Talk:Popular Front of India/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Need to change the heading

Popular Front of India is the only voluntary Indian Muslim organisation with extensive network for upliftment of the community. They have the slogan “Naya Caravan, Naya Hindustan”. Their vision is to make a new India of equal rights for all Indian citizens. The word militant is not suitable here. It is an objectionable statement. Phusam (talk) 19:37, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

"Militant" seems to be how the organization is described in the several independent reliable sources cited. MPS1992 (talk) 19:45, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 January 2020

Change

The Popular Front of India (PFI) is an extremist and militant Islamic fundamentalist organisation in India

to

Popular Front of India is a move towards co-ordination and management of such efforts for the achievement of socio-economic, cultural and political empowerment of the deprived and the downtrodden and the nation at large. It will try to establish an egalitarian society in which freedom, justice and security are enjoyed by all.

based on

http://www.popularfrontindia.org/?q=content/about-us

Opinion PFI never mentioned Islamic word even once in their about us page. Political elements are trying to frame PFI as extremist organisation so they can ban the same because PFI is against them meanwhile many organization which is genuinely extremist are flourishing because they support govt. Ihassaifi (talk) 05:53, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Per 1.6 and 3.4 of WP:PERENNIAL.  Spintendo  12:25, 1 January 2020 (UTC)


 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. --Nemoschool (talk to me) 15:08, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

There are many false allegations against Popular Front of India in the Wikipedia page of Popular Front of India. So some edition needed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Md Arif Hussain (talk • contribs) 12:38, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Karnataka Forum for Dignity into Popular Front of India

This organisation was merged into Popular Front of India. ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 14:29, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:22, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 April 2020

Popular front of india is new social movement of india. They raise thier voice to the suppressed community. Ansar.Karkala (talk) 07:37, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:31, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 May 2020

Please remove this statement: 

The Front formed a broad-based alliance of different minority and civil rights leaders and groups against growing authoritarian and communal tendencies where steps taken included a national movement against UAPA, the Sikh-Muslim mission for communal harmony, the joint platform that has commemorated anti-Sikh riot of 1984 and Babri Masjid demolition of 1992.

Because, It's a POV statement. A look in the source of this will reveal that it's nothing more than a quote from a PFI report presented in its national general assembly. The source is also potentially unreliable.- BhaskaraPattelar (talk) 18:42, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done Aasim 06:00, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Karnataka Forum for Dignity & Manitha Neethi Pasarai be merged into this article.

Greetings,

However, the mentioned organizations have announced their merge with Popular Front of India I Strongly believe that Both Articles have their own importance in their respective areas and should be continued separately. We can find sustainable evidence in Local media (Kannada And Tamil) which can be used in improving the articles further.--Thoufiq313 (talk) 11:10, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Closing, given this uncontested objection and no support. Klbrain (talk) 06:33, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 October 2020

I would like to request to include the fact that this group is notoriously anti-hindu. I find ridiculous that this is not mentioned. I again question whether this is politically. there is an abundance of evidence for many of these militant Islamist groups being notoriously anti-Hindu and arguably much worse than anti-Semitic, yet you talk about anti-semitism. This continuous pattern of wikipedia editors is pathetic and disgusting and is borderline bigotry. Krao212 (talk) 22:48, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Being just a wee bit more civil might help your case; however, nothing is better than good, solid, independent, reliable, secondary, English language sources to make a claim ring true. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 23:22, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 October 2020

Remove this from lead section. The sources are not reliable and some of the websites as muslimmirror, twocircles, kohram are not neutral and the lines written are biased in favour of PFI. The lead is too large, this last two paragraphs should be removed. Everything about it can't be added. coastaldigest is not biased like muslimirror, twocircles, kohraam but not a reliable source at all.

The last paragraph "The organisation is also known for its anti-Imperialist and anti-Zionist stance, as seen in the pro-Palestine protests in various parts of the country"


In 2015, the Madras High Court issued a notice to the Commissioner of Police based on the PIL charging police for having given misleading information to HC on the 'unity march, a variant of the 'Freedom Parade'. The HC directed to register a case against the CoP and the SP, and ₹3.3mn as compensation for 'loss of image, reputation and defamation.' [54] The organisation provided counter arguments to the allegations positioned against it in its 2012 nationwide campaign "Why Popular Front."[55][56]


The organisation is also known for its anti-Imperialist and anti-Zionist stance, as seen in the pro-Palestine protests in various parts of the country in November 2012, and later in July 2014 with the nationwide solidarity campaigns christened "I am Gaza."[57][58][59][60][61] The organisation is also known to support pro-democratic movements. In 2015, the Popular Front protested against the death sentence given to a democratically elected leader, Mohamed Morsi and his followers. The protest was in front of the Egyptian embassy in New Delhi.[62] Хүрэн жүрж (talk) 09:22, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. If you have concerns that the sources cited are not reliable, then please present the reasoning for that concern here or at the Reliable Source Noticeboard. Simply claiming that text is not support because of sourcing concerns is not sufficient evidence of a consensus to change the challenged text. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:05, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 October 2020

there are many wrong details added in this article. The last editor who edited this content tried to make PFI looks like a terrorist organization SNThameemAnsari (talk) 17:10, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:27, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 November 2020

First- This edit mentions (removed unreliable citation).

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Popular_Front_of_India&diff=988956718&oldid=988956270

This link was removed https://www.hindustantimes.com/mumbai-news/fadnavis-raises-stink-over-bmc-nominating-pfi-for-covid-19-related-burials/story-tFw31gSl5xdbr8zGlykpFP.html

I read Wikipedia article that HindustanTimes was founded in 1924. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindustan_Times

So why it is unreliable?

I request rewind or change back the edit by that user.

Second- The user said the links were promotional. But they were not https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Popular_Front_of_India&diff=988956270&oldid=987642199

This is not promotional

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tehelka

This is also not promotional.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Indian_Express

There was no promotion as he was saying as Indian Express and archive link of Tehelka is not promotional. I hope I was able to explain what I wanted as edit request. Hindustantimes, Indian Express are newspapers and Tehelka is magazine. Wikipedians should check the edits. He was removing reliable references to show PFI as less bad outfit. The talk page edit request history shows that many people are trying to show PFI in positive way.


His both edits should be changed back. BlackMamba20202 (talk) 06:29, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:11, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 November 2020

Change "The Popular Front of India (PFI) is an extremist Islamic organisation in India" to "The Popular Front of India (PFI) is an extremist Islamist organisation in India"

The word Islamic should be changed to Islamist

Sources that mentions Islamist:

1- Title mentions Islamist- www.outlookindia.com/website/story/islamist-popular-front-of-india-involved-in-terror-acts-nia-submits-report-to-go/301575

2- Title mentions Islamist- theprint.in/india/governance/ed-claims-radical-islamist-group-pfi-pumped-in-money-to-finance-anti-caa-protests/354991/

3-Title mentions Islamist- www.indiatoday.in/india/story/nia-kerala-islamist-organisation-popular-frot-of-india-1053512-2017-09-27

4- "Jameel Ahmed (39), an activist belonging to the Popular Front of India (PFI), a controversial Islamist organisation, was quarantined in the" - https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/telangana/pfi-activist-on-the-run-arrested-in-karimnagar-and-quarantined/article31134846.ece

5- "The Enforcement Directorate has booked suspended Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) councillor Tahir Hussain, Islamist group PFI and some others on charges of money laundering and alleged funding of the recent riots in Delhi, officials said on Wednesday." - https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/delhi-riots-ed-books-tahir-hussain-pfi-for-money-laundering/articleshow/74571781.cms

I am requesting some other editor, other than EggIsHorn. BlackMamba20202 (talk) 05:10, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. There is nothing in Wikipedia Policy that requires me to not answer this edit request. The organization's status of Islamic versus Islamist is obviously subject to debate in WP:RS (e.g., the sources you present versus sources already present in the article. Please read the dispute resolution procedures and formulate a brief statement that clearly identifies what you think needs changing, what sources you think support your preferred version, and why those sources should be preferred over the conflicting sources. This should be a regular talk page discussion and not an edit request because edit requests are for non-controversial changes and requests to change text that has conflicting sources is obviously controversial. I hope that helps explain the rules about this type of request. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:21, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) consensus and talk page discussion will be that PFI is a very good organization and all lines about being extremist, fundamentalist, terrorism will be removed as you can see talk page history that mostly some editors who are most likely fans of PFI were requesting that the organization should be shown as neo- social organization. There will be 20% neutral editors and 80% biased editors who are PFI fans. If majority editors's views are supported in Wikipedia irrespective of sources, then PFI fans and PFI linked editors will be in majority. Why this article is protected? Why the first line says that a contributor is linked to the organisation. Is he only one linked editor.

This users talk page is full of warnings. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ZonMusicStar

He was inactive since 2015, made only four edits in 2018, and then suddenly comes here to edit a protected page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/ZonMusicStar&offset=20201114062535&target=ZonMusicStar — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlackMamba20202 (talk • contribs) 01:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 March 2022

Popular_Front_of_India#Shimoga_Violence Viswanath Shetty was murdered during PFI rally[1] and four men were arrested for his murder[2], but the second killing was not linked to PFI. Only Viswanath should be mentioned. Knight Skywalker (talk) 02:24, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Kautilya3 (talk) 02:46, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ P.m, Veerendra (February 21, 2015). "Bolt from the blue for this family" – via www.thehindu.com.
  2. ^ P.m, Veerendra (February 25, 2015). "Shivamogga: four held on charge of killing man" – via www.thehindu.com.

Mass deletion

Indielov, can you explain this mass deletion of content? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:48, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Removals from the top sections were merely corrections in tone (e.g., 'is a' vs 'claims to be'/'describes itself as'). The removal of certain paragraphs was because they were nothing more than propaganda. I believe they have no relevance on a page dedicated to a political organisation. E.g., look at the articles on the Bharatiya Janata Party or the Democratic Party. Indielov (talk) 11:17, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
The "certain paragraphs" were an entire section called "Social activities", which probably formed half the content of the page at that time. You claimed that it was "biased". "Biased" in what way?
And what make you think it is a "political" organisation? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:17, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
From the current version of the page:
'The Popular Front of India (PFI) is an extremist Islamic organisation in India formed as a successor to National Development Front (NDF) in 2006, and often have been accused for involvement in anti-national and anti-social activities by the Indian Government'
The state of the heading was somewhat the same earlier, too. Does it appear as anything other than propaganda that someone wrote a section on the 'social activities' of an 'extremist organisation involved accused of anti-social activities'? Indielov (talk) 09:55, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
It's okay if you remove if they are from non-RS sources. Check if it included any good source. Knight Skywalker (talk) 10:05, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Non-neutral and non-rs sources

As the organization is described as Islamist, Extremist Islamic by better sources Talk:Popular_Front_of_India#Sources_to_check_before_edit_requests so websites like Muslim mirror, milli gazette whose official website openly describes themselves as websites, news portals for Muslims are non-neutral sources.

And there are other non-RS sources as Biharprabha.com should be removed, and better sources should be used, as this organization is well covered by good sources and there is no need to use unknown websites like ummid.

https://web.archive.org/web/20140408232239/http://www.samachar.com/PFI-to-organise-campaign-against-UAPA-nfjmOceidgf.html

https://muslimmirror.com/eng/press-council-to-hear-pfis-complaints-against-10-dailies-on-16-july/

https://web.archive.org/web/20160118201939/http://www.newswala.com/India-National-News/National-campaign-for-Muslim-reservation-launched-in-Pune-1507.html

https://www.milligazette.com/news/6494-pfis-march-for-muslim-reservation/

https://web.archive.org/web/20150526004430/http://muslimmirror.com/eng/death-sentence-to-morsi-protest-march-in-front-of-egyptian-embassy-in-new-delhi/

https://news.webindia123.com/news/articles/India/20061210/532982.html

https://ummid.com/news/2010/February/02.02.2010/syed_shahabuddin_on_muslim_reservation.htm

All these links are used in this article.

Knight Skywalker (talk) 10:37, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Here, Kautilya3 confirmed that ummid.com and twocircles.net are not "high quality" sources. >>> Extorc.talk(); 11:14, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
I didn't mention siasatdaily as they are not very biased against other religion, or showing favour towards Islamist organizations like Muslimirror does, which wrote an opinion piece descrobing PFI as a think tank.. I am not able to find the link, where I once read Muslimirror article on twitter, describing ISIS as some NGO. The article is deleted and I don't have the URL to find from webacrchive. Knight Skywalker (talk) 11:32, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
I think you are talking about this >>> Extorc.talk(); 11:55, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
I linked thay above, I was talking about other pro-ISIS article, which they have removed. Knight Skywalker (talk) 13:01, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 March 2022

The organisation is also known for its anti-Imperialist and anti-Zionist stance, as seen in the pro-Palestine protests in various parts of the country in November 2012, and later in July 2014 with the nationwide solidarity campaigns christened "I am Gaza".[1][2][3][4][5] Among all the sources used to write only this source has a mention of imperialist and zionist slogans raised by PFI, but the other sources only mention the protest. There is no explanation how the organization is known for being anti-Imperialist and anti-Zionist stance due to protests against Israel. I found a better source than used for same content but the source is short not detailed. kohraam.com is certainly not a good source. The only reliable source used is Tehelka. And the webarchive Tehelka article mentions that the words imperialism and zionist were used by the Popular Front of India during slogans.

This The organisation is also known for its anti-Imperialist and anti-Zionist stance, as seen in the pro-Palestine protests in various parts of the country in November 2012, and later in July 2014 with the nationwide solidarity campaigns christened "I am Gaza" should be removed from the lead section and included in the political activities section. Using archived Tehelka source should be written as In 2012, the organization protested against Israel attacks on Gaza outside Israel embassy. Knight Skywalker (talk) 12:23, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, most of this does appear to be only supported by weak sources. >>> Extorc.talk(); 13:03, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
The sources you provided do mention anti-imperialist/anti-Zionist slogans so I'm adding those as well. >>> Extorc.talk(); 13:11, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Popular Front of India's new national exec council in place; resolves to change Muslim politics for better". twocircles.net. 31 December 2014.
  2. ^ "Civil rights groups stand in solidarity with Palestinians; protests all over India against Israeli attack on Gaza". twocircles.net. 14 July 2014.
  3. ^ "Udupi: PFI stages protest against Israel attack on Gaza". daijiworld.com.
  4. ^ "Protests outside Israeli Embassy in Delhi over airstrikes in Gaza Strip". kohraam.com. 13 July 2014.
  5. ^ "Tehelka - India's Independent Weekly News Magazine". tehelka.com.
Third paryy neutral source should say they are anti-imperialist anti-zionist, but the Tehelka articles says, they made those slogans themselves. Knight Skywalker (talk) 13:15, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Slogans against USA and Israel? IG that would be fine? >>> Extorc.talk(); 13:17, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 Done, Thanks >>> Extorc.talk(); 13:28, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 March 2022 (2)

Neutralhappy, Vif12vf, Kautilya3, Pachu Kannan, Khchn, Extorc, has just removed this. We are trying to get the PFI, SDPI and Campus Front of India (CFI) banned in India, so I request you to restore it, so that the Government officials can be made to read their activities all at one place. Please do so. Thanks!-116.72.148.111 (talk) 12:49, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. It was not removed, it was moved from the lead. Edit requests are not requests to edit war. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:25, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Why does the Leadership section even exist

The Leadership section of this article doesnt make any sense to me. You have added secretaries and members of councils to this as well. If an organization has 20 members in its leadership council, will all of those be listed here? I have added the Chairman and the Vice Chairman of the organization (not verified, just added from the leadership section) to the infobox and all others should be removed from this article IMO. >>> Extorc.talk(); 09:53, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I am not extended confirmed user. Here Tamjeed Ahmed thinks it's an NGO. Knight Skywalker (talk) 10:09, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Even if it was an NGO, this isn't relevant, only the top leadership like chairman and vice should be mentioned here. >>> Extorc.talk(); 10:12, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Too much detail should be removed. Topmost leaders should be mentioned, small leaders can be mentioned if they got special media coverage and did something important for the organisation positively or negatively. Knight Skywalker (talk) 10:18, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, awaiting more opinion by others. >>> Extorc.talk(); 10:26, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Considering no one has presented any counter arguments, im removing the section. >>> Extorc.talk(); 19:47, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Nuke

Somebody stub this article and start afresh with proper regard to WP:NOTNEWS and WP:LABEL. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:47, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:LABEL Value-laden labels – such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist or sexist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion – may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, See Talk:Popular_Front_of_India#List_of_neutral_independent_sources. Yes, some parts should be shortened. --Knight Skywalker (talk) 08:26, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 March 2022

Popular_Front_of_India#Shimoga_Violence

For a long time, wrong info is written and no one is checking or correcting it. My last request was also ignored.

Change- Karnataka's Shimoga faced violence during rallies held by PFI, which resulted in the death of two persons. PFI activists were arrested for the murder of Vishwanath Shetty. Later it was proved that the second killing was related to PFI.

to- In 2015, PFI held a rally in Shimoga. Locals alleged that people from rally threw stones at vehicles[1] which led to communal clash.[2] Three persons riding a bike were stabbed allegedly by PFI activists, among whom Vishwanath Shetty succumbed to his injuries[3].

If anyone checks the web, the second killing was not linked to PFI. Knight Skywalker (talk) 09:35, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Your last request received apt response. >>> Extorc.talk(); 10:02, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
I didn't post the exact lines. And do you have source that second killing was found to be linked to PFI? Only Vishwanath Shetty was confirmed, second was found to be unrelated to PFI rally. Knight Skywalker (talk) 10:06, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

There are better sources than coastaldigest. I am not able to find it now. Manjunath murder was not due to PFI rally.

Check this, somebody did original research, and after the page got protected, I couldn't edit it. None of the sources confirmed PFI killed Manjunath, but still, nobody was checking. manjunath was murdered by his sister- https://www.daijiworld.com/news/newsDisplay?newsID=309560 http://www.coastaldigest.com/shivamogga-shocker-they-murdered-manjunath-and-put-blame-pfi?page=9 Knight Skywalker (talk) 10:09, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

No need to add non R/S when we have another R/S >>> Extorc.talk(); 10:16, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
This is the RS- https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/andhra-pradesh/manjunath-murder-case-solved/article7069379.ece Knight Skywalker (talk) 10:18, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
Added. Thanks >>> Extorc.talk(); 10:24, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 Done, Thanks for pointing out the WP:OR. >>> Extorc.talk(); 10:20, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
It would be better to use The Hindu source instead of Daijiworld. Remove the Daijiworld source. Knight Skywalker (talk) 10:25, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
  1. ^ "Prohibitory orders imposed in Shimoga after communal clash". February 21, 2015.
  2. ^ "Communal clash in Shivamogga: 56 held, more arrests likely". Deccan Herald. February 21, 2015.
  3. ^ "BJP vowed 'justice for Hindutva worker murders' in Karnataka. 3 yrs on, here's where cases stand". March 3, 2022.

Is this R/S?

The Muslim reservation section cites this source which doesn't appear to be WP:RS. This is the only source added and the website doesn't function properly so I think we can say it is dead as well. Kindly advice whether this should be removed. >>> Extorc.talk(); 11:39, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

The connection doesn't have secure padlock. Their twitter account is not verified and has very less followers. https://twitter.com/coastaldigest Not very reliable for controversial edits. --Knight Skywalker (talk) 04:16, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Failed Verification in Lead

I had placed some sources before the [failed verification] tag in the lead. Could someone comment on whether those are enough to remove the tag. @Venkat TL >>> Extorc.talk(); 19:42, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

@Extorc, Removed as WP:SYNTH violation. Venkat TL (talk) 19:46, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Notice of neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saifullah.vguj (talk • contribs) 15:21, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

PFI's own definition of its organization in its lead.

Currently the lead says The PFI describe themselves as a neo-social movement committed to empower people to ensure justice, freedom and security. I wanted to understand to why should an extremist organization's own voice be permitted to be added to the article, especially in the lead. >>> Extorc.talk 10:51, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

How are WP:HISTRS describing it? We should be using the definition in mainstream HISTRS. the quoted line above is attributed, so it can be included in the article somewhere. Venkat TL (talk) 14:13, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Lead rewriting tag still required

I have made alot of improvements in this article, especially the lead since the version on 3 March 2022. Is the lead section of this article may need to be rewritten tag still required? >>> Extorc.talk 10:46, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Pinging @Venkat TL. >>> Extorc.talk 12:09, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the improvements. Please allow me some time to review and respond back. Venkat TL (talk) 12:11, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Sure, Thanks. >>> Extorc.talk 12:34, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Not just the lead, the whole page has to be rewritten. It is all based on news reports and falls into WP:NOTNEWS category. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:14, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

planned conspiracy to defame the organization

media attack is not just a coincidence but a part of a larger conspiracy to target Popular Front of India.

a list of “recent defamatory news against Popular Front”: • Atanki Sangatan PFI par Pratibandh: Terrorist Organisation PFI Banned – Dainik Jagran • UP cops yet to solve Varanasi case: PC – Hindistan Times • PFI national HQ shifted to Delhi – The Asian Age • Khufia report ka khulasa, PFI ke SIMI se Rishte: Intelligence report reveals PFI has SIMI connection – IBN 7 • PFI meet: Intel gropes in dark – Deccan Chronicle • PFI training cadre for questioning – Times Now • Blast, 3 Sangathano par Khufia Nazar: Blast: Three organizations under agencies observation – Nav Bharath Times • Sandheh ke gere mein PFI – Attack on a diplomat PFI under suspicion – Dainik Jagran • Delhi Car Blast: Clues Point to PFI – The New Indian Express & CNN – IBN • PFI under scanner of investigating agencies – The Inquilab • IB report says extremist PFI has shifted base to Delhi – The Sunday Guardian • SIMI body wakes Muslims up to woes of vote politics & SIMI- backed party alarms NIA- Sunday Pioneer PFI has issued the legal notice to Dainik Jagran Hindi Daily, Hindustan Times English Daily, The Asian Age English Daily, IBN-7 Hindi News Channel, Deccan Chronicle English Daily, Times Now English TV Channel, Nav Bharat Times Hindi Daily, The Inquilab Urdu Daily, The New Indian Express English Daily, The Sunday Guardian English Weekly and CNN-IBN English TV Channel. He said media attack against PFI is a planned conspiracy to defame the organization. “To call Popular Front of India which is one of the biggest neo-social movements in India a banned organization is not just a mistake or error but a planned conspiracy to defame the organization and an attempt to impede its influence and growth. It needs to be noted that Popular Front of India has a larger presence in south India but since last few years it is making huge leaps in many states of north India,” said Mr. Shareef. The PFI will take next step in the light of the response it receives from the media houses. “We proceed further with filing cases in court and taking the matter to Press Council of India in the light of the response of the above channels and newspapers to our legal notice,” Mr. Shareef said.


http://twocircles.net/2012apr21/pfi_sends_legal_notice_media_houses_over_baseless_allegations.html Fact checker313 (talk) 05:44, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Baseless Allegations on PFI

When the horrific incident happed in Hathras distice of UP state that the fore upper caste (the vote bank of bjp) has gang raped and murdered the dalit The Uttar Pradesh police have arrested four people and charge UAPA including a journalist when they were on their way to Hathras district, where the gangrape and brutal assault of a Dalit woman has sparked nationwide outrage. Responding to the UP police’s attempt to link Popular Front of India (PFI) to the case by alleging a conspiracy to incite caste violence, PFI has discarded the allegation as being “completely baseless and ridiculous” and an “attempt by the Uttar Pradesh government to divert the attention away from its failure to handle the Hathras rape case.”



https://thecognate.com/baseless-allegations-sensational-news-devoid-of-facts-pfi-over-up-polices-claims-of-conspiracy-to-defame-govt/ Fact checker313 (talk) 05:39, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

@Fact checker313 What are you trying to say? Venkat TL (talk) 17:46, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

PFI mostly defamed by the media and RSS IT cell

PFI is mostly defamed by the media and the RSS and BJP IT cell as it is founded and run by Muslims . As the origination had founded by the constitution of India. The origination mostly talked about the empowerment of minority's in the political representation in Indian politics as the minority's population about 30% out of 100 and the political representation is 3 to 4% . Fact checker313 (talk) 05:25, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

@Fact checker313 How "the origination had founded by the constitution of India"? Do you have any evidence to support this claim? Please provide reference. Venkat TL (talk) 17:47, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Sources to check before edit requests

Some editors will try to show PFI in positive way. As the article is protected, they will come in talk page. This list of sources that I collected for NPOV noticeboard is kept here for further discussion and references. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by AntonyGonzalveZ (talk • contribs)

List of neutral independent sources

source 1- In a pluralistic part of India, fears of rising Islamic extremism  Done

source 2- - Kerala-based Islamist organisation PFI's Gulf link exposed; NIA claims it collected funds from expatriates

source 3- Kerala Asks Centre To Ban Islamist Outfit Popular Front Of India

source 4- NIA chargesheet lists radical outfit Popular Front of India's crimes: Why hasn't it been banned?

source 5- Explained: Why Does Govt Want Popular Front of India (PFI) Banned?

source 6- Bengaluru: NIA accuses PFI,SDPI of terrorism in murder of RSS worker

source 7- Ban Kerala’s PFI for ‘role in acts of terror’: NIA tells home ministry

source 8- It was on July 4, 2010 that Joseph, then a professor at Newman College, Thodupuzha, was attacked by a group of Popular Front of India (PFI) activists, who chopped off his right palm for preparing a question paper for the degree examination, that claimed to have defamed Prophet Mohammed. - Professor Joseph to relive trauma of ‘terror’ by PFI in memoir

source 9- Jharkhand: Six months after HC struck it down, state govt bans PFI again

source 10- PFI: Let Centre ban PFI, other communal forums: Khader | Mangaluru News - Times of India

source 11- PFI trying to make Kerala a ‘Muslim country’, says VS - Indian Express

source 12- pfi: Radical Muslim outfit faces ban | India News - Times of India

source 13- Kerala police to seek legal opinion on invoking anti-terror law in student killing

Source 14- PFI’s expansion in Assam alarms police authorities

source 15- All You Need To Know About Islamist Outfit ‘Popular Front Of India’ That Is Facing A Ban

source 16- Islamist Popular Front Of India ‘Involved In Terror Acts’, NIA Submits Report To Govt Recommending Ban

source 17- Kerala Left’s love for Islamist PFI has deep roots

source 18- T.J. Joseph: the professor who gave his hand (The question paper set off a series of agitations. Fundamentalist Islamic outfits like the Popular Front of India (PFI) and moderate parties like the Indian Union Muslim League held protest demonstrations against Joseph and his college,)

Following are criminal activities, unlike above links which describe the organization.

source 19- Justice S Abdul Nazeer, family get 'Z' category security cover in view of threat from PFI post-Ayodhya verdict  Done

source 20- PFI's arm SDPI training people to kill: Kerala CM

source 21- https://www.outlookindia.com/newsscroll/ed-registers-money-laundering-case-against-pfi/1304051/?next

source 22- PFI man, 4 others held in connection with PMK man Ramalingam’s murder in TN  Done

source 23- The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a plea by the Bengaluru president of Islamist organisation, Popular Front of India against initiation of trial for his alleged involvement into murder of an RSS activist, Rudresh in the city on October 16, 2016.

Read more at: SC dismisses PFI member's plea in RSS worker's murder

source 24- 6 PFI activists join Islamic State, claims Kerala Police Done

source 25- “We have been sending periodic reports to the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) seeking a ban on these outfits. The reports are based on their day-to-day functioning, their role in inciting communal tensions, their active participation in sensitive issues, among other things,” explained an Intelligence Bureau official. - Extremism to the fore

source 26- The communist government of Kerala has, however, recognized a threat in the activities and growth of PFI. V.S. Achuthanandan, the state’s Chief Minister and a Politburo member of the Communist Party of India-Marxist (CPI-M), at a press conference in New Delhi on July 24, 2010, declared that the PFI and its allies were plotting to make Kerala a "Muslim-dominated" state within 20 years: "For achieving that goal, the outfit is pumping money to attract youth and giving them weapons… Youngsters are being given money and lured to convert to marry Muslim women..." In God's Own Country — Preceding unsigned comment added by AntonyGonzalveZ (talk • contribs)

@Extorc:, AntonyGonzalveZ please sign. @AntonyGonzalveZ, Wikipedia editors should not be editorializing articles in positive or negative way. Most of the above sources are insufficient as they fail WP:HISTRS. WP:TOI, and New Indian Express are not even reliable sources. India Today similarly should only be used rarely for political articles due to its pro government bias. I would suggest looking at journals and books to see how PFI is covered in HISTRS. If there is no conviction in cases, then they also run foul of WP:BLPCRIME and WP:NCRIME. Unnecessary mention should be avoided. Please prune them if you have added undertrial non notable cases. If there are pages for notable crime, you can add a line here to link them. If there are no article for the incident as it is not a notable event, it should not be added here.
@Venkat TL:, The sources weren't originally added by me, all I have here is adding  Done tags in front of those I have added into the page. Ill be more careful about the WP:HISTRS. WP:TOI, WP:BLPCRIME and WP:NCRIME from now on. tq >>> Extorc.talk 14:13, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Although I am not sure why does WP:HISTRS applies here, this is not a History related article, is it? >>> Extorc.talk 14:15, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Political history. Indian post independence history. Please sign your Original post above. Venkat TL (talk) 14:19, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The post wasn't made by me. It was made here by @AntonyGonzalveZ >>> Extorc.talk 14:42, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, since you were working on marking the list, I just assumed it was your OP. Please disregard my comments above, they were in response to AntonyGonzalveZ and not to Extorc. Venkat TL (talk) 16:59, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
No issues. Thanks. >>> Extorc.talk 17:54, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
I have made some major redactions as they were violations of MOS:LEAD and WP:SUSPECT. Also removed a few WP:TOI. Venkat TL (talk) 17:48, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 September 2022

Please add that the NIA and ED raided many PFI offices all over India, using this as a source. 2401:4900:2183:7DF3:2400:E50D:EC78:D91C (talk) 10:01, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

A sentence can be added thus: "A clamour to ban the PFI has grown louder amid nationwide NIA, ED raids."[1]
DogeChungus, can you do the needful? I am requesting you as you added something similar.-2401:4900:376A:5C5C:F1C9:E25A:C286:2256 (talk) 13:51, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. Venkat TL (talk) 15:13, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Venkat TL, you have removed a lot of sentences which were added with reliable sources, including the sentences in the lead. Don't you think they should be in the body somewhere, if not in the lead? DogeChungus had added a sentence with a reliable source and if it doesn't belong in the lead, you should put it in the body somewhere. It looks like you are trying to make this article one sided (that the PFI is a good organization)-2401:4900:3300:34B9:4751:E2C1:B71:7310 (talk) 17:25, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
IP User, Are you trying to make it so that PFI is a bad organization? Your requests makes it so. Read the threads above. Venkat TL (talk) 17:32, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Venkat TL, You changed the first sentence from "Islamist extremist organisation" which is what the sources say to "Islamic non-profit organization". You have also removed many sentences which showed the PFI in poor light. Are you trying to defend the PFI?-2401:4900:3300:34B9:4751:E2C1:B71:7310 (talk) 17:40, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
IP User, I have only added the same type, that was mentioned in the infobox. Whatever the infobox says, the WP:LEAD must also say the same. Before you respond here. I would urge you to read WP:LEAD and WP:SUSPECT to understand why I am making these edits. Venkat TL (talk) 17:43, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
You can change the unsourced matter in the infobox and keep the sentence in the lead, that it is an, "Islamist extremist organisation" (as per the source used).-2401:4900:3300:34B9:4751:E2C1:B71:7310 (talk) 17:48, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
.....or are you biased in favour of the PFI?-2401:4900:3300:34B9:4751:E2C1:B71:7310 (talk) 17:49, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
@IP User. Look Washington Post is a reliable source. The quote is there for you to read, if you cannot see the article. The source nowhere says that it is extremist organisation. Please provide source. If you have not read and understood what MOS:LEAD and WP:SUSPECT policy means, you will keep making wild speculations. Please read and follow the Wikipedia policies. Venkat TL (talk) 17:51, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
The WaPo says, "Authorities say they fear that the group has become an example of how extremism can creep into a society, even one in which the vast majority of Muslims are not conservative. ... "They are trying to radicalize the Muslim community, but many Muslims have a good life here and their problems are not the same as those in Gaza or Afghanistan," said P. Vijayan, the Kerala police commissioner." which doesn't say that it is an, "Islamic non-profit organization".-2401:4900:3300:34B9:4751:E2C1:B71:7310 (talk) 17:58, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Correct. And it does not say that is an Islamic extremist organization either. Venkat TL (talk) 17:59, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
The second source (The New Indian Express) says, "Kerala Police unmasks PFI's terror face".-2401:4900:3300:34B9:4751:E2C1:B71:7310 (talk) 18:03, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
You can also make it Islamic terrorist organisation[2][3] (using these new sources).-2401:4900:3300:34B9:4751:E2C1:B71:7310 (talk) 18:10, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Clamour to ban PFI grows louder amid nationwide NIA, ED raids". Hindustan Times. 22 September 2022. Retrieved 22 September 2022.
  2. ^ Desk, Explained (22 September 2022). "Who are the PFI, and why are premises linked to them being searched by the NIA?". The Indian Express. Retrieved 22 September 2022.
  3. ^ "Multiple raids on PFI in 'anti-terror' crackdown". Hindustan Times. 22 September 2022. Retrieved 22 September 2022.
So ? that is not enough to say what you want to write there. See. The infobox said Non profit. And their https://www.instagram.com/pfiofficial/?hl=en official page is also categorized as the same. I have added it. Controversial claims and allegations are discussed in the criticism section. IF every WP:HISTRS source discussing PFI called it "Islamist extremist" like they do for ISIS and Taliban, then we can write that. Till then we would need to wait for the WP:HISTRS and WP:PSTS sources to say so first. Please let me know if you want me to explain more. Venkat TL (talk) 18:11, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
IP user, in your link the only single mention of extremist is in the line "Although the PFI has not been proscribed by the Government of India, the BJP has often tried to paint the group as being extremist on account of its pro-Muslim stance." I hope you can understand that this is not enough to tag an organization as such. Please search PFI on JSTOR and other reputed journals. They will have more weight and then we can update the type based on whatever the WP:HISTRS are saying. Links with allegations are not enough. Venkat TL (talk) 18:14, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Did you read all the 3 sources I mentioned (and visible below)? I found 15 references on JSTOR here - you can probably use some of them (unless you are biased).-2401:4900:3300:34B9:4751:E2C1:B71:7310 (talk) 18:34, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
No I did not check the new links. Let me check. Please post new links at the bottom. Do not edit old comments. Please add new links in a new comment at the bottom, or else it may not be seen.Venkat TL (talk) 18:37, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
If you say biased once again, I will stop responding. See and follow WP:AGF. Your JSTOR search result linked to this source Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies. “WEST ASIA.” Charting Global Transitions. Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies, 2015. http://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep09385.6. that says it is islamist org.
Another source calls PFI as a "frontier Islamist organisations" ARAFATH, P K YASSER. “The Nadapuram Enigma: A History of Violence and Communalism in North Malabar (1957—2015).” Economic and Political Weekly 51, no. 15 (2016): 47–55. http://www.jstor.org/stable/44002688.
forces of political Islam - DENNIS, SUBIN. “Kerala Elections: Nothing Mysterious.” Economic and Political Weekly 46, no. 25 (2011): 127–28. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23018677.
Islamic group KEATING, JOSHUA E. “IN BOX: THE STORIES YOU MISSED IN 2010.” Foreign Policy, no. 183 (2010): 10–20. http://www.jstor.org/stable/29764932.
Others dont qualify the org as anything. Venkat TL (talk) 18:45, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I just included The Indian Express link into the article along with the quote. Please check my edit here. Special:Diff/1111751463. Again, this is just allegation, so it can only be added in the criticism section. Hope my edit helps you. Venkat TL (talk) 18:35, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Venkat TL, A sentence can be added thus in that section: "A clamour to ban the PFI has grown louder amid nationwide NIA, ED raids."[1]-2401:4900:2773:95AA:45DC:90A1:BCBE:ED2 (talk) 18:57, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Clamour to ban PFI grows louder amid nationwide NIA, ED raids". Hindustan Times. 22 September 2022. Retrieved 22 September 2022.
Please reply with the exact phrase you want to be included (in the criticism section?) Venkat TL (talk) 19:03, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Venkat TL, the reference which was supposed to be here has gone to the bottom of the next section - please correct it.-2401:4900:2773:95AA:45DC:90A1:BCBE:ED2 (talk) 19:10, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Done, you can add {{reflist talk}} if you post reference on talk page. what is the line you are suggesting to add? Venkat TL (talk) 19:12, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
I thought that in that section, a sentence: "A clamour to ban the PFI has grown louder amid nationwide NIA, ED raids."[1] would be good to add but if you can check out the reference I cited, you may be able to format the sentence in a better way -2401:4900:2773:95AA:45DC:90A1:BCBE:ED2 (talk) 19:16, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Clamour to ban PFI grows louder amid nationwide NIA, ED raids". Hindustan Times. 22 September 2022. Retrieved 22 September 2022.
Actually I am not convinced if we should add this line or a rephrase of this line, because it is only allegations. I have already covered this in the phrase that I added here, Special:Diff/1111751463 . Yes it is true, that BJP had always wanted PFI to be banned. But the Union GOI has not yet banned it even though the Union GOI is BJP led, means there aren't enough evidence to ban PFI. And if challenged the ban will be removed by the courts due to lack of evidence, hence no ban yet. If these raids covered in the article you linked are of any substance, and they are able to prove in court then may be GOI can ban. Venkat TL (talk) 19:29, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 September 2022 (2)

In the, "Criticisms and accusations" section, please change, "The various allegations against PFI have been made" to, "Various allegations against the PFI have been made.".- 2401:4900:2773:95AA:45DC:90A1:BCBE:ED2 (talk) 19:01, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done Thank you. Venkat TL (talk) 19:04, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Please change, "Various allegations against the PFI have been made however,....." to, "Various allegations against the PFI have been made, however,....." in that section.-2405:204:5782:1B8E:0:0:178:F0AD (talk) 19:40, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 Done "Various allegations have been made against PFI, however .." I think "the PFI" is not correct. Venkat TL (talk) 19:57, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 September 2022

To the second last paragraph of the lead, please add this:- The Social Democratic Party of India, popularly known as "SDPI" is regarded as the political wing of the Islamic organization Popular Front of India (PFI).[1][2][3][4][5]

I copied it from the SDPI article. 2401:4900:376F:28C:C9D3:4D55:13BD:3527 (talk) 10:01, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 Not done for now: IP user have you read these sources you linked? Can you provide quote from these sources that support the proposed line? Venkat TL (talk) 10:52, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
  1. ^ "Six members of radical Islamist organisation arrested in Bengaluru". Live Mint. 17 January 2020.
  2. ^ "Kerala School Forced to Drop 'Vande Mataram' from Independence Day Eve Fete". NDTV.
  3. ^ "Islamic fundamentalists rears its head in Kerala".
  4. ^ Dennis, Subin (2011). "Kerala Elections: Nothing Mysterious". Economic and Political Weekly. 46 (25): 127–128. JSTOR 23018677.
  5. ^ "Kerala Police unmasks PFI's terror face". The New Indian Express.

BLPCRIME

Copying below WP:BLPCRIME for everybody to see:

A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction. For individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. If different judicial proceedings result in seemingly contradictory outcomes that do not overrule each other, include sufficient explanatory information.

First of all, the policy applies to living persons, not organisations.

Secondly, public figures, who include the senior officials of the organisations, are not covered by this policy.

Thirdly, editors must "seriously consider", not blanket-reject, material about committing of crimes. Even when we include the material, we should "seriously consider" omitting names of the alleged perpetrators. But the occurrence of the crime itself is not omitted unless there is serious doubt about it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:53, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

WP:SUSPECT
===People accused of crime===
See also: Wikipedia:Notability (events) § Criminal acts, and Wikipedia:Notability (people) § Crime victims and perpetrators

A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction. For individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured.

bolded by me. Notice how that line does not say only on Biographies but says in any article. Venkat TL (talk) 15:29, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

'Islamic non-profit organisation'?

The PFI has been described as a 'terrorist' organisation by Indian security apparata, and an extremist, Islamist fundamentalist one by various parties across the political spectrum. Calling it a 'non-profit' organisation makes one wonder if there is a WP:COI. Indielov (talk) 05:02, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

How did the lead characterize the organisation before the changes were made to it to esteem it as a "non-profit" Islamic organization, a characterization that does not in fact correctly characterize it in view of how it is actually putated by reliable sources, and honestly savours of whitewashing. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 07:39, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Earlier, it used to say something along the lines of 'the PFI is an Indian fundamentalist organisation...' Someone changed it to this and then locked the page for extended-confirmed users. Indielov (talk) 09:08, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
The lead characterised it as an "extremist Islamic" organisation before the changes. The description was cited to three sources, two of which ([1], [2]) do not use the term "extremist" to describe the organisation. These sources are reporting on police investigations and to extrapolate such a conclusion from that is a violation of WP:V and constitutes original research, the two sources are also not unambiguous RS. The third source is an old Washington Post article which does mention the term and attributes it to "authorities", otherwise leaving it somewhat vague.
During the changes another source was added, a recent Indian Express article which covers the topic in much more depth and states that "Although the PFI has not been proscribed by the Government of India, the BJP has often tried to paint the group as being extremist on account of its pro-Muslim stance." The article at present clearly represents the allegations in a dedicated section called "Criticism and accusations" (note though, this is discouraged per WP:CSECTION) instead of representing it as a fact as it did previously. The changes appear to have been an improvement of what was previously a POV ridden article that misrepresented sources.
I see no basis for your claim of "whitewashing", if you think there are conduct issues take it to ANI. Otherwise you need to stick to discussing content and not throw allegations without evidence. Tayi Arajakate Talk 09:16, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
It is surely not on us to characterize this organisation as extremist unless its proponent can adequately establish that such a characterization is in vogue in reliable scholarly sources (as against news sources) and ensure compliance with the relevant MOS guideline. So this is something to discount at the outset itself. However, to endorse the current characterisation also tantamounts to lending credence to the group's POV in Wikipedia's words and that won't wash either, particularly when it has not found such a disengenous label in reliable sources. At present, two references are cited in the article to undergird the label; and while I could not find anything concerning the subject whatsoever on the pages cited for it in the first source at first blush, the second source is just the group's Instagram handle and that's simply ridiculous to put it mildly. This now takes me to the diction proffered by Indielov above and I feel it's the most closest to embodying the wording used by reliable sources.[3][4][5][6] MBlaze Lightning (talk) 11:12, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
I have added some more sources to support the non profit type.
Venkat TL (talk) 11:58, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
The subject matter has recieved enough scholarly coverage for us to discount such news and primary sources that do not provide an intellectually independent description of the organisation to suffice our purpose. And in view of the wording they use, to circumscribe our characterization of the subject to just a "non-profit" org is a gross non-observance of WP:NPOV. Please read the sources above and appreciate concerns that have been raised because these Instagram handles and bunch of news reports do nothing to address them. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 12:44, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
What are you asking me to do? What is your proposal? There are 4 links above and all you see is Instagram. Please check the other three also that I put before the fourth one. Venkat TL (talk) 12:50, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
There are better sources for supporting "Islamic fundamentalist" as per the scholarly sources provided above. You must keep it as "Islamic organisation" until the consensus has been reached for either "Islamic nonprofit organization" or "Islamic fundamentalist". >>> Extorc.talk 13:35, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
There's only one source that uses the specific term "fundamentalist" and it's not a scholarly source so that's a no go. Non-profit is just its form of registration, I'd suggest including it later in the lead instead of the first sentence. Tayi Arajakate Talk 14:40, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
You do bring up a good point that we should not be using the group's own description and secondary scholarly sources would have more weight than news sources. The instagram account is irrelevant and can be discarded, however news sources can of course be used alongside scholarly sources
That said the sources you have brought are not very useful, all of them mention the organisation in passing dedicating at best one sentence to it. For instance the first is about India-Saudi Arabia relations and the second one is about Gandhi and RSS's relation. The fourth link doesn't appear to even be a scholarly source and the third one is a tertiary source, that doesn't describe the organisation itself as anything. The presence of sparse mentions like this doesn't necessarily mean they will supersede high quality newspapers that have covered this subject in depth, the The Indian Express article is still one of the strongest source among these.
So I tried looking for other secondary scholarly sources and from what I can see there's the following two which are more specific to topics related to the subject, i.e Kerala politics. But even these sources mention PFI in passing, referring to them as "Islamist" and "force of political Islam" respectively.
Then there is the following source which appears to be the only one that has studied PFI in depth.
  • Emmerich, Arndt-Walter (2019). Islamic Movements in India: Moderation and its Discontents. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-000-70672-7.
I haven't covered all of it, most of the book is about PFI but I spent some time skimming through it. The book seems to even veer away from describing it as an Islamist group making a point to distinguish it from other Islamist groups. The primary description seems to be "a growing Muslim-minority and youth movement" and "Islamic movement" which is what I would suggest incorporating in the lead sentence. This is the best available source and should form the basis for the article. I should also point out the book is in line with the description of The Indian Express article. Description such as "Islamist", "radical and orthodox organisation", etc could be included later on in the lead and/or body keeping appropriate context in mind. Tayi Arajakate Talk 14:37, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Emmerich's coverage has been called into question by other scholars:

In particular, we find recent works such as those of Arndt Emmerich problematic for its characterization of the PFI in coastal Karnataka as a model of right-centred citizenship politics of Muslims (Emmerich, 2019). Emmerich seems to have accepted the claims and arguments of the PFI officebearers without dispute and moreover, he does not venture into examining several allegations of violence and religious radicalism put forward by the state, secular organizations, and most importantly, other major Muslim political and religious organizations, against the PFI.[1]

I have also found his coverage pussy-footing around facts. For example, he says PFI is "closely connected" to other organisations like SDPI, CFI etc. making it appear as if they are independent organisations, whereas almost everybody else describes them as offshoots of PFI. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:03, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up, I had missed this source. This does indicate that Emmerich (2019) should not be given as much weight and balanced with Santhosh, Pareli (2021) which also covers PFI in significant depth and is in line with the characterisation of the organisation as an Islamist group. I have edited the first couple sentences with the sources we have now, see if that works. Tayi Arajakate Talk 20:59, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Good improvements. But I don't think "Islamist" is correct. Santhosh & Pareli just mention it vaguely. But Emmerich gives substance that shows they are not: He [SIMI leader] was upset that the PFI has “departed from Maududi’s teaching and the Islamic principle of the Caliphate”, which generated some bemused reactions among the other guests. (p. 59). They are radical and extremist, but not Islamist. JIH is Islamist though it is moderate. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:44, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Fair enough, I have changed "Islamist" to "Muslim", which should be the more accurate description. Tayi Arajakate Talk 10:13, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, ok, for the time being. I think we are looking for the Muslim equivalent of "Hindu nationalist", for which no term exists yet. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:37, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Santhosh, R.; Paleri, Dayal (2021), "Ethnicization of religion in practice? Recasting competing communal mobilizations in coastal Karnataka, South India", Ethnicities, 21 (3): 563–588, doi:10.1177/1468796820974502

Founder p koya on motto of formation

he says[1] : "'nexus of interests coming together: Hindutva extremists, America, Israel, the Indian elite and all of their neo-liberal policies.' He says that these forces were bent on undercutting the Islamic way of life."

He said this is the motto behind the organization's fromation and not just hindutwa.

Advocate to add the same in the article.

PFI opposes Hindutva extremists, America, Israel, the Indian elite and all of their neo-liberal policies

Bijiigil (talk) 19:48, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

We use WP:SECONDARY sources, and do not cherry-pick quotes for constructing an encyclopedia. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:40, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/america/2007/07/a_kerala_professor_praises_ter.html

BLP rules for an article about an organization

Venkat TL is stating about BLP violation. If the names of accused is not mentioned, then will it be BLP violation, as the article is not about a person?

BLP means biography of living person. 2402:3A80:1A4C:8BC4:A4A8:91EC:BED2:344F (talk) 06:39, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

No. Already discussed in #BLPCRIME above. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:42, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 September 2022

Remove santosh & paleri source editing this is not reliable source Inboy1234 (talk) 04:10, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: May I suggest that you acquaint yourself with WP:RS before you elect to edit any further on the project? Scholarly sources are held in high regard and the said source is also written by authors with academic credentials and published by Sage, a reputed publishing company. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 08:53, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

banned by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA)

Popular Front of India (PFI) was banned by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) on Wednesday for its alleged links to terror funding.[1] Bijiigil (talk) 01:35, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/government-bans-popular-front-of-india-links-terror-funding-2005597-2022-09-28
Akshaypatill, Vsa111, Extorc, DogeChungus,Kautilya3, Venkat TL, removed a lot of sentences on 23rd September, please restore what you feel was not original research.-2401:4900:2730:8BF5:A770:5322:4718:2BAD (talk) 12:13, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
ChandlerMinh, Rejoy2003, Phoenix14061990, please look into it.-2401:4900:2730:8BF5:A770:5322:4718:2BAD (talk) 12:18, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 Not done: in view of the fact that the existing lead already covers this new development. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 12:31, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

2401:4900:2730:8BF5:A770:5322:4718:2BAD, The mentions of Terror funding with the latest event has been mentioned already.Rejoy2003 (talk) 12:31, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

PLI formation motto : ISLAMIC RULE IN INDIA BY 2047

add : establish Islamic rule in India by 2047 in first para as their motto.

from this :

Popular Front of India (PFI) is an Indian Muslim political organisation, that was formed to counter Hindutva groups and engages in a radical and exclusivist style of Muslim minority politics

to this:

Popular Front of India (PFI) is an Indian Muslim political organisation, that was formed to counter Hindutva groups, establish Islamic rule in India by 2047, and engages in a radical and exclusivist style of Muslim minority politics[1][2][3][4] Bijiigil (talk) 17:10, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://zeenews.india.com/india/islamic-nation-sharia-law-what-was-pfis-plan-2047-when-india-completed-100-years-of-independence-2513741.html
  2. ^ https://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/2022/jul/14/documents-show-pfis-plot-for-making-india-an-islamic-state-by-2047-2476543.html
  3. ^ https://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/report-dna-special-know-all-about-mission-2047-aimed-at-making-india-an-islamic-state-pfi-patna-bihar-2968743
  4. ^ https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/topic/islamic-rule-in-india-by-2047
 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Mere allegations or rudimentary police reports will not suffice for its placement as a fact in the lead. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 12:41, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Past Tense

I think the terminology should be changed to the past tense because it was banned yesterday and I think the end date should be added in the info box. GamerKlim9716 (talk) 12:16, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Grammatical error?

"Popular Front of India (PFI) is a Indian Muslim political organisation, that engages in a radical and exclusivist style of Muslim minority politics."

Should be it..

"Popular Front of India (PFI) is an Indian Muslim political organisation, that engages in a radical and exclusivist style of Muslim minority politics."?

I know it's a little but it disturbs me a lot 114.124.150.104 (talk) 07:26, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, an unfortunate grammatical error that likely was introduced during the recent spree of edits. Thanks for pointing it out, IP! Fixed. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 07:53, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Poor citations throughout

Attribution of "radicalism" to any group that is Islamic in nature, especially in light of a fascist state, without very clear backing with violent events initiated solely by the group is already revealing of the subject nature of this.

The Outlook link (currently citation 20) doesn't work but the text links the group to Al Qaeda. This is again typical of the far right trolls in India to use Islamophobic ideas en masse to falsify narratives online.

Citation 19 is a paper but you cannot find the reference to Taliban or Al Qaeda. Ozmungs (talk) 11:05, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

@Ozmungs you are absolutely correct. Venkat TL (talk) 12:45, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 October 2022

Please change this sentence in the lead, "It was banned by the Indian Ministry of Home Affairs under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) on 28 September 2022 for a period of five years." to, " it was banned by the Indian Ministry of Home Affairs under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) on 28 September 2022 for a period of five years for anti-social activities."- 2401:4900:22E3:79B:6FF2:624A:51F4:C735 (talk) 00:10, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 11:59, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
Then please change it to......"it was banned by the Indian Ministry of Home Affairs under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) on 28 September 2022 for a period of five years for unlawful activities." with this as a source.-2401:4900:33BC:5557:D749:C08:C380:BE4F (talk) 14:11, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
Do not post extraneous links. The very invocation of the UAPA law implies the bit that you desire us to add again. The article does a good job at elucidating the said activities in its main body. Its lead is not the place for hair-splitting. So that's a no again. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 14:45, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Recent removals

I have undone the recent removals by Venkat TL given the large number of objections raised in above sections. It is not justifiable to remove sourced content only because it is critical of PFI. Removing allegations because they haven't ended up in conviction shouldn't be done unless the information is itself incorrect or it comes from improper source but we are not seeing that here. >>> Extorc.talk 11:00, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

@Extorc You are not allowed to restore WP:BLP violations and violations of WP:SUSPECT. The article was a mess and I wonder how much of this was added by you. If you restore or edit war over this, I will report this. Venkat TL (talk) 11:13, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
You need to describe which "BLP" violation happened. The version which I restored has been stable for months before you started to remove content that happened to be critical of this organization. >>> Extorc.talk 11:20, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
@Extorc naming of multiple individuals accused of crime without convictions. Venkat TL (talk) 11:27, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Can you cite the specific examples? If no arrest happened then we can remove those particular names. Conviction is not necessary as long as the text is clearly stating it as mere allegation. >>> Extorc.talk 11:34, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
@Extorc So you are telling me that you restored everything without even checking if the content that you have restored agrees with the policies of Wikipedia or not? and want me to point them out for you? I believe this grossly irresponsible behavior. Please look at my edit summaries, in page history, for example look at Special:Diff/1111743592/1111744176, Special:Diff/1111744533/1111744672, Special:Diff/1111758739/1111759127 Also see WP:ONUS that says "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.". If you believe that I had wrongly removed something that you believe was appropriate for the article. Please let me know. Do not do blanket reverts like you did here Special:Diff/1111869895. Venkat TL (talk) 12:02, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Venkat TL, just an illuminating comment: your construction of the said policy leaves a lot to be desired. These are essentially your edits that have come under the purview of editorial dispute and you should be the first one to make efforts to comply with WP:BRD in order to facilitate consensus building...rather than engender and partake in an edit war. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 12:22, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Diffs are the edits where I have removed content that clearly violates the policy. And Extorc added them in Special:Diff/1111869895. Are you saying They are in compliance with policy? All of them? which? Please follow the Policy about, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#People accused of crime and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Remove contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced. No discussion is needed to remove them. But consensus is needed to restore them. Venkat TL (talk) 12:34, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
There is no BLP violation. No I didn't "restored everything without even checking", but because the content existed for months and was vetted by not only me but also Kautilya3.
Special:Diff/1111743592/1111744176 was a bad removal because the content talked about ED booking PFI for money-laundering and finding 'financial links' between PFI and anti-CAA protests. Special:Diff/1111744533/1111744672 was even worse and your explanation read like WP:JDLI because you haven't provided a source which could prove the sting operation to be false. Special:Diff/1111758739/1111759127 is just the same because the content is treating the those allegations as only allegations and talking about charges and arrests. It is completely fine.
You are not allowed to reinstate your problematic edits until you have gained consensus. You made the mass removal and your edits were reverted. Now you are supposed to gain consensus instead of edit warring. That said, you are not in the position to cite WP:ONUS especially when your explanations are without any basis. >>> Extorc.talk 13:29, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
The article is obviously in a very poor state, most of it is just an indiscriminate collection of allegations picked out of statements from politicians, police, etc with whatever source one could find. Can you not edit war and keep restoring it? The article needs to summarise the allegations rather than be a page about allegations that it is at present. Tayi Arajakate Talk 14:46, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Akshaypatill, Vsa111, Extorc, DogeChungus, Kautilya3, ChandlerMinh, Rejoy2003, Phoenix14061990, Venkat TL, removed a lot of sentences on 23rd September, please restore what you feel was not original research.-2401:4900:33B2:B5EE:689E:171F:CC03:2A84 (talk) 14:56, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
2401:4900:33B2:B5EE:689E:171F:CC03:2A84 You really need to double check before you ping people unnecessarily. I never edited on 23rd September. The day the organisation was banned that's on 28 September is when I had contributed. And it was more of addition and less of deletion. Added to this, I deleted only the common wikilinks and general fixes. No statement or anything important related were deleted.  Rejoy2003  15:11, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Rejoy2003, I think you misunderstood. I merely requested you and some others to restore what Venkat TL removed on 23 September. Extorc, has mentioned what was removed (see above).-2401:4900:33B2:B5EE:ABB0:707E:8E6:F68F (talk) 16:00, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Popular Front of India’s “Save the Republic” rally in Kerala’s Alappuzha

On May 21, 2022, at Alappuzha, a young child carried on shoulder by a man is raising slogans of hate and violent warnings relating to Hindus and Christians. It is believed the child was taught and trained to raise the slogan by adults which shows how radicalization is happening.

https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/editorials/kerala-warning-popular-front-of-india-7934418/ Sarathk20 (talk) 21:34, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 April 2023

please write correct information and donot place misunderstanig created by indian media here 223.123.43.178 (talk) 04:01, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Lightoil (talk) 04:38, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 May 2023

This organization is a militant organization who has carried multiple terrorist attacks in India and this organization is terrorist organization already banned by Supreme court of India. Please add the purpose of this organization as "Spread militancy and terrorist activities in India". Victimofhaters (talk) 19:29, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Callmemirela 🍁 20:12, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 December 2023

There's a section in opening paragraph which says it's made to counter so called hindutva group but pfi has been seen against almost all non muslim people be it Christian , hindus , communist in Kerala , so rather than creating ambiguity who don't you change it to Islamist , ultra right wing fascist group as it's continuation of SIMI Abraca21 (talk) 10:59, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: violation of WP:CONTENTIOUS Shadow311 (talk) 14:19, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Popular_Front_of_India/Archive_2&oldid=1193392630"