Talk:Popular Front of India

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 03:54, 19 October 2022 (Archiving 3 discussion(s) to Talk:Popular Front of India/Archive 2) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 03:54, 19 October 2022 by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) (Archiving 3 discussion(s) to Talk:Popular Front of India/Archive 2) (bot)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

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.

India: Politics Low‑importance

	India portal This 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Indian politics workgroup (assessed as Mid-importance).
	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.

Islam High‑importance

	Islam portal This 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
High	This 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.

Discrimination High‑importance

	This 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
High	This 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.

Organizations Mid‑importance

	This 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
Mid	This 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.

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

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)

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)

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

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

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)

Categories: