:

  • ADDITION: "It is not known who heads the organization, and how many members it has. Its vigils have drawn 15-20 members. The organization has links with several other organization of this type."
    • Cardreader and I actually agree that we know who the current spokesperson is.
    • According to AsianWeek, the group's vigils have drawn over 100 people.
    • Organizations of what type? The tone of the text has an incredibly negative POV.
  • ADDITION: "a number of other groups, including Christian missionaries [5], Ambedkarites, a Tamil group supporting LTTE [6]"
    • It's interesting how this list of groups siding with FOSA during the Californian Hindu textbook controversy ignores Hindu, Indian-American, and anti-communal groups, as well as the 150 South Asian academics and 17 state legislators who weighed in on FOSA's side of the debate; to Vikram's credit, he did remember to mention the groups that are most disliked by Hindu fundamentalists.
    • There doesn't seem to be any pretense of NPOV here. I'd suggest that either everything get added, or that readers get redirected to the main Californian Hindu textbook controversy article, where they can get more details about the controversy.
  • DELETION: "Metroactive also reported on an anonymous death threat received by FOSA, in which the correspondent threatened to "slaughter" members, singling out those who "use Hindu names and backstab Hindus."
    • What's the reasoning here--that the existence of fully-referenced death threats against the group in the wake of the Californian Hindu textbook controversy makes critics look bad?
  • ADDITION: "FOSA has not opposed Islam as the state religion in Pakistan, nor has it been critical of imposition of Islamic law Sharia in Pakistan."
    • I believe this to be inaccurate and misleading. According to newspaper and online sources cited directly in the article, FOSA has held a major event critical of religious persecution in Pakistan directly linked to state Islamic religious law; the event featured academics and victims giving first-hand testimony. They've also co-sponsored the showing of films on the tension between religion and individual rights in Pakistan. It's hard to interpret that as anything other than criticism of Pakistan's state religious policies.
  • ADDITION: "Critics of FOSA believe that its cooperation with a Sindhi group about the obscure Belochistan uprising is intended to deflect criticism about FOSA's association with groups that seek withdrawal of Indian forces in Kashmir (facing Islamic militancy) and in Nagaland and Tripura region (facing Christian fundamentalist militancy)."
    • Which critic or critics believe that -- can you offer a reference of any kind? Given the highly-POV quality of edits that several editors have been making, it seems prudent to back up statements with external documentation.
  • ORIGINAL TEXT: "California's textbook curriculum"
    CHANGED TO: "California's 8th grade textbook curriculum"
    • Good grief. Even some of the most uncontroversial edits appear to be just plain wrong: the Sacramento Bee and Hindu American foundation both report that it was 6th grade curriculum being debated, not 8th grade.

Vikramsingh, I'd love to get your feedback. Thanks.

-- Anirvan 02:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


From Anirvan[edit]

It's time for your friendly local POV-watcher to call out the latest POV edits. Here's a summary of Cardreader's s latest edits:

  • DELETION: "The local vigils, some attracting up to 100 people"
    ADDITION: "It is not known who heads the organization, and how many members it has. Its vigils have drawn 15-20 members."
    • Those editors making edits that appear to align with an Indian nationalist viewpoint seem obsessed with counting (and undercounting) the number of people at FOSA vigils. Cardreader is kind enough to delete a statement about 100 attendees at FOSA peace vigils (sourced from the AsianWeek article), and replacing it with a completely unsourced 15-20 number. I don't think the number of attendees at their vigils is all that important, so I'm fine with it being taken out, but the 5-7x undercount is problematic.
    • We actually do know who the current spokesperson is, and she's mentioned in the text.
    • The tone of the text has an incredibly negative POV.
  • ADDITION: "The organization is associated with EKTA, CAC and several other organization of this type in California region."
    • Congrats, Cardreader -- an entirely non-idealogically-driven edit! That said, As far as I can tell, FOSA works with a variety of American anti-communal orgs, not just CAC or Ekta. If we're going to name specific orgs as being strongly associated with the group, it'd be interesting to count the most frequent co-signers or co-endorsers on their press releases.
  • ADDITION: "[a number of other groups] including Christian missionaries [7], Ambedkarites, a Tamil group supporting LTTE [8]"
    • As with Vikramsingh's edits, Cardreader's list of groups siding with FOSA during the Californian Hindu textbook controversy ignores Hindu, Indian-American, and anti-communal groups, as well as the 150 South Asian academics and 17 state legislators who weighed in on FOSA's side of the debate, mentioning only the groups that are most disliked by Hindu fundamentalists. Given that his edits attempt to respond to my questions about "several other organization of this type" (see above), it's pretty clear that he's read the prior criticisms, and is inserting this text knowing that it's blatantly one-sided and POV. As before, I'd suggest that this explicitly biased list get replaced with a pointer to the main controversy.
  • ORIGINAL TEXT: "FOSA was founded in 2001 by Indian and Pakistani expatriates concerned about the threat of impending war between their two nations"
    CHANGED TO: "FOSA was founded in 2001 by Pakistani expatriates with some Indian friends, concerned about the threat of military action by India, as a result of Pakistan's support of terrorist activities in India."
    • Again, that's ridiculously POV along Indian nationalist lines; it isn't backed up by a single one of the third party sources that report on the group's early work.
  • ORIGINAL TEXT: "In October 2001, Friends of South Asia joined a group of Pakistan students and picketed a lecture by the deposed Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto at Stanford University, who was speaking on political events in Afghanistan and Pakistan, charging her with corruption during her time in office; Bhutto publicly disputed the charges.[1]."
    CHANGED TO: "In October 2001, Friends of South Asia joined a group of Pakistan students and picketed a lecture by the deposed Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto at Stanford University, who supported U.S. efforts to fight the Taliban, charging her with corruption; Bhutto publicly disputed the charges.[1].Benazir Bhutto, an elected Prime Minister, was deposed by the Pakistani military in 1988. Her father Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, an elected Prime Minister of Pakistan was deposed by Pakistani Military and hanged in 1974. The critics of FOSA suggest that this protest suggests that FOSA's sympathies have been with the Islamists."
    • We're basing this para almost entirely on the following text from the Stanford Report: "a handful of protesters who called themselves "concerned Pakistani students" and "friends of South Asia" held signs promoting peace and passed out fliers detailing corruption charges against Bhutto -- charges she disputed during her talk."
    • I presume that given FOSA's positioning (usually aligned with US anti-war groups, and against religious fundamentalism), the main reason a bunch of Stanford students would be picketing for peace in South Asia weeks after 9/11 would have been conventional opposition to the US foreign policy reponse in the wake of 9-11, as opposed to secret pro-Taliban sympathies. Given that we don't know for sure what their stance was, if we're going to include unsourced "The critics of FOSA suggest that this protest suggests that FOSA's sympathies have been with the Islamists." it would make sense to include speculation about their anti-war motivations.
    • And who are these unnamed "Critics of FOSA" anyway? Do they have names, or can their statements be attributed to individuals or groups? (e.g. Hindu American Foundation president Mihir Meghani, who was quoted in Metroactive saying "It's pretty well known that they're tied with the Communist Party in India...It's really a ploy to break down and dissemble Hinduism."). As before, I'm concerned that editors with an axe to grind are inserting their lone criticisms.
  • DELETION: "Metroactive also reported on an anonymous death threat received by FOSA, in which the correspondent threatened to "slaughter" members, singling out those who "use Hindu names and backstab Hindus."
    • How is it NPOV to delete referenced statements about death threats received by the group over their advocacy role in the Californian Hindu textbook case? If anything, it speaks to the level of animosity faced by the organization. Are you suggesting that death threats are conventional or boring?

Cardreader, I know you read the talk page, so I'd appreciate your responses. Thanks!

-- Anirvan 18:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FOSA & Pakistanis[edit]

Anirvan, and the friends of FOSA:

The article text currently says:

"FOSA was founded in 2001 by Pakistani expatriates with some Indian friends,.."

However looking at all available information,

  • I have not found evidence that FOSA founders have included any Indians.
  • I have not found evidence that it was ever headed by a Indian. Ali Hasan Cemendtuar from Karachi has always been the FOSA leader.
  • Anupama, who lives in LA 400 miles away, appears to have been just a friend of the FOSA orgnizers, and not an active memeber of FOSA, certainly not a office holder.

Thus, to the best of my knowledge, FOSA is primarily a Pakistani organization. Also it would appear to me that its partners EKTA and the mysterious CAC are controlled by Pakistanis to a significant degree.

Please do correct me if my impressions are invalid.

--Vikramsingh 07:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Vikram. Some of your impressions do indeed seem to be invalid:

  • "I have not found evidence that it was ever headed by a Indian. Ali Hasan Cemendtuar from Karachi has always been the FOSA leader."
    • As with many volunteer organizations, the group doesn't appear to have a formal hierarchical leadership structure; hierarchical leadership positions are rarely mentioned, and responsibility for external contact seems to rotate among a number of members. Press contacts have been both Indian and Pakistani; the current contact happens to be Indian.

-- Anirvan 04:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FOSA's members and Kashmir dispute[edit]

That there should be peace between India and Pakistan, I definitely support.

India has fought an extremely expensive and bitter war in Kashmir. India has a lot at stake in Kashmir. Yes, the valley of Kashmir is Muslim majority, but then India as as many Muslims as Pakistan.

Pakistan has solved its "Hindu problem" by effectively forcing majority of its Hindus to pack up and flee. Pakistan government has encouraged intensive missionary work among the valmiki Hindus there, to ensure they will convert to a "religion of the book". The insurgents in the Kashmir valley are coming close to solving their Hindu problem. And they are getting help from Pakistanis, overseas Pakistanis, and a few Indians as well.

Akhila Raman was an active member of FOSA a while ago, who became good friends with Pakistanis. San Franciso chronichle writes about her

"Akhila Raman hasn't told her parents she has new friends from Pakistan. Raman, a 32-year-old Berkeley software consultant, thinks the news would shock her Hindu mother and father, who live in a part of India where anti-Muslim sentiment is not uncommon." [9]

Akhila Raman, just like Anupama Mandavilli,another south Indian thirty-something woman, did not disappoint her Pakistani friends. For example see:

Op-ed: Track III diplomacy in San Francisco, Daily Times Pakistan[10]
The third event took place at the California Institute of Integral Studies (CIIS) in San Francisco. It was organised by the CIIS and People for Peace in Kashmir. Besides Hoodbhoy, the others speakers were Fai and Akhila Raman, an Indian-American Bay Area researcher on the Kashmir Conflict. The audience comprised a cross-section of the Indian and Pakistani diaspora, Kashmiri Muslims and Pandits and native Californians.
... Professor Angana Chatterji of CIIS opened the forum by reminding the audience that there was one Indian soldier for every 10 civilians in the Kashmir Valley. It was not surprising that the local population was in revolt. ....

Akhila Raman writes in India Together:

"November 2002: The human rights record of the Indian security forces in Kashmir has been characterized by arbitrary arrests, torture, rape and extrajudicial killings. ..."

They are definitely good friends of a certain country in South Asia.

--Cardreader 18:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the nation of Hizbul Mujahiddeen. Fabindia 10:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cardreader's edits, May 12, 2006[edit]

My fellow Wikipedian Cardreader has a long history of posting criticisms of the FOSA group on this article talk page ([11] [12] [13]); he then proceeds to make strategic edits to back up that POV. Again, here's a roundup of his latest sets of POV edits to the article:

  • DELETION: "The local vigils, some attracting up to 100 people"
    ADDITION: "It is not known who heads the organization, and how many members it has. Its vigils, held jointly with a Sikh organization, have drawn 15-40 participants [14]."
    • Those editors making edits that appear to align with an Indian nationalist viewpoint seem obsessed with counting (and undercounting) the number of people at FOSA vigils. Cardreader deleted a statement about 100 attendees at FOSA peace vigils (sourced from the AsianWeek article), and replaced it with a "15-40" figure; amusingly, he attempted to substantiate his number by linking to a press release that refers to the presence of 70 people. He also later cites a San Francisco Chronicle article that refers to "the hundreds who demonstrate the last weekend of every month with Friends of South Asia." I don't think the number of attendees at their vigils is all that important, so I'm fine with it being taken out, but the deliberate persistent undercounts (backed up by fake documentation) are problematic.
    • We actually do know who the current spokesperson is, and she's mentioned in the text.
    • The tone of the text has an incredibly negative POV.
  • ORIGINAL TEXT: "FOSA was founded in 2001 by Indian and Pakistani expatriates concerned about the threat of impending war between their two nations"
    CHANGED TO: "FOSA was founded in 2001 by Pakistani expatriates with some Indian friends, concerned about the threat of military action by India, as a result of Pakistan's support of terrorist activities in India. [15][16][17]"
    • Cardreader offers a dramatically obtuse Indian nationalist misreading of the group's development, which isn't supported by press accounts or the group's own statements.
    • The San Francisco Chronicle article that Cardreader links to entirely contradicts his edits; the text explicitly refers to the active involvement of 3 Indians and 3 Pakistanis, and states that "Friends of South Asia [is] a Bay Area group that holds monthly vigils to protest the arms buildup in India and Pakistan." The article also refers to pressure put on both the Indian and Pakistani governments ("The government in Pakistan is aware of the protests here because the Pakistani press reports on them...The Indian government also knows about the vigils, as some members of Friends of South Asia fax the details to New Delhi").
    • The two BBC articles have nothing to do with Friends of South Asia; they refer to specific incidents of Pakistani terrorism in India -- a factor in tension between the two nations ca. 2001-2002, but not an overall picture. The article text already refers to the relevant section of the Wikipedia article on Indo-Pakistani relations.
    • Cardreader is attempting to write out or minimize the role of Indians in the group, presumably for POV reasons, against a preponderance of evidence to the contrary. His POV edits are contradicted by the following articles, which refer to the active involvement of Indians and/or people with non-Muslim South Asian names in the group's work: San Francisco Chronicle (January 2002), AsianWeek (January 2002), AsianWeek (February 2002), ACHA Peace Bulletin (February 2002), San Jose Mercury News (May 2002), Pakistan Link (July 2002), Pakistan Link (September 2002). This is also the case with the following press releases: January 2002, February 2002, March 2002, April 2002, May 2002.
  • ADDITION: "[a number of other groups] including Christian missionaries [18], Ambedkarites, a Tamil group supporting LTTE [19]"
    • Cardreader incredibly selective list of groups siding with FOSA during the Californian Hindu textbook controversy ignores Hindu, Indian-American, and anti-communal organizations, as well as the 150 South Asian academics and 17 California state legislators who also weighed in on FOSA's side of the debate. Cardreader mentions only the groups that are most disliked by Hindu fundamentalists. As before, I'd suggest that this wildly biased list get replaced with a pointer to the main controversy.
    • I'd also like to thank Cardreader for being honest enough to label the edit summary for his latest set of edits "role of Christian missionaries andAmbedkarites noted, collaborating orgs mentioned." The fact that he goes out of his way to highlight one of his most POV edits is telling. (Of course he refrains from summarizing any of the rest of his edits; I suppose they pale in comparison to this.)
  • ORIGINAL TEXT: "Former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto spoke at Stanford University in October 2001. According to the Stanford Report, "a handful of protesters who called themselves 'concerned Pakistani students' and 'friends of South Asia' held signs promoting peace and passed out fliers detailing corruption charges against Bhutto -- charges she disputed during her talk."
    CHANGED TO: "In October 2001, Friends of South Asia joined a group of Pakistan students and picketed a lecture by the deposed Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto at Stanford University, who supported U.S. efforts to fight the Taliban, charging her with corruption; Bhutto publicly disputed the charges. Benazir Bhutto, an elected Prime Minister, was deposed by the Pakistani military in 1988. Her father Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, an elected Prime Minister of Pakistan was deposed by Pakistani Military and hanged in 1974. The critics of FOSA suggest that this protest suggests that FOSA's sympathies have been with the Islamists"
    1. POV issue #1: the insinuation that FOSA was picketing the talk because it sides with the Pakistani Army. To do this, Cardreader adds text on Bhutto and her father's relations with the Pakistani military. He also gets the facts wrong, falsely claiming that Bhutto was deposed by the Pakistani military in 1988. This is plainly contradicted in the Wikipedia article that he links to, as well as in sources like the BBC, and her Pakistan People's Party biography; according to Wikipedia, BBC, and the PPP, Bhutto was in power from 1988-1990; her government was dismissed by President Ghulam Ishaque Khan in August 1990 over allegations of corruption. Her party lost the subsequent October 1990 elections. (That said, it's possible that Khan may have been supported by the Pakistani military, but those three sources don't specifically mention it.) Cardreader also brings up the (true!) fact of Benazir Bhutto's father's killing by the Pakistani military. All that said, the idea that FOSA was picketing the talk because they side with the Pakistani military (and by extension, hate those hated by the Pak military) would appear to be contradicted by the group's long history of stances against Pakistani militarism (e.g. [20]) and military atrocities (e.g. [21]).
    2. POV issue #2: the suggestion that FOSA is secretly pro-Islamist and pro-Taliban. Given the organization's long history of stances again Hindu and Muslim religious fundamentalism, and religiously biased Indian/Pakistani state religious policy, it seems like a ridiculous conspiracy theory to suggest that FOSA is secretly pro-Taliban. Which critic or critics make this suggestion -- can this statement be attributed to a real individual or group? From press accounts and public statements, FOSA's positioning on the Iraq War appears to have generally been in line with mainstream US anti-war groups. Again, it's an obtuse misreading to suggest that the main reason that a bunch of Stanford students would be picketing for peace in South Asia weeks after 9/11 would have been pro-Taliban sympathies, as opposed to one of the conventional criticisms of the US foreign policy reponse in the wake of 9-11. If we're to include the unsourced "The critics of FOSA suggest that this protest suggests that FOSA's sympathies have been with the Islamists," it would make sense to include speculation about their anti-war motivations. As before, I'm concerned that editors with an axe to grind are inserting their lone criticisms.
  • DELETION: "Metroactive also reported on an anonymous death threat received by FOSA, in which the correspondent threatened to "slaughter" members, singling out those who "use Hindu names and backstab Hindus."
    • Area newspapers have documented death threats received by FOSA members as a result of their successful advocacy role in the Californian Hindu textbook case; this speaks to the level of animosity faced by the group's members. I presume my fellow Wikipedian feels that this backlash is an inconvenient fact.

Ain't Wikipedia grand?

-- Anirvan 18:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


My fellow Wikipedian Cardreader read my charges of flagrant POV manipulation of facts (above), and responded with a single stunning "improvement" to the article, reverting everything else everything back to his last edit -- which still contains each and every single one of the issues cited above.

What was this remarkable edit, one might ask? He changed the words "Its vigils, held jointly with a Sikh organization, have drawn 15-40 participants" to "The photographs of its vigils, held jointly with a Sikh organization, show 15-20 participants" -- a statement followed immediately thereafter by a link to a press release that reads "More than 70 people assembled at the park besides the Lake Elizabeth to recite poetry, sing songs and shout slogans affirming their faith in peace." [22] (That's ignoring altogether reporting from AsianWeek, which refers to a vigil having "a turnout of over a 100 people" [23] and the San Francisco Chonicle, which refers to the "the hundreds who demonstrate the last weekend of every month with Friends of South Asia." [24])

The edits speak for themselves.

-- Anirvan 16:20, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Apparently the FOSA organizers have been providing inflated numbers to the reporters which don't match with the photographs.

Brother Anirvan could have helped the readers by adding hard information, since he is apparently a member or a friend of FOSA. However he has worked hard to delete the actual names of the organizers and key persons.

--Vikramsingh 20:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Vikram, you really believe in this conspiracy theory, don't you?

The line in the article that reads "The local vigils, attracting up to 100 people..." is sourced from a February 2002 article in AsianWeek, which refers to "a turnout of over a 100 people." You'll also notice that the article includes two photos, which are credited to Suzanne Lee, the writer of the article. Between the fact that the photos are credited to Lee, and the inclusion of several quotes from attendees, I'm comfortable assuming that Lee actually did attend the rally, and that the number in the article is not the result of "FOSA organizers...providing inflated numbers to the reporters," as you suggest. Given that the organizers themselves reported 120+ attendees [25], Lee's count of over a hundred seems conservative.

As background, here are some others numbers associated with attendance at Friends of South Asia's 2002 peace vigils:

  • San Francisco Chronicle, January 2002: "Dozens of mostly first- and second-generation Indian and Pakistani Americans spent New Year's Eve at a rally and candlelight vigil in San Jose's Cesar Chavez Park. The rally was hosted by the Friends of South Asia -- a Silicon Valley South Asian group that formed recently in response to escalating tensions between India and Pakistan." [26]
  • AsianWeek, February 2002: "With a turnout of over a 100 people, the leaders felt the vigil was vastly successful and hope for increased participation in the coming months." [27]
  • ACHA Peace Bulletin, February 2002: "more than 120 people assembled at the Lytton Plaza to light candles, sing songs and shout slogans affirming their faith in peace." [28]
  • San Francisco Chronicle, March 2002: "the hundreds who demonstrate the last weekend of every month with Friends of South Asia." [29]
  • Pakistan Link, June 2002: "Forty-five concerned citizens turned up for the Saturday vigil." [30]
  • Pakistan Link, July 2002: "Twenty-two concerned citizens turned up to attend this Saturday’s vigil." [31]

But why let facts get in the way of a perfectly good conspiracy theory?

I'm sure either you or Cardreader will respond claiming that Suzanne Lee is secretly an ISI agent, and that AsianWeek is an Islamist-Communist front organization responsible for the murder of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. I guess I'm just a dupe for citing sources and avoiding original research.

-- Anirvan 22:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Eureka! AsianWeek is run by the Chinese American Fang family. "Fang" is only one letter away from the Pakistani paper "Jang" -- conclusive evidence that AsianWeek is managed by allies of the Pakistani Army, and that Cardreader's advanced photo-counting techniques have undercovered a secret Chinese-Pakistani plot to destroy India. (No thanks needed; I'm always excited to be able to assist with your original research.)
-- Anirvan 22:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I was disappointed (but unfortunately, not at all surprised) to encounter Cardreader attempting to do a sneaky full revert of the article content back to an earlier, blatantly POV edit -- while marking the reversion as a minor edit, with no accompanying annotation. Per Wikipedia's "minor edit" documentation, "Reverting a page is not likely to be considered minor under most circumstances. When the status of a page is disputed, and particularly if an edit war is brewing, then it is better not to mark any edit as minor." It's unfortunate that his commitment to his POV would lead to unethical behavior. (Cardreader is, of course, the same Wikipedian who's steadfastly refused to address concerns about his edits expressed on this talk page, while continuing to inject into the article conspiracy theories based on his original photo "analysis" research -- even managing to con another Wikipedian into standing up to defend his "research.")

-- Anirvan 04:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cardreader and Vikramsingh's reversions[edit]

Over the past two weeks, Wikipedians User:Cardreader and User:Vikramsingh have been engaging in a consistent campaign to actively lie about their reverts to this article, engaging in an unacknowledged edit war promoting a POV article fork, while also consistently refusing to address specific critiques of their POV edits and original research conspiracy theories.

  • May 11, 2006: Cardreader does a substantial revert of the article to an earlier POV version. He labels it "founded in 2001 by Pakistani expatriates with some Indian friends"
  • May 12, 2006: Cardreader does the same thing again, labeling his substantial changed "role of Christian missionaries andAmbedkarites noted, collaborating orgs mentioned."
  • May 12, 2006: As usual, Cardreader refuses to address any of the critiques on the talk page, and does his usual substantial POV reversion. As usual, he omits to mention that he did a reversion, labeling his change "photographs of its vigils", presumably because of he includes a new original research conspiracy theory into the article.
  • May 13, 2006: As usual, Cardreader bumps the article back to his last POV edition, summarizing his POV changes as "role of Christian missionaries and Ambedkarites"
  • May 15, 2006: Vikramsingh defends Cardreader's conspiracy theory on the talk page. He subsequently does a reversion, but doesn't actively lie about it, labeling his edits "restored to the version by Ligulem" (he omits to mention, of course, that he's doing the exact same revert to an earlier POV edit as Cardreader)
    • May 15, 2006: I post extensive documentation disproving Cardreader's conspiracy theory on the talk page. Unsurprisingly, neither Vikramsingh nor Cardreader respond.
  • May 20, 2006: Cardreader does a full revert of the article back to his earlier POV edit. He sneakily marks this as a minor edit], with no associated description.
  • May 24, 2006: Vikramsingh engages in his favorite past-time again. This time, he labels his substantial full reversion to an earlier POV edit "We know only of Pakistani founders. Thus 'by Pakistani expatriates with some Indian friends' is more appropriate."
  • May 27, 2006: Yay! Cardreader's back in the game. He labels his reversion to a previous POV edit "restored to Vikramsingh's last version" (to his credit, he's not lying). His edits still contain his original research conspiracy theories, in spite of a preponderance of evidence against it.
  • May 29, 2006: Vikramsingh does his usual substantial full revert. But instead of labeling it as such, he calls it "merged some of the edits by Hornplease and Anirvan" (because he incorporated about two sentences from a non-POV edit, ignoring the paragraphs of POV edits that he reintroduced).

Substantial issues of POV aside, these two Wikipedians have racked up quite a record: 9 massive content reversions in 17 days, 7 of which are not labeled as reversions, and 1 of which is actually labeled a minor edit. During he same period of time, 6 of 7 specific textual critiques of their edits were left ignored on the talk page. This is all entirely on the record; pretending it doesn't exist isn't going to make it go away.

- Anirvan 22:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Cardreader used unlabeled minor edits twice to insert disputed content changes into the Dalit Freedom Network article, which also refers to an organization associated with the California Hindu textbook controversy. [32][33] I apologize if I implied that he was specifically singling this article out.) - Anirvan 02:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anirvan's reversions and removal of information[edit]

Anirvan,

You have reverted the article on numerous occasions, to a version with less information.

For example, a better and more accurate text-segment is:

FOSA was founded in 2001 by Pakistani expatriates with some Indian friends, concerned about the threat of military action by India, as a result of Pakistan's support of terrorist activities in India. [2] [3] [4] [4] ; co-founded by Sabahat Ashraf[5] and Ali Hasan Cemendtaur[4] from Karachi, Pakistan.

You have been replacing recently it with:

FOSA was founded in 2001 by Indian and Pakistani expatriates concerned about the threat of impending war between their two nations[4][5]; co-founders included Sabahat Ashraf[6] and Ali Hasan Cemendtaur[4].

In the past you deleted the names of Sabahat Ashraf and Ali Hasan Cemendtaur completely several times.

You want to imply that -

  1. The founders were primarily Indian. That is not correct. They were primarily Pakistani. In fact I don't know if any of the founders were Indian, however I am willing to give it the benefit of doubt.
  2. You want the remove the context - the events that triggered the tension between India and Pakistan at that time.
  3. You don't want to mention that the two co-founders are Pakistani, which hides a significant fact.

I believe that all the facts should be included, including the facts that support a slightly different perspective than yours.

Let me suggest the following. Let us come to a version that incorporates both sides.

As a frequent user of wikipedia, let me mention that I appreciate your numerous contributions to it.--Cardreader 00:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]




Cardreader,

Hallelujah! I'm glad you've finally worked up the courage to defend your views in public. I hope you'll take the time to work through all the specific textual criticisms you've so carefully avoided dealing with for the past two weeks, choosing instead to rely on secret content reversions to support your conspiracy theories. My responses are interleaved below:

You have reverted the article on numerous occasions to a version with less information.

Every reversion I made has been extensively documented and backed up -- and have always involved avoiding the reintroduction of POV conspiracy theories.

For example, a better and more accurate text-segment is:
FOSA was founded in 2001 by Pakistani expatriates with some Indian friends, concerned about the threat of military action by India, as a result of Pakistan's support of terrorist activities in India. [2] [3] [4] [4] ; co-founded by Sabahat Ashraf[5] and Ali Hasan Cemendtaur[4] from Karachi, Pakistan.
You have been replacing recently it with:
FOSA was founded in 2001 by Indian and Pakistani expatriates concerned about the threat of impending war between their two nations[4][5]; co-founders included Sabahat Ashraf[6] and Ali Hasan Cemendtaur[4].

You're basing your hypothesis on the fact that two of the self-identified founding members are Pakistani-American immigrants. But there's a preponderance of evidence that Friends of South Asia is an explicitly Indo-Pak organization, with an active binational membership. Every press release, every news article, every event photo that I've seen backs this up. Even the San Francisco Chronicle article that you cite in your text explicitly refers to the active involvement of 3 Indians and 3 Pakistanis, and states that "Friends of South Asia [is] a Bay Area group that holds monthly vigils to protest the arms buildup in India and Pakistan." The article also refers to pressure put on both the Indian and Pakistani governments.

Other articles that refer to the very active involvement of Indians and/or people with non-Muslim South Asian names in the group's earliest work include San Francisco Chronicle (January 2002), AsianWeek (January 2002), AsianWeek (February 2002), ACHA Peace Bulletin (February 2002), San Jose Mercury News (May 2002), Pakistan Link (July 2002), Pakistan Link (September 2002). This is also the case with the following press releases: January 2002, February 2002, March 2002, April 2002, May 2002.

In the past you deleted the names of Sabahat Ashraf and Ali Hasan Cemendtaur completely several times.
You want to imply that -
1. The founders were primarily Indian. That is not correct. They were primarily Pakistani. In fact I don't know if any of the founders were Indian, however I am willing to give it the benefit of doubt.
2. You want the remove the context - the events that triggered the tension between India and Pakistan at that time.
3. You don't want to mention that the two co-founders are Pakistani, which hides a significant fact.

You say that I want to imply that "The founders were primarily Indian"; that's entirely off-base, and inconsistent. I want to "imply" exactly what the evidence implies -- that the group's a collaboration between Indian-Americans and Pakistani-Americans.

You say that I "don't want to mention that the two co-founders are Pakistani, which hides a significant fact." You've got a category problem. It's not "the two co-founders" who are Pakistani--it's "two of the co-founders" who are Pakistani. You've singled out two Pakistani individuals out of the dozens of organizers referenced in press and public materials about the group, and labeled them the group's sole co-founders. I still don't believe that specifically singling out Ashraf and Cemendtaur as co-founders is particularly relevant.

You also say that I want to "remove the context - the events that triggered the tension between India and Pakistan at that time." I presume this is because you disagree with the assertion that "FOSA was founded in 2001 by Indian and Pakistani expatriates concerned about the threat of impending war between their two nations." You'll notice that that sentence is backed by two references from the San Francisco Chronicle. The first reads, in part: "Dozens of mostly first- and second-generation Indian and Pakistani Americans spent New Year's Eve at a rally and candlelight vigil in San Jose's Cesar Chavez Park. The rally was hosted by the Friends of South Asia -- a Silicon Valley South Asian group that formed recently in response to escalating tensions between India and Pakistan." The second reads: "Raman met Pakistanis for the first time in January after she joined Friends of South Asia, a Bay Area group that holds monthly vigils to protest the arms buildup in India and Pakistan. You might call them peaceniks -- the Pakistanis, Indians, Bangladeshis and others who meet in Bay Area parks and on street corners, waving placards that tell passers-by, 'When Governments Go To War, Citizens Die!' and 'No one Wins a Nuclear War.'"

You'll notice that both articles specifically refer to the threat of war between the two nations; you'll note that not all members were on the same page regarding the reasons for the military escalation, but all opposed nuclear brinksmanship. What you're doing is inserting your own editorializing -- from a specifically Indian nationalist perspective -- about the reasons behind that nuclear brinksmanship. The Pakistani narrative may be much different; in fact, many Indian narratives are also quite different. The threat of nuclear war between India and Pakistan isn't new, and the reasons for it go back to nuclear tests in 1998 and 1974, terrorism in India, the complicated histories of presence in Kashmir, 1971, 1965, Partition, continuing issues over access to resources, religious fundamentalism, nationalism, military alliances during the and after the Cold War, and so much more. A nuclear confrontation that's part of a half-century-long military struggle is complicated; trying to turn that into "Pakistan's support of terrorist activities in India" is reductionist, obtuse, and POV.

- Anirvan 02:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Cardreader. You repeatedly insist that FOSA had either one or two co-founders. But according to an article in PeaceNews by A. H. Cemendtaur, a co-founder of Friends of South Asia, "Friends of South Asia (FOSA), a California organisation working for peace between India and Pakistan, came into existence when, in December 2001, nine of us, the founding members, came to the chilling realisation that the place we call home was full of war cries and that South Asia was on the brink of a war." (emphasis mine)

- Anirvan 23:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who runs FOSA?[edit]

Thanks Anirvan, for the links.

Let us see. The original meeting had 9 attendees. We know names of two of them, both from Karachi Pakistan. What about the rest?

You reference gives an address for FOSA:

"3375 Homestead Road #61, Santa Clara, CA 95051, USA (+1 408 244 6797; fax 249 5169"

Thus FOSA indeed has an office!

And I note that this address is the address of ENERGY SOLUTIONS CONSULTING ENGINEERS run by none other than Ali Hasan Cemendtuar with his partner Shahid Zia.

FOSA dosn't have a constitution. It doesn't have a formal membership. FOSA is basically Ali Hasan Cemendtuar. On appropriate occasions, FOSA has used two Indian faces, that of the two unmarried thirty-something south Indian Hindu females; who it appears were friends of Ali Hasan Cemendtuar.

"Friends of Ali Hasan Cemendtuar" are "Friends of South Asia".

--Cardreader 02:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


According to your data, as of 2003, one of the nine original 2001-era co-founders of the group accepted mail for the group at his office. Media mentions refer to at least twenty named participants, and over 100 attendees at FOSA events. To the best of my knowledge, Cemendtuar hasn't even been referenced in FOSA press releases or media mentions for the past few years. How does it follow that "FOSA is basically Ali Hasan Cemendtuar."?

I've posted a dozen different links from 2001-2002 alone, referring to incredibly active Indian involvement in the group. How does it follow that "On appropriate occasions, FOSA has used two Indian faces"?

Your absurd intellectual jihad flies in the face of all logic. Please keep posting; you make better arguments against your own edits than I ever could. Thank you.

- Anirvan 07:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • In 2003, FOSA contact page listed the folowing address:

Friends of South Asia 3375 Homestead Road #61 Santa Clara, CA 95051 tel: (408) 244-6797 fax: (408) 249-5169

  • In 2004, FOSA contact page listed the folowing address:

Friends of South Asia 3375 Homestead Road #61 Santa Clara, CA 95051 tel: (408) 244-6797 fax: (408) 249-5169 email: fosa@ektaonline.org

  • In 2005, FOSA contact page listed the folowing address:

Friends of South Asia 3375 Homestead Rd., #61 Santa Clara, CA 95051 tel: (408) 244-6797 fax: (408)249-5169

Does that remind anyone of Shikhandi?

--ISKapoor 00:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


According to your data, as of 2005, one of the nine original 2001-era co-founders of the group accepted mail for the group at his office; again, according to your data, he's no longer a mail contact. Media mentions refer to at least twenty named participants, and over 100 attendees at FOSA events. To the best of my knowledge, Cemendtuar hasn't even been referenced in FOSA press releases or media mentions for the past few years. How does it follow that "FOSA is basically Ali Hasan Cemendtuar."?

I've posted a dozen different links from 2001-2002 alone, referring to incredibly active Indian involvement in the group. Again, how does it follow that "On appropriate occasions, FOSA has used two Indian faces"?

-- Anirvan

Unsourced criticisms[edit]

There are three items in the "Criticisms" section of the article that lack any references. All three were added by Vikramsingh on May 2, 2006:

  1. "Critics of FOSA believe that its cooperation with a Sindhi group about the obscure Belochistan uprising is intended to deflect criticism about FOSA's association with groups that seek withdrawal of Indian forces in Kashmir (facing Islamic militancy) and in Nagaland and Tripura region (facing Christian fundamentalist militancy)."
  2. With reference to 2001 Stanford peace protest: "The critics of FOSA suggest that this protest suggests that FOSA's sympathies have been with the Islamists."
  3. "FOSA has not opposed Islam as the state religion in Pakistan, nor has it been critical of imposition of Islamic law Sharia in Pakistan."

Given that Vikramsingh is himself critical of FOSA, I'd like to distinguish between original criticisms by an anonymous Wikipedian, and those made by real people in the outside world. Given that the most active contributors to this article are themselves FOSA critics (Cardreader, ISKapoor, and Vikramsingh), I'm hoping you can help find some evidence that these specific critiques have ever been made in outside sources that can be cited.

I believe the first and second criticisms are entirely original with Vikramsingh, and that he's using Wikipedia to trumpet his specific personal anti-FOSA arguments.

(They also strike me as a bit off. Is he really suggesting that a group of Stanford students protesting for peace were secretly pro-Islamist -- as opposed to sharing any one of the myriad conventional motivations to oppose the war? And how does that jive with the group's repeated history of stances and public events in opposition to Islamic fundamentalism in Pakistan? Vikramsingh's second claim discusses FOSA's alleged involvement with Nagaland and Tripura, but to the best of my knowledge, that involvement is entirely a fabrication.)

Unlike items #1 and #2, I'm pretty sure that the final unsourced criticism (re: FOSA on Pakistani sharia) has been made in public by real live Indian Hindu nationalists in print media, and if so, those statements should definitely be sourced. Again, can someone help with references?

Indian/Hindu nationalists have already been reposting the nationalist POV forks of this Wikipedia article to back up their claims (e.g. [34], [35]), so there's a good chance of a feedback loop taking place, where intentionally falsified POV claims are read as Wikipedia's NPOV gospel truth, leading to the emergence of new "citable" sources to back up false claims in the article.

Thanks.

- Anirvan 08:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bhutto's criticism? Where?[edit]

The article states:

It has also been criticized by Pakistani nationalists for alleged bias toward Indian Hindus[27], and by the former Prime Minister of Pakistan.[28]

Where is Bhutto's criticism? --Cardreader 21:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Welcome to the wonderful world of Wikipedia references! See that number "[28]" you copied and pasted? It refers to the Stanford Report story which refers to Bhutto's disputing charges leveled against her by FOSA members outside the building. There are more details on peace and anti-corruption protestors at the talk in the Stanford Review and in an article from a student at UC Berkeley's School of Journalism. The articles quote several non-Muslim Indian peace protestors, and give more specific details of the anti-corruption/feminist charges leveled against Bhutto -- further marginalizing Vikramsingh's absurd "secret pro-Pakistani Islamist bias" conspiracy theory.

-- Anirvan 01:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Where? Stanford Report story says:

Outside the auditorium, a handful of protesters who called themselves "concerned Pakistani students" and "friends of South Asia" held signs promoting peace and passed out fliers detailing corruption charges against Bhutto -- charges she disputed during her talk.

This dosen't mention any criticism of FOSA by Bhutto.

She also suggested that the images of Pakistanis protesting in the street may be misleading -- these scenes were not as widespread as they appeared. "The people who have been demonstrating are near the Afghani refugee camps," she said. Most professional people -- doctors, lawyers and so on -- are steering clear.

This refers to demonstrations in Pakistan.

In the other two references, I don't see any comment by Bhutto on FOSA. In all likelihood, she was never aware of FOSA as a group.

--ISKapoor 20:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I don't think we disagree. Reading the press coverage, it looks like members of an early FOSA grouping (potentially alongside a South Asian American coalition, which may have been the same thing) managed to inject issues of peace in South Asia, and corruption in Pakistan into the evening. It certainly doesn't appear that Bhutto was critical of FOSA by name, but appeared to be critical of the charges being brought up, and of the protestors raising the issues.

-- Anirvan 04:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Since Bhutto did not criticise FOSA, that part of the text should be deleted or placed in a separate section.--Cardreader 15:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Role of Ali Hasan Cemendtaur from Karachi, Pakistan[edit]

I am disppointed that some individuals equate a balanced view as the one which hides well-documented information.

Ali Hasan Cemendtaur's role in running FOSA is extremely well documented. There are many who would like this fact to be not known. Why do they want to hide his name?

I don't see why hiding information results in a better Wikipedia article.

For those who may question Ali Hasan Cemendtaur's role in running FOSA, see the following.

Ali Hasan Cemendtaur is a Co-founder: one of the two co-founders whose names are known. San Francisco Chronicle June 2, 2002 identifies Ali Hasan Cemendtaur as a co-founder. The article states:

The Friends of South Asia, a group of Pakistanis and Indians who promote peace on the Indian subcontinent, recently began an aggressive letter-writing campaign aimed at U.S. and U.N. leaders. The group, co-founded by Cemendtaur, has also continued its monthly peace vigils. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2002/06/02/MN107890.DTL

The other known name is Sahabat Ashraf, also from Karachi who mentions himself as a co-founder of FOSA

"I am also a co-founder/early member of the Friends of South Asia" (http://www.friendsofsouthasia.org), http://bayosphere.com/user/sabahat_ashraf

The first meeting was apparently attended by seven more, but their names are not known to us. Apparently Ali Hasan Cemendtaur was always the key person.

Cemendtaur's office = Friends of South Asia office

From FOSA Contact page in Feb 6, 2003, archived at http://web.archive.org/web/20030206052831/http://fosa.ektaonline.org/contact/: 

Friends of South Asia 
3375 Homestead Road #61 
Santa Clara, CA 95051 
tel: (408) 244-6797 
fax: (408) 249-5169

From FOSA Contact page in Dec. 6, 2003, archived at http://web.archive.org/web/20040130051009/www.ektaonline.org/~friendso/contact/: 

Friends of South Asia 
3375 Homestead Road #61 
Santa Clara, CA 95051 
tel: (408) 244-6797 
fax: (408) 249-5169


From FOSA Contact page in Jan 28, 2004, archived at http://web.archive.org/web/20041024200326/www.friendsofsouthasia.org/contact/: 

Friends of South Asia 
3375 Homestead Road #61 
Santa Clara, CA 95051 
tel: (408) 244-6797 
fax: (408) 249-5169


From FOSA Contact page in March 6, 2005, archived at http://web.archive.org/web/20050215233135/www.friendsofsouthasia.org/contact/: 

Friends of South Asia 
3375 Homestead Road #61 
Santa Clara, CA 95051 
tel: (408) 244-6797 
fax: (408) 249-5169

This is the address of Energy Solutions, Consulting Engineers of which A Hasan Cemendtaur is the key person. See http://www.caddworld.com/personnel.html

Also see:

--ISKapoor 22:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From my talk page[edit]

I am disappointed that you have deleted, among other facts, the following

The group's activities have been coordinated by Ali Hasan Cemendtaur from Karachi, Pakistan, since its inception. The group has no formal structure. The address for FOSA is that of Cemendtaur's consulting company "Energy Solutions".

The mention of Ali Hasan Cemendtaur's role is absolutely true, well-documented; and it is significant.

There are some who would like this fact to be not known. I cannot say why. What I know is this: he has been the key person running FOSA.

For those who may question Ali Hasan Cemendtaur's role in running FOSA, see the following.

Ali Hasan Cemendtaur is a Co-founder: one of the two co-founders whose names are known. San Francisco Chronicle June 2, 2002 identifies Ali Hasan Cemendtaur as a co-founder. The article states:

The Friends of South Asia, a group of Pakistanis and Indians who promote peace on the Indian subcontinent, recently began an aggressive letter-writing campaign aimed at U.S. and U.N. leaders. The group, co-founded by Cemendtaur, has also continued its monthly peace vigils. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2002/06/02/MN107890.DTL

The other known name is Sahabat Ashraf, also from Karachi who mentions himself as a co-founder of FOSA

"I am also a co-founder/early member of the Friends of South Asia" (http://www.friendsofsouthasia.org), http://bayosphere.com/user/sabahat_ashraf

The first meeting was apparently attended by seven more, but their names are not known to us. Apparently Ali Hasan Cemendtaur was always the key person.

Cemendtaur's personal office = Friends of South Asia office

From FOSA Contact page in Feb 6, 2003, archived at http://web.archive.org/web/20030206052831/http://fosa.ektaonline.org/contact/: 

Friends of South Asia 
3375 Homestead Road #61 
Santa Clara, CA 95051 
tel: (408) 244-6797 
fax: (408) 249-5169

From FOSA Contact page in Dec. 6, 2003, archived at http://web.archive.org/web/20040130051009/www.ektaonline.org/~friendso/contact/: 

Friends of South Asia 
3375 Homestead Road #61 
Santa Clara, CA 95051 
tel: (408) 244-6797 
fax: (408) 249-5169


From FOSA Contact page in Jan 28, 2004, archived at http://web.archive.org/web/20041024200326/www.friendsofsouthasia.org/contact/: 

Friends of South Asia 
3375 Homestead Road #61 
Santa Clara, CA 95051 
tel: (408) 244-6797 
fax: (408) 249-5169


From FOSA Contact page in March 6, 2005, archived at http://web.archive.org/web/20050215233135/www.friendsofsouthasia.org/contact/: 

Friends of South Asia 
3375 Homestead Road #61 
Santa Clara, CA 95051 
tel: (408) 244-6797 
fax: (408) 249-5169

This is the address of Energy Solutions, Consulting Engineers of which A Hasan Cemendtaur is the key person. See http://www.caddworld.com/personnel.html

Also see:

--ISKapoor 22:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from my talk page, Tom Harrison Talk 23:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]



Hi ISKapoor. I don't think anyone disputes that Ali Hasan Cemendtaur was one of nine FOSA co-founders, one of several media contacts, and per your research, a mail contact through at least March 2005.

Cemendtaur's name stopped appearing in materials by or about FOSA sometime in 2005, and as far as I can tell, he's not even an active participant in the group anymore. I have no idea how you're coming up with "The group's activities have been coordinated by Ali Hasan Cemendtaur from Karachi, Pakistan, since its inception." Taking the name of a single active member and extrapolating that he's the secret group coordinator is a huge jump, given that there's no basis in fact (nor do you attempt to offer any).

I notice that your friend Cardreader continues to "contribute" to the Californian Hindu textbook controversy article, recently reverting a series of typo corrections, copyedits, and careful POV fixes; his latest edit to that article refers to "Friends of South Asia (FOSA, an organization founded and controlled Ali Hasan Cemendtaur from Karachi, Pakistan)."

It's obvious that the same editors who use this talk page as a soapbox for their anti-FOSA rants ([36], [37], [38], [39]) are knowingly spreading lies and half-truths across Wikipedia, working to tar the group as a Pakistani-controlled organization, and ignoring the inconvenient fact that the binational group has incredibly active Indian-American involvement (as copiously documented in third party media reports, as well as in the group's own materials).

- Anirvan 10:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please Do Not Try to Suppress the Facts[edit]

Hi Anirvan,

Initially I thought you were a supporter of peace activism, and have a different perspective. That is fine. I accept a diversity of views.

But I note you have been trying to remove significant information, even when you know it is valid and significant.

  1. You have tried to remove the names of Ali Hasan Cemendtaur and Sahabat Ashraf.
  2. You have tried to remove the fact that they are from Pakistan.
  3. You have tried to remove the fact that address and phone given at FOSA website for several year, until recently, matches that of Ali Hasan Cemendtaur.
  4. You have tried to remove the name of Anupama Mandavilli.
  5. You tried to get the article on Anupama Mandavilli deleted.

You have falsely claimed that Benazir Bhutto had criticized FOSA. You have tried to camouflage facts by inserting copious verbiage.

I don't think that if is fair to the readers of Wikipedia to suppress information.

Le the facts speak for themselves.

--ISKapoor 17:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Hi ISKapoor.

Re: points #1-2, Ali Hasan Cemendtaur and Sabahat Ashraf are two of nine co-founders, and just two of the many active members who have been mentioned in interviews, press releases, etc. They're obviously Pakistani, as are a significant proportion of members in a binational Indian/Pakistani group. Are those facts? Sure. Are they significant? No, not any more so than the names and hometowns of any other active FOSA members -- or that of any other of the thousands of regional peace group around the world. Briefly scanning through newspaper articles linked from the article, I see the names of at least a dozen people linked to the group and its events (I presume that not every person involvolved with the group has been quoted in the media). Why your obsession with those two members?

Re: point 3, per your research, instead of renting a P.O. box, FOSA received mail at Cemendtaur's office for a few years. It's not clear to me how that's significant or encyclopedic.

Re: points 4 and 5, I still don't think that Wikipedia's the best place to post member lists of an otherwise undistinguished regional peace group. Mandavilli is "notable" only as the 2006 volunteer media contact person for FOSA; I still don't think that qualified for Wikipedia notability, and I stand by my vote for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anupama_Mandavilli.

Now ISKapoor, would you please be kind enough to explain some of your latest edits and unlabeled reversions, including:

  • ADDITION: "The press releases report that some of the vigils, often held jointly with other groups, attracted over 100 people, however the photographs show 15-10 individuals."
    I notice that you cite this February 2002 AsianWeek article to back up your claim. Perhaps you never took the time to actually read the article; the article and the photos are both by the same reporter, Suzanne Lee, who writes that the event had a "turnout of over a 100 people." Using conventional logic, one would assume that the reporter was therefore present at the event, and didn't lie when she described the turnout. Are you therefore suggesting that (1) Suzanne Lee attended the event but intentionally lied in her story, (2) didn't really attend the event and lied to her editors when she claimed a FOSA press release and photos as her own work, (3) the editors of AsianWeek secretly changed the attendee count after Suzanna Lee submitted the story, or (4) the print version had a different attendee count, but the article at www.asianweek.com was secretly edited by a third party? I'd love to hear your version of the story.
  • ADDITION: "The group's activities have been coordinated by Ali Hasan Cemendtaur from Karachi, Pakistan, since its inception, until recently."
    I keep repeating the same questions over and over, but you never grace me with a reponse. How are you extrapolating that Cemendtaur, one of many long-time active FOSA members, was the "coordinator" of the group?
  • Process question: Why do you continually mark contentious content changes as "minor," leaving them unlabeled?
    For example you changed "Friends of South Asia is frequently criticized by Hindu Indian and Indian-American nationalists" to "Friends of South Asia is frequently criticized by Hindu Indian and Indian-Americans" (emphasis mine), marking that as an unlabeled minor edit. Do you really believe that that's a minor content-neutral change? Clearly not all Indian-Americans are critical of Friends of South Asia, given that the group has significant Indian-American membership; why do all your edits always overemphasize Pakistani-American involvement in FOSA, and marginalize Indian-American involvement?

- Anirvan 20:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Cardreader! Welcome back to the insert-POV-into-Wikipedia game. I'm delighted as always to publicly document your four latest additions (appropriately POV-laden, every single one):

  • DELETION: Deleting the word "Pakistan" in the sentence "As of 2006, Friends of South Asia continues to advocate against militarism in India, Pakistan, and the United States."
    Amusingly, Cardreader's edited sentence is followed immediately thereafter by a reference to a Pakistani's newspaper's coverage of Friends of South Asia's March 2006 condemnations of Pakistani military and foreign policy: "In Pakistan, which has completely prostrated itself to the US in it ‘war on terror’, the government has used the US backing as cover from international condemnation, to crack down on its own population in Waziristan and Balochistan, killing thousands of civilians. The Pakistani government has not only attacked its own people, but has handed over its citizens to US for torture/interrogation and allowed the US to launch direct attacks on residential areas within its borders,' the statement charged."
  • INSERTION: "FOSA was a prominent participant in the Californian Hindu textbook controversy, in which it joined a number of other groups, including anti-Hindu missionary and Tamil groups, in successfully petitioning California's Curriculum Commission to reject allegedly revisionist edits to California's textbook curriculum on Hinduism and India, as suggested by two American Hindu organizations."
    FOSA's opposition to the proposed textbook edits were echoed by anti-communal groups, hundreds of South Asian American academics, and over a dozen California state legislators. Cardreader's obsessed with painting FOSA as an anti-Hindu group, selectively excluding all mainstream support for FOSA's positions, and inserting references only to groups he deems "anti-Hindu."
  • INSERTION: "FOSA has not explained why it chose to protest against someone who represents democracy in Pakistan."
    Given the scope of the accusations of massive fraud (the alleged theft of hundreds of millions of dollars), the presumption that Benazir Bhutto is an uncomplicated symbol of democracy in Pakistan is wild editorializing on Cardreader's part, and is anything but encyclopedic. Going on to say that FOSA hasn't explaimed why it was protesting Bhutto's pro-war talk at Stanford is absurd -- Cardreader's sentence almost immediately follows a quote from the Stanford Review that states that members "held signs promoting peace and passed out fliers detailing corruption charges against Bhutto." Perhaps you need it spelled out: members of FOSA were probably protesting Bhutto's stance on the war, and her alleged record of corruption.
  • INSERTION: "In spite of its vocal opposition to Hindu organizations associated with india"
    There are some 890 million Hindus in India. FOSA's stances are generally in opposition to fundamentalism, militarism, or nationalism -- labels I wouldn't deign to apply to most Hindus or Hindu organizations. Can this sentence fragment be saved? Perhaps, by narrowing the scope to something like "vocal opposition to Hindu nationalist organizations" or something similar.

Thank you for the entertaining edits.

-- Anirvan 00:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cardreader's POV selective listing of collaborations[edit]

My friend Cardreader loves selective inclusion. His latest edits included the following lines:

"Friends of South Asia has also collaborated with American Muslim Voice, Pakistanis at Stanford, Indian Muslim Council - USA, Progressive Muslim Union of North America, Dalit Freedom Network (a Colorado based Christian missionary organization), Federation of Tamil Sangams in North America , (a supporter of LTTE, a separationist group active in Srilanka and Tamilnadu), as well as other organizations. It is currently collaborating with an anti-Hindu organization Ambedkar Centre for Justice and Peace..."

An unbiased reader might look at that list and might come to believe that FOSA only works with Muslim, Christian, Tamil, and "anti-Hindu" groups.

Cardreader carefully "forgets" to mention the fact that FOSA appears to collaborate with a lot of organizations. A perusal of the FOSA website pulls up the names of 53 collaborating orgs:

3rd I: South Asian Film, Alliance of South Asians Taking Action, Ambedkar Centre for Justice & Peace, American Muslim Voice, Association for India's Development Bay Area (AID Bay Area), Association for the Development of Pakistan, Bay Area Association of Muslim Lawyers, California Institute for Integral Studies: Dept. of Cultural and Social Anthropology, California Peace Action, Campaign to Stop Funding Hate (CSFH), Chhandam-Chitresh Das Dance Company, Coalition Against Communalism, Dhamaal, EKTA, Federation of Tamil Sangams of North America (FeTNA), Global Exchange, Indian Muslim Council - USA, Indians for Collective Action, International Campaign for Justice in Bhopal, International Organization of Pakistani Women Engineers, Justice for Palestinians, KPFA Free Speech Radio 94.1 FM, Locus Arts, Narika, Organization of Pakistani Entrepreneurs of North America, Organizing Youth!, Pakistan-India People's Forum for Peace and Democracy, Peace Education Fund, Progressive Muslim Union of North America, San Francisco State University: Women's Studies Dept., South Asian American Leaders of Tomorrow, South Bay Mobilization, Stanford Labor Action Coalition, Stanford: ARC/India Program in School of Humanities and Sciences, Stanford: ASHA Stanford, Stanford: Asia/Pacific Research Center at the Institute of International Studies, Stanford: Asian American Activism Committee, Stanford: Asian American Students Association, Stanford: Asian American Studies Program, Stanford: Humanities Center, Stanford: Pakistanis at Stanford, Stanford: SAHELI (South Asian Women's Alliance), Stanford: SANSKRITI (South Asian Undergrad Association), Third World Majority, Trikone, UC Berkeley: Associated Students at University of California, UC Berkeley: Association of South Asian Political Activists, UC Berkeley: Center for South Asian Studies & Gender and Women's Studies Dept., UC Berkeley: International House, UC Berkeley: South Asian Law Students Association, UC Berkeley: Townsend Center Working Group on Muslim Identities & Cultures, UC Hastings: South Asian Law Students Association, World Sindhi Institute

These groups are academic, arts-based, anti-communal, Indian, Pakistani, Asian American, South Asian American, Muslim, feminist, labor-oriented, anti-war, queer, and professional. (The list would grow further if one included members of the large international groupings that FOSA is associated with, e.g. the Campaign Against Genocide or the Promise of India.)

Cardreader, would you mind explaining why your edits are so amazingly selective? (I know unlabeled reversions are easier than dialogue, but I'd love to believe that you're willing to stand up for your ideas.)

-- Anirvan 18:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anirvan,

You have compiled an interesting list. FOSA has collaborated with quite a few Muslim organizations. I don't see a single Hindu organization represented there. Several of the organizations listed are specifically anti-Hindutva or critics of Hinduism. FOSA does not appear to be a neutral organization. --Cardreader 19:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]



Hi Cardreader. You may not be aware of the demographics of South Asian America; virtually all South Asian American and Indian American groups have primarily Hindu Indian American membership or constituency. Of the Indian and South Asian groups on the list, I'd guess that the South Asian membership of at least 90% have a majority (and almost all have a plurality) of culturally Hindu Indian members.

There's a huge difference between "Hindu" and "Hindutva," just as there's a difference between "Islamic" and "Islamist," "Jewish" and "Zionist," etc. Hindutva (like Islamism or Zionism) is a relatively contemporary political philosophy, rooted in, but in no way identical to, the larger religion. Your edits conflate criticism of political philosophies with criticism of a population or community.

FOSA appears to have collaborated with about a half dozen feminist and gay/lesbian groups; per your logic, the article should read "Although FOSA claims to have both male and female members, it actively collaborates with organizations that are anti-straight-male."

-- Anirvan 02:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Anirvan: You are right when you say:

"I'd guess that the South Asian membership of at least 90% have a majority (and almost all have a plurality) of culturally Hindu Indian members."

There are numerous Hindu organizations in USA. Inspite of that, FOSA has not worked with any proper Hindu organization, although it has collaborated with several Muslim bodies. The only "Hindu" organization it has collaborated with is a fake one Vaishnava Center for Enlightenment, a 1 or 2 person "organization" that has closely collaborated with organizations like Indian Muslim Council-USA and anti-Hindu activists like Satinath Choudhary. --Vikramsingh 17:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Vikramsingh, can you explain your point? You say you agree with my premise, but your conclusions are confusing.

Because there's such a wide array of majority-Indian/Hindu institutions, I'd guess that most Indian-American Hindus don't need to engage in civic or political work under an explicitly Hindu banner, while members of minority religions are more likely to do so because of relatively higher levels of marginalization in groupings labeled "Indian American," "South Asian American," etc. To the best of my knowledge, there's not a lot of Indian-American Hindu groups that take on explicit FOSAesque positions (opposition to the war, for example), while groups rooted in other South Asian American religious communities may do so to a greater degree. Hindu Indian-Americans active on issues linked to FOSA's work seem to generally do so under the banner of the types of majority-Indian/Hindu "South Asian American" groupings that you refer to.

Your logic is puzzling. Virtually every recent US president has met with organizations by and for members of specific racial minorities, e.g. the NAACP; very few have met with explicitly white groups (presumably because most organizations in America are already majority-white). Per your logic, the Wikipedia entry for George W. Bush should state that he's secretly biased against the white race.

FOSA has worked with feminist groups (but no specifically male groups); by extension, would you label it as anti-male? FOSA has worked with gay/lesbian groups (but no specifically heterosexual groups); would you label it anti-heterosexual?

--Anirvan 00:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Civility[edit]

I'd like to remind everyone of Wikipedia policy of civility. It helps to avoid personalizing our disagreements if we comment on the content instead of on the man who wrote it. Thank you, Tom Harrison Talk 19:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Balance, citation, original research[edit]

I have restored the version of 20 June 2006 as better cited and more even-handed. I also have concerns about original research in the versions that followed it. Tom Harrison Talk 19:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me see if I understand. Is information compiled using an organization's official web page "original research"? Is information compiled from various publications on the web "original research"? --Cardreader 19:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"The group's activities have been coordinated by Ali Hasan Cemendtaur from Karachi, Pakistan, since its inception, until recently. The group has no formal structure. For several years, the address and phone number for FOSA is that of Cemendtaur's consulting company "Energy Solutions"." What's the source? Tom Harrison Talk 20:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The information comes from the FOSA web site, reports on the web (sometimes reported by Ali Hasan Cemendtaur himself) and the web-site for Cemendtaur's own business. I can locate the specific URLs and insert citations. Will that be considered "original reasearch"? --Cardreader 20:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you can find a reliable source who says, "The group's activities have been coordinated by...", or some comparable phrase, I think it would be a "new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas that serves to advance a position." Tom Harrison Talk 20:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are we allowed to say:
"During 2003-2005, the address and phone number for FOSA given on its web-site[40][41][42], and given by Cemendtaur in PeaceNews [43] is that of Cemendtaur's consulting company "Energy Solutions" [44]." ?--Cardreader 21:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, but it's only relevent if you assume that Cemendtaur is in charge. The problem is that we just don't do investigative journalism. We can't say we are not making a synthesis because we are using innuendo instead of assertion. Tom Harrison Talk 21:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fabindia's "obvious attempt to bias the article"[edit]

User Fabindia just did two subsequent reversions of my de-POVing and additions to the article, one unexplained [45], the second intriguingly described as an "obvious attempt to bias the article"[46].

Again, here's a summary of my changes that s/he's undoing with a twitchy revert key:

  • [47] rm desc of talk at an event from lead para about whole group; reinstated word "successfully"; rm unsupp. "court has ruled against" claim (neither link even mentions FOSA); softened biased heading
  • [48] clarify criticism primarily from Ind. grps w/nationalist politics; rm Bajpai quote, in ref. to Witzel not FOSA; rm snarky dupe addn re: Mathew; rm biased "See also", Terror cat; restore "Peace org" cat
  • [49] rm stray period; cite RTI support; link to anti-war movement; fixed formatting, single quotes set to double quotes
  • [50] Updated heading to "Positions and activities" to be more inclusive of final para
  • [51] Linked to Stanford Daily
  • [52] Fixed typo in ref

I understand that Fabindia is clearly an editor of few words, but I'd like to know more about how specifically these are obvious attempts to bias the article. For example:

  • I removed a quote criticizing Steve Witzel, which was "accidentally" included in the article as a quote criticizing FOSA
  • I added the "Peace organizations" category to the article, in light of the group's repeated documented opposition to war, nuclear races, and terrorism
  • I added inline wiki links to the Stanford Daily and the anti-Iraq War movements
  • I described recent new areas being focused on by the group
  • I replaced the incredibly negatively-slanted heading "Idealogy" with a more neutral "Position"
  • I removed the off-the-wall "See also: Hate group" reference

Every one of my edits is labeled above. I'd love to see the content of the edits addressed, rather than a game of I-can-revert-faster-than-you. Fabindia, would you mind trying to discuss your ideas? Thank you,

-- Anirvan 09:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the article is unbiased now as you seem to be putting an extreme communist bias into it by removing all pertinent criticims.You are right that categorizing as a "hate group" is wrong and I agree with you. I will also agree to linking the stanford daily and other minor edits. however, all criticisms are important, verified and keep NPOV per other similar articles on radical communist/Islamist sympathetic groups. Your couple of "small fixes" are, quite clearly, an attempt to use that as an excuse to put in extremist communist bias and I will not stand for it.Fabindia 09:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Fabindia. You label FOSA a "radical communist/Islamist sympathetic group," claim that I'm "put[ting] in extremist communist bias" and that you "will not stand for it". I appreciate your ability to name-call and posture on demand, but would you mind addressing the actual content of the specific edits? - Anirvan 09:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with copyedits but I do have a problem with your misrepresenting sources. A look at the metroactive article clearly indicates that Bajpai is addressing the entire gamut of the opposition incl FOSA, not just Witzel. The fact that they advocate extremist communist views is evidenced by their endorsement of extremist communism in their website. Your attempt to remove it does not follow wikipedia precedent. Please see Israel Shahak for an excellent example of a similar person/group. Your "softening of biased editing" is a laugh as you just turned it right around and made it leftist-hardened.Fabindia 10:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Extremist communist views"? Do you have evidence to support your claims? One speaker at one FOSA event discussed Communism in India -- and that deserves mention in the lead paragraph of the article? How ridiculously biased is that? - Anirvan 10:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, your attempt at making an ethnic/political slur, calling a group "nationalist" when no credible or non-partisan reference lists them as such (least of all themselves) is equally biased and betrays your attempt to introduce anti-Hindu biases into the article. Fabindia 10:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The word "nationalist" modifies "Indian," not "Hindu." It's a bit ridiculous to suggest that all Indians and Hindus are critical of FOSA or its positions, as many of its stances are supported by many Indians and Hindus (including FOSA members themselves). Can we find a better unbiased/truthful way to describe the groups and individuals that claim that FOSA is anti-Indian and anti-Hindu? - Anirvan 10:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, calling these zealots a "peace organization" is ludicrous. It is like calling Hezbollah a civic service group or something. There are sufficient indicators that they support terrorism. However, the indications are not sufficient to cat them as terrorists so I removed that cat. They are too dubious to list as a "Peace Group". I am sorry, but we Indians really need to get past such "third world mentality". Fabindia 10:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per the article itself, FOSA has held and cosponsored a large number of events against war and nuclearization in various parts of the world. Exactly how many peace marches does a group need to organize before it qualifies as a peace group? How many third party news articles describing FOSA's work toward peace do you need to read before you can convince yourself that it might be categorizable as a group working for peace? If you don't like what "Peace organizations" connotes, please address it with the folks working on the Peace organizations category. And are you really comparing a bunch of expat Indian and Pakistani engineers to Hezbollah? If you have documented evidence to show that FOSA "support[s] terrorism," please report it to the media, so it can be investigated by neutral third parties and cited here on Wikipedia. - Anirvan 10:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As of this moment, I have re-enacted your copyedits into the article while keeping out your POV.Fabindia 10:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We all need to worry about POV. Just for the record, you're the one going off about "radical communist/Islamist sympathetic groups," "extremist communist bias," "extremist communist views," "extremist communism," "anti-Hindu," "support terrorism," "Hezbollah," and "zealots. Again, I'd appreciate it if you could try to address the contents of my edits instead of engaging in repeated name-calling and complaining about "keeping out [my] POV." - Anirvan 10:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I am sorry. It's just that, based on your previous posts it is obvious that you have a partisan bias in favor of this radical group. Perhaps I too have a bias against them. However, there is no bias in my edits, merely the facts and the context behind them, sourced according to wikipedia policy. My analogy with Hezbollah is entirely appropriate here. Many people in backward countries regard Hezbollah as a great thing. Other more advanced people regard them for who they really are. The wikipedia article on Hezbollah reflects both views and so must this, otherwise we will have the peculiar style of Indian McCarthyism on wikipedia where all views contrary to the far left are suppressed with the usual sophisms, bullying tactics, logical loopholes, intimidation campaigns, mudslinging and other assorted BS. To nip this problem in the bud I will apologize for any remarks that you found offensive. Fabindia 11:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just a matter of my finding your "remarks" offensive, it's that they're absurdly (and quite amusingly) wrong, while you claim to be NPOV. For example, you repeatedly claim that Friends of South Asia is a Communist group, ignoring the fact that the FOSA website contains no references to the group being inspired by Marx, Lenin, Mao, etc., and doesn't referer to Communist texts, governments, symbols, or political parties; nor does it call for anything like state control of the economy, dictatorship of the proletariat, etc. You lump them in with Islamist groups, and compare them to Hezbollah, ignoring the fact that something like half the names on the group's website are non-Muslim, that the website contains no references to the Koran or Islamic teachings, that the group opposes Sharia law, calls for political/social liberalization and nuclear disarmament in Pakistan (the only openly nuclear Islamic state), and sponsors events with feminist and gay/lesbian groups. Perhaps you're utterly ignorant of real South Asian Communist or Islamist movements (and if so, might I suggest that you browse Communist parties of India, Communist Party of Pakistan, General Zia-ul-Haq's Islamization of Pakistan, Lashkar-e-Toiba, Students Islamic Movement of India, etc.), but you do yourself and your reputation a disservice when you throw around words without knowing what they mean while trying to collaboratively edit an encyclopedia article. -Anirvan 19:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is a reference on FOSA website that supports radical communism. You removed it in order to whitewash their ideology. India Rising 21:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's a substantial amount of content on the FOSA website; I'm amused at your willingness to arbitrarily pick and choose an items to emphasize in the lead para, rather than focusing on broad generalities. Picking out the topic of invited speakers at one event held over the course of half a decade of an organization's history is intentionally obtuse. They also appear to sponsor plays and poetry readings. Would you, by extension, have the lead para describe FOSA as a literary organization? -Anirvan 00:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A large part of Hezbollah is Maronite Christian. That does not change the fact that they are Islamist. The comparison with Hezbollah is entirely justified. They may publicly say they are not radical Islamist, but their leftist leanings belie their alliances. Anyways, the article does not categorically say that they are Islamist so that argument is pointless and let's stop it. They are, of course, radical leftists, as is obvious from their own website.India Rising 21:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm stunned that you seem to suggest that "radical Islamist" and "leftist leanings" are essentially the same thing -- an incredibly ahistorical perspective, considering, for example, the treatment of political Islam in China or the former Soviet Union, or leftists in virtually all nations with Sharia law.
In your newly-added description of the group as "far-left," you link to the far-left article, which clearly indicates that it's "usually a pejorative term," rather than a meaningful descriptive label; you attempt to bolster your use of the pejorative by selectively quoting from the points being discussed by a third party speaker at a FOSA event.
It would be fair to use terms that the group uses to describe itself. It might also be fair to look at the contents of FOSA's political stances, and come up with specific value-free labels, e.g. "progressive" (in the context of American domestic politics), "anti-militarist," "anti-imperialist," or "pacifist." (I'm not sure how best to describe FOSA's stances on domestic Indian/Pakistani politics; their positions seem to correspond with, for example, the Indian National Alliance of People's Movements [NAPM].)
You write in an edit summary that "being a Hindu does not exempt one from being an anti-Hindu. See Noam Chomsky for example"; perhaps you hadn't actually read the Noam Chomsky article. The article doesn't include a snarky "See also: anti-Semitism", which is what you're inserting into the FOSA article; rather, the Chomsky article discusses the charge of anti-semitism, includes context, and links to Chomsky's public responses.
(Incidentally, as it stands, in your last edit of the article, the main body of the article was 539 words long, while the criticism section was 586 words in length--52% of the article is devoted to third-party criticisms of the group. That's quite a remarkable ratio, and it's hard to understand how Bakkasuprman could see that and ask "where did the criticism section disappear?"...but so it goes, when editors have idealogical axes to grind.)
Unfortunately, name-calling, kneejerk reversions, picking out pejorative labels, and poor editing practices don't do a thing to improve articles. Otherwise, we'd be well on our way to reaching featured status by now.
- Anirvan 00:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive me, but your roundabout arguments are rather unconvincing. First of all, a clear pattern of far-left/Islamist alliance is well-established.The most unconscionable decision taken by such FOSA people worldwide has been the embracing of Islamism and support rendered to it in all manners. This has been justified in three ingenuous ways. Radical Islam shares with the communists a fierce hatred for the Western world. The communists who believe that the Americans thwarted the worldwide revolution in the 1950s see the current age as payback time where rising Islam would bring down the capitalist West to its knees. However, it is being overlooked that the capitulation of the West would end the very base from where the Communists preach their philosophy and Weltanschauung. Radical perversions of Islamic teachings is regarded by the Communists as being the very anti-thesis of logic. They are convinced that an Islamist interlude would lead to a final Communist earth, as the radical intellectuals in each Islamic state would rise against its patently visible logical fallacies. The communists seem to forget at their peril the plight of their brethren in Islamic Pakistan and Islamic Bangladesh.An inexplicable fear of Islam has gripped the Communist FOSA. Like an appeaser who keeps on sacrificing his brethren to the predator in the fond hope that he would be killed/eaten last, FOSA is giving one concession after another to the unappeasable Islamic terrorist. Their association with PAA is a clear indicator of this fact. India Rising 01:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, what's up with those knee-jerk reverts, India Rising? Did you actually intend to replace a neutral "Positions" heading with a negatively-biased "Idealogy"? Put the special quotes around Indian militarism, but leave the US and Pakistan unmodified? etc. Please look at content, without just hitting the revert button over and over. -Anirvan 02:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your logic for removing "See Also, Anti-Hindu" so I did. India Rising 01:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Hi India Rising. If you think it's necessary to further describe FOSA's politics in the lead paragraph, let's work on it together. We know that FOSA tends to have stances on issues in the US, India, and Pakistan.

  • I think it's reasonable to term FOSA "pacifist/progressive" in terms of its stances on US domestic politics (e.g. it's against US wars abroad, critical of the war on terror, for liberalized immigration policy, against the US-India nuclear deal).
  • In India, it seems to have some sort of pacifist left/secular politics, but it doesn't seem to align with the statist/Communist left; rather, its closest alliances seem to be with social activist and people's movements. For example, we know that FOSA has held events with Medha Patkar, Arvind Kejriwal, and Anand Patwardhan--whose politics diverge considerably from folks like Ambaddi, Jyoti Basu, or Lalu Prasad Yadav. So how can we effectively describe that nuance in a neutral manner? Words like "left" or "secular" are very broad, and don't tell the reader very much.
  • I know next to nothing about Pakistani NGOs or left groups; I'd guess that FOSA could be described as left, liberal, and/or pacifist in a Pakistani context, but I don't know what precise terms Pakistanis might use to label the distinctions. Any ideas?

I'd appreciate your help. Thanks. - Anirvan 02:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your first statement clearly betrays FOSA's true goals (Socialist totalitarian) since you have used common euphemisms associated with leftists from across the board from Bolsheviks to maoists/naxals (who have committed genocide of Hindus in India and Nepal). In India, they align with radical anti-American elements (who, incidentally, stand for hours in front of US consulate begging like bhikkus with begging bowls for visas to USA) and make Indians look bad, like third world apologists. They definitely ally with the extremist left, like Biju Matthew, who is a prominent poster boy for FOSA. They merely shift their allegiances when they ally with Patkar etc to push their agenda when it suits them. Since when is Lalooji a "Stalinist"? Ha! India Rising 02:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good grief...I said statist left, not Stalinist left. They're two totally different words.
Incidentally, Biju Mathew was a one-time invited speaker, making it difficult to be a "prominent poster boy" for an organization.
I apologize if I misunderstood you. I don't think Lalooji is a "statist" either, but this isn't the place to discuss that. Can you show any political speaker/propagandist for FOSA who isn't affiliated with some communist group?
Virtually none of FOSA's invited guests appear to be Communist. None of their positions seem to endorse Communism. If you're so convinced that FOSA is a Communist organization, would you be ok getting a third party opinion from someone like User:Soman, Wikipedia's local content expert on Indian Communism? -Anirvan 02:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Biju Matthew is a communist. A communist would always refrain from calling oneself a communist after the fall of USSR. I am not interested in Partisan opinions, only in the facts.India Rising 03:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Their alliance with far-left groups need to be mentioned in the lead. I think it is okay to also mention your points briefly in the lead para also, like alliances with less extremist left like Patkar etc. The bottom is that they share a virulent hatred for all things Hindu and ask for a communist totalitarian third world state in India. They have stepped up their activism because India is developing and will soon cease to become third world and they want India to remain in the third world. Their pattern of alliances is clearly leftist, and using euphemisms like "progressive" is an attempt to hide the facts from the reader
Lastly, if you are paid by FOSA to spread their propaganda on wikipedia (as I suspect you are), the you should read WP:COI and refrain from whitewashing their far-left hatreds. India Rising 02:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you write a proposed lead paragraph below? India Rising 03:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suppression of facts[edit]

Unfortunately some important significant information has been deleted from the article. This information has been suppressed by the FOSA people themselves, however it is available on older web pages and past web documents relating to FOSA.

  • The two individuals who are known to have been founders of FOSA are both Pakistani.
  • For many years, the FOSA address was the address of a Pakistani in the bay area.
  • FOSA collaborates with known, heavily funded missionary organizations who are active in USA/India.
  • For its public face, FOSA has relied on two south Indian Hindu women in their 30's who have been befriended by Pakistanis in the California area.

It is sad to say that that facts, properly supported by references, have been deleted from the FOSA article.

Please see the upper sections of this page to see related discussions.

--Cardreader 00:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Newstoday.net[edit]

In this truly ridiculous article -not linked directly since I have no desire to increase this website's PageRank - http://www.newstodaynet .com/2007sud/mar07/230307.htm, which I have removed as a link, someone named Sunderam 'reviews' an article which purports to analyse NGOs. Theprecise words are "'For Indians who are aware of the Anti-Hindu agenda of Christian, Islamic and Communist organisations in India and abroad, it is neither shocking nor surprising that numerous NGOs have sprung up through out the country, who act as sole agents for these alien and hostile organisations." Right. The reviewer then decides these NGOs include "FOIL, ASHA, AID, ADP, ASATA, FOSA, CSE, SACA and PBN", which does read like a list of every NGO with an Indian connection. We are told: "George Thundiparambil asked the right question in this context: 'Is it only greed or an evil mindset cast by India's enemies?'" and reminded that it is all because of "the supreme hegemony of the anti-Hindu Congress Party". Another quote:"Let us hear the clinching words of George Thundipurambil in this context: 'Here, greed is the perk, where Christian and Islamic organizations combined with their Marxist cronies lead the traitors by their noses'." Some of the author's motivation might emerge from the line:"A very typical aspect of Abrahamic religionist behaviour (which Stalin imbibed from Lenin and Nehru copied from Stalin) is that awards and funding go only to the Hindu- bashers." Note the identification of India's first Prime Minister with Stalin. He winds up with "For more than thousand years, Indian paganism has been at the receiving end of preying monotheisms. What have they taught us pagans excepting their gigantic fraud, deception and villainy?" You know, if this paper is a WP:RS, I fear for that guideline. Hornplease 06:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, newstoday is a reliable source, just not as reliable as say The Pioneer, Dainik Jagran, or Hindustan Times. Its obviously not an advocacy group like FOSA, FOIL, Sabrang, etc. At least newstoday does not fall under WP:URS.Bakaman 21:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about that. See "Questionable sources" in that guideline. Hornplease 21:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well unless you can prove they are an advocacy group or questionable in any way, they meet WP:RS. Wikipedia doesn't operate under a "guilty until proven innocent" atmosphere as a friend of yours can now attest to.Bakaman 00:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you behave in a more collegial manner, as you have been repeatedly instructed and advised, and stop referring to everyone else on the project as 'my friend', I will be forced to report you for beating with a big stick.
Do you seriously think that the publisher of an article with the above claims meets WP:RS? In any case, it admits to being an 'evening newspaper'. These are usually tabloids in the sense of style; consider Mid-Day in Bombay. I see no reference to an editorial board. This is unsurprising, since no real newspaper would publish this sort of dreck. I am surprised you'd waste your time defending it. Hornplease 05:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is now patently obvious to me that you will stop at nothing to defame, attack, and threaten myself and my religion. However, I found it mildly funny that you used the lingo "forced to", when you clearly have begged for this out of your own free will.00:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
There is nothing online to suggest the wording "evening newspaper" has anything to do with tabloids. Some "Evening newspapers" may be tabloids, some "morning papers" may be tabloids. It is irrelevant. Innocent until proven guilty.Bakaman 00:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is incorrect. Sources have to demonstrate reliability. In this case, I do not believe that they do. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. This is an exceptional claim, and a particularly dodgy source. Hornplease 00:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
News Today has only been referenced 64 [2] times on WP which would imply that it is considered WP:RS regardless of your thoughts on that matter Kkm5848 10:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ACtually, when I have time, I have every intention of going through each of those references and checking them. It seems highly suspicious that a tabloid without editorial control is being used as a source so often. WP:RS is quite clear.Hornplease 19:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and of course, I have n othing against whatever religion you profess or, indeed, against you. I do wish you would cease assuming that I have, since that is a violation of a core WP policy, and there is almost certainly a limit to how many times people will look the other way when you violate policy.Hornplease 06:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
pot, kettle, black. You know the drill.Bakaman 22:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

here's one measure of how News Today compares with other news sources (5 Tamil or bi-lingual, last three are English dailies with a more or less national reach)

news source web pages linking to, per google
News Today 57[53]
Ananda Vikatan 103[54]
Daily Thanthi 100[55]
Dinamani 959[56]
Kumudam 118[57]
Thinaboomi 103[58]
The Hindu 72,400[59]
Indian Express 4,490[60]
Deccan Herald 2,930[61]

Doldrums 12:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

your point being? Kkm5848 08:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
  1. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference stanford-bhutto was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Linksearch&limit=50&offset=50&target=%2A.newstodaynet.com&namespace=
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Friends_of_South_Asia/Archive_1&oldid=1136742743"