Misplaced Pages

Talk:Popular Front of India: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 00:10, 2 October 2022 edit2401:4900:22e3:79b:6ff2:624a:51f4:c735 (talk) →Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 October 2022: new sectionTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit← Previous edit Revision as of 00:11, 2 October 2022 edit undo2401:4900:22e3:79b:6ff2:624a:51f4:c735 (talk)No edit summaryTags: Mobile edit Mobile web editNext edit →
Line 340: Line 340:


{{edit extended-protected|Popular Front of India|answered=no}} {{edit extended-protected|Popular Front of India|answered=no}}
⚫ 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."- ] (]) 00:10, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
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."- ] (]) 00:10, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Revision as of 00:11, 2 October 2022

Skip to table of contents
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Popular Front of India article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 20 days 
This article is written in Indian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, analysed, defence) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconIndia: Politics Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Indian politics workgroup (assessed as Mid-importance).
Note icon
This article was last assessed in May 2012.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconIslam High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconDiscrimination High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconOrganizations Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Articles for deletionThis article was nominated for deletion on February 20, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.


Introduction

The Popular Front of India is a banned radical fanatic Muslim fundamentalist and extremist organizations which are active in southern India. The Front was formed on November 22, 2006 and is supported by the Karnataka Forum for Dignity (KFD), the National Development Front (NDF), and Manitha Neethi Pasarai (MNP).These organizations are active in the states of Karnataka, Kerala, and Tamil Nadu, respectively. They are alleged to have links to Islamic terrorist organizations like Lashkar-e-Taiba and SIMI (Student Islamic Movement of India). PFI has been accused of supporting a "Love Jihad" in the southern Indian state of Kerala. Beside the attack on College lecturer T J Joseph in Muvattupuzha, the PFI had been involved in 22 murder cases and 73 attempt to murder cases so far in Kerala. PFI has been accused of funding Anti-CAA protest in India.

References

  1. "Kerala: One more arrested in lecturer attack case". www.rediff.com.
  2. http://english.manoramaonline.com/cgi-bin/mmonline.dll/portal/ep/contentView.do?contentId=7683075&tabId=1&programId=1080132912&channelId=-1073865030&BV_ID=@@@
  3. "Explosives, weapons seized near Kerala mosque | India News - Times of India". The Times of India.
  4. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/6316966/Handsome-Muslim-men-accused-of-waging-love-jihad-in-India.html
  5. http://www.hindu.com/2010/07/22/stories/2010072253230700.htm
  6. July 10, M. G. Radhakrishnan; July 19, 2010 ISSUE DATE:; July 20, 2010UPDATED:; Ist, 2010 12:32. "Hatred's New Haven". India Today. {{cite web}}: |first4= has numeric name (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  7. "Defending the front". July 28, 2010.
  8. http://sify.com/news/police-unearth-cds-of-taliban-like-terror-module-in-kerala-news-national-khkmEjhgacc.html
  9. http://www.radianceweekly.com/54/348/Prophet-Muhammad039s-Recipe-for-World-Peace/2007-04-15/Rejoinder/Story-Detail/PFI---an-Extremist-Caucus.html
  10. http://www.hindu.com/2006/12/12/stories/2006121201960500.htm
  11. http://expressbuzz.com/cities/kochi/pfi%E2%80%99s-pamphlet-writers-under-scanner/196191.html
  12. http://sify.com/news/south-india-and-the-enemies-within-news-columns-jegmNHdhech.html
  13. "Kerala CM reignites 'love jihad' theory | India News - Times of India". The Times of India.
  14. http://www.deccanherald.com/content/83631/bid-convert-kerala-muslim-state.html
  15. http://english.manoramaonline.com/cgi-bin/mmonline.dll/portal/ep/contentView.do?contentId=7673316&tabId=1&programId=1080132912&channelId=-1073865030&BV_ID=@@@
  16. "Popular Front Of India Funded Anti-CAA Protests: Probe Agency To Centre". NDTV.com.

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, Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

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)

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

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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 22 September 2022

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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."
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 Misplaced Pages 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 (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. {{cite web}}: |last= has generic name (help)
  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."-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." 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)

'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 (, ) 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 Misplaced Pages'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. 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.

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 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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 September 2022

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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).

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.

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 Misplaced Pages 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, Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons#People accused of crime and Misplaced Pages: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)

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: Misplaced Pages:Notability (events) § Criminal acts, and Misplaced Pages: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)

Founder p koya on motto of formation

he says : "'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)

PLI formation motto : ISLAMIC RULE IN INDIA BY 2047

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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 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)

banned by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Popular Front of India (PFI) was banned by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) on Wednesday for its alleged links to terror funding. 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)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 September 2022

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)

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

It is requested that an edit be made to the extended-confirmed-protected article at Popular Front of India. (edit · history · last · links · protection log)

This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".

The edit may be made by any extended confirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{EEp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.

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)

Categories: