Talk:Popular Front of India/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Initial level of formatting and wikifying is done

The page has originally contained un-wikified article. Now I have edited page and cleaned all the WOI and POV. Please remove the tag for deletion Sundaram7 11:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• Removed the deletion tag. It is found that user:Bakasuprman, user:Mereda has added this tag, not the administrators. Sundaram7 04:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Tag AfD is no more valid

The arguments that are raised by user:mareda at [[1]] is no more exisits.Ashokachakra 05:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Pfi.jpg

Image:Pfi.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Untitled

according a supreme court judgment itself, regarding the terror link cutting issue "The Bench said “there is no evidence as yet to prove that the Popular Front of India is a terrorist organisation, and hence the respondent cannot be penalised merely for belonging to the PFI. Moreover, even assuming that the PFI is an illegal organisation, we have yet to consider whether all members of the organisation can be automatically held to be guilty.” [2] also Indian established media's like Hindustan Times reported that any evidence supporting these claims has not been found.[3]

reference number 2 and 3 from Hindu and times of india...

Reference Number 18,19 are referred from Malayalam Regional sites,so as an english wiki please remove the lines with that reference.so in that case "Connection with other terror networks" has no evidence.So in my opinion it should remove. (Achu 14:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC))

Popupar front is not a political party. It has a political strategy for supporting the down-trodden in the society, but not a political organisation. It is just a confederation of different like minded organisations. Popularindia 12:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I dont know what is a neutrality issue here. Need to remove the tag.Popularindia 07:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Many events are listed here. I feel that a brief detail of each event can be given, either in the same page or a separate page. If not proper references can be put for each events.

popular front do not have any link with terrorist organizations in india or abroad ,here given reference was fake and non-existent so as an encyclopedia that fake information should not come in this page,so i removed the fake link --Fazlu2010 (talk) 11:10, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Rewrite needed

The prose and the balance of this article are both lacking. I'm going to be rewriting several sections across the next few days. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 14:25, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Copy and paste of propaganda materials and its circulation need to be done in radical websites not in wikipedia. Rick jens (talk) 15:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Article needs lock

This article needs to be locked, as the matter has repeatedly been twisted by some editors copying some propaganda materials.

Popular Front of India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

full protection. High level of IP vandalism. Rick jens (talk) 16:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Rick jens (talk) 16:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Lot of POVs in first paragraph

The reference [2] is just a comment (Rejoinder) of a user on a the detailed report of Empower India Conferece came in the weekly. This doesn't meet the criteria of an wikipedia reference. The "Love Jihad" is proven as a fake story and the high court says that the arguments are baseless. [3],[4],[5]. The reference [6] is just a comment (Rejoinder) of a user on a the detailed report of Empower India Conferece came in the weekly. This doesn't meet the criteria of an wikipedia reference. The "Love Jihad" is proven as a fake story and the high court says that the arguments are baseless. [7],[8],[9], [10].

Now, there are a lot of allegations put in this article which is not suitable as per wiki etiquette. The references are either broken links or in malayalam!. -- Indiashines (talk) 17:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

It is hereby requested to discuss before you further push information from propaganda pamphlets. Rick jens (talk) 17:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Please stop reverting. Please participate in the discussion before you do edits. -- Indiashines (talk) 17:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Rick Jens is consistently playing truant & irresponsibly vandalizing this article to push his POV . This article deems to be locked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.240.119.66 (talk) 17:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted to the last version and added Expert request. Also requested page protection. The log of this article says for itself.Rick jens (talk) 18:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

References

Events

Why revert the event edits from article,It should be discussed before reverting a good information about this article.So experts please take care these type of propaganda reverts (Achu 02:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC))

Attention from an expert on the subject

Requesting expert opinions about this article. This is about the most infamous radical organization in India. More sections need to be added. If there are issues with any sentences or sections please start subsections to discuss.

I hope credible editors rather than those who dump pamphlet propaganda will join to improve this article.Rick jens (talk) 23:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Kerala CM re-ignites ‘love jihad’ myth By M. Ramzan Naik, The Milli Gazette Published Online: Aug 28, 2010 Print Issue: 16-31 August 2010

Thiruvananthapuram: Kerala Chief Minister V S Achutanandan’s charge that the Popular Front of India (PFI), which allegedly masterminded the Taliban-style attack on a college lecturer, has plans to Islamize Kerala in 20 years using “money and marriages” has reignited the “love jihad’ controversy, hotly debated in the state last year. Speaking to reporters in New Delhi on 24 July, VS said PFI was trying to multiply Muslim numbers in the state “by influencing youth of other religions and converting them by giving money, marrying them to Muslim women and thus producing kids of the community.” In a way, the CM was endorsing the concerns expressed by the Kerala high court, which in August 2009, asked the state police to probe if there was an organised racket working to lure youth for conversion using love and money.

Reacting to VS’s statement, PFI state unit president Nasaruddeen Elamaram said: “These are baseless charges which were examined and already rejected by the courts.”

The CM has also incurred the ire of almost all Muslim organisations and political parties who, regardless of their political differences, including the mainstream party Indian Union Muslim League, dubbed Achuthanandan’s statement as “dangerous” and meant to “insulting the entire community.” While dubbing Achuthanandan’s comment as “deplorable” and “dangerous”, UDF leaders suspected it was part of a strategy of his party to play “Hindu card” in the forthcoming civic and assembly polls “as a last-ditch attempt” to regain the eroded support base of ruling LDF, as reflected in Parliament elections last year.

“Through his statement, the Chief Minister is testing waters if the LDF could garner votes of the majority community since it has incurred the wrath of the minority communities through its policies,” UDF convener P P Thankachan said.

BJP said that the Chief Minister’s comment betrayed the “double standard” of his party on the issues of communalism and extremism. If Achuthanandan was serious in his concerns on the growth of communal and extremist forces, he should be ready to outlaw Popular Front and issue a white paper on the radical outfits working in the state, BJP state president V Muraleedharan said.

Two months back, Achuthanandan surprised political circles in the state by saying Muslim and Christian communalism had been gaining strength in Kerala.

What baffled Muslim leaders and others was that the statement came at an inappropriate time. Opposition leader Oommen Chandy said that statement at such juncture was uncalled for. “We have extended all help to the government for getting rid of anti-national elements. But we never expected such a careless statement from him in return, putting the entire community under a shadow”, he said. “It is a shame. No responsible leader will make such a statement,” Minister of State for Railways E. Ahamed said.

New Kerala outfit on terror radar

Source- [[11]] A new outfit is under scanner in Kerala for its alleged anti-India ideology. The Popular Front of India (PFI) calls India its enemy and asks for 'total Muslim empowerment'.

Times Now has access to documents seized from activists of the controversial outfit, which prove its anti-national ideology. The documents portray the nation as its enemy and calls to work towards 'total Muslim empowerment’.

The documents also describe the so-called 'freedom parade' organised by the PFI at various centres on Independence Day, as a means to motivate and rejuvenate Muslims.

The Popular Front of India was in the news recently after its activists chopped the hands of a college lecturer, T J Joseph, who allegedly set a question paper, which hurt Muslim sentiments.

Meanwhile, speaking to Times Now, Kerala's Education Minister, M A Baby said that the state government would soon be banning the Freedom Parade organised by PFI activists on every Independence Day in the light of the attack on Joseph.Rick jens (talk) 14:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Changes by people associated with Popular Front of India

I suspect that people employed or associated with Popular Front of India and Jamaat-e-Islami Hind are forking this article with their propaganda.

These are the google news search results [[12]]

Please also take a look at the related discussion-

Talk:2010_hand_chopping_incident_in_Kerala#Taliban_Courts_run_by_Popular_Front_of_India Rick jens (talk) 16:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

It is revealed that, user:Rick jens is a POV pusher by the Wiki Administrators. I have a strong suspicion he is a sock puppet of some banned users in Wikipedia. see Wikiquette_alerts about him -- Indiashines (talk) 16:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

As I suspected the editors who pushes propaganda in these articles seems to be delegated by Popular Front of India. There is a serious conflict of interest.Rick jens (talk) 17:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, it is commented by Wiki admin that User:Rick jens is a [[Abusive_editor. I am not doing any propaganda, but trying wikipedia to have a balanced edit, as usual. --Indiashines (talk) 17:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry no interest to respond to your personal allegations.Rick jens (talk) 17:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, this is not a personal allegation. I am just pointing out[13] what Wiki admin said. Sorry if it feels you as a personal allegation. I suggest you to read the Wiki Etiquette articles before you edit the articles. -- Indiashines (talk) 17:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

By the way i didn’t see anything wrong in the discussion or on the comments there. What are you trying to say. The log of this article says the vandalisation efforts . There are consistent effort to blank the article and change it to propaganda by Popular Front of India. I have requested page protection and expert review.Rick jens (talk) 18:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Just for clarification, I am not an administrator. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 15:18, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Other section changes

The following sections are written as advertisement with no neutral, valid reverences to be included in Wikipedia. These blatant advertising should be marked as db-spam

• 1 Background • 2 Confereration of Organisations • 3 Events

I propose db-spam for these sections from the present article.

I also propose including a new Background which captures the genesis of its foundation and another section on involvement on violence and terrorism.

The section Involvement on violence and terrorism should have subsections for 1. Love Jihad 2. Attack on T J Joseph 3. Anti India rants 4. Relation with terror networks. 5. Involvement in Communal riots 4. Police raids and requests for ban.Rick jens (talk) 20:30, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Discussions after protection applied

Make it Non-Protected

This article should be truth and should not be a nonsense information.So before protecting an article illegal statements and nonsense points should remove from the article,In my opinion article should be in truth to refer by anyone in the world for future reference. Every article should need some negative information ,but at the same time we should give it in a positive manner like "criticism" or "Bad marks".That is the way i think (Achu 02:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC))

Non-existent references

Three of the references stated do not exist, nor do they exist in the google cache or any other web archive. They are perhaps spurious -

1. ^ http://www.timesofindia.com/2009/34580100.htm
2. ^ " Police unearths links between Islamic Terrorists and PFI " http://www.hindu.com/2009/02/18/stories/200702165634580100.htm
3. ^ http://www.manoramanews.com/cgi-bin/MMOnline.dll/portal/ep/mmtvContentView.do?contentType=EDITORIAL&contentId=7528735&tabId=14&BV_ID=@@@ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.103.59.93 (talk) 05:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Please read below the comments and suggestion for the Talk:Popular_Front_of_India#Suggestions_on_Introduction.Rick jens (talk) 20:43, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect referrences

Reference 1: Referencing "Love Jihad" to prove an organization is Fundamentalist is incorrect. "Fundamentalism" is to be grounded in basic principles or books , in case of Islam it is Quran & Sunnah just like vedas in Hinduism.

Citing a link for "Love Jihad" is absolutely incorrect to prove that an organization is Fundamentalist, as there no references for it in Quran & Sunnah (Well, there are separate references for "Love" & "Jihad" :) )

"Love Jihad" is a media planted story :

http://www.tehelka.com/story_main43.asp?filename=Ws141109RamPuniyani.asp http://news.outlookindia.com/item.aspx?669264 Please note that above link refers to Kerala State Police's, Director General of Police giving testimony in High Court of "No-Conclusive" evidence to suggest of "Love Jihad".
Interestingly , Ram Sene's founder Pramod Mutalik, who accused organizations of "Love Jihad" is himself in the dock for accepting "cash for communal clashes " http://news.outlookindia.com/item.aspx?682090 .
http://www.tehelka.com/story_main44.asp?filename=Ne220510coverstory.asp .
Hence the source is uncredible . Saif80 (talk) 18:00, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Reference 2: Rick jens is referncing an " addendum ", sent by reader to a weekly, to suggest that PFI is an extremist organization, without referring to PFI's ideologies.

PFI on its website claims:"It will try to establish an egalitarian society in which freedom, justice and security are enjoyed by all." http://popularfrontindia.com/pp/page/about-us .
If fellow author perceives PFI as an "Extremist & Fundamentalist" organization, those should be submitted under "Controversies" section.On the contrary "Rick Jens" has reverted the edits & called for an expert view intentionally, bringing this article to a standstill .
It also does not augur well that this author has linked "Extremism" in this article to "Islamic Extremism".I can understand , author's predicament as PFI pitches itself exactly opposite to Hindu-Hardliners namely RSS , VHP , BJP & Bjarang Dal
PFI has denounced violence http://www.twocircles.net/2010jul31/we_condemn_attack_professor_strongest_term_pfi.html.
Irrespective of contrary beliefs' "Wiki" should not be a "battleground" to spread "hatred" & push ones own "POV".In my humble opinion this article needs to be written. This is not the first instance author's credentials have been questioned, this author was flagged in the past too, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts Saif80 (talk) 18:00, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

More Incorrect referrences: The second reference [14] doesn't meet Wiki Standards. It is just a comment (see the heading Rejoinder) from a reader. It is not from a well known writer. It is just a user POV.

Duplicate References: First and fifth references given are same, which is just an allegation.

Court verdict on Love Jihad: It is proven in the court that such allegations are baseless[15]. It is also pointed out by all sectors of religious leaders[16]. -- Indiashines (talk) 13:48, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Please read below the comments and suggestion for the Talk:Popular_Front_of_India#Suggestions_on_Introduction. A neutral article on Popular Front of India should be realistic as possible. There are proper references. Check the recent statement of Kerala chief Minister about Love Jihad.Rick jens (talk) 20:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Suggestions for changes

I've been looking over the article, and suggest the following changes to the lead section:

• The 2nd reference lead claiming the Popular Front of India is extremist is sourced to PFI---an-Extremist-Caucus.html. This appears to me to be equivalent to a letter to the editors--it is labeled as a rejoinder, and written as a response to a prior article. Unless a better source for the term extremist can be found, I suggest we strike that.
• The statement "They are alleged to have links to Islamic terrorist organisations like Lashkar-e-Taiba and SIMI (Student Islamic Movement of India)." in paragraph 2 is not sourced. Unless a source can be found, it should be struck.
• The sentences "PFI has been accused of supporting a "Love Jihad" in the southern Indian state of Kerala.[5]. Kerala State Police has arrested two leaders of Popular Front of India on the execution of hand chopping of Professor T J Joseph alleging blasphemy.[6]" should be moved lower to the appropriate sections, placement of these in the lead seems to me to place undue emphasis on these events.

What do others think about these changes? --Nuujinn (talk) 17:56, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I Totally agree with your suggestion. Few more:

• Involvement in violence and terrorism: References 11,12 and 13 are not relavant. 11 and 12 are fake links.13 is from a regional non-english reference Mangalam!!: [17], [18].
• Connection with other terror networks: There is no refernce to first para. Moreover,home minister statement need to be considered. He says there is no Taliban Court, or Darul Huda: [19].
• Anti - India rants: This is just an allegation and propoganda put by rightwing IUML leader KM Shaji, who has political interests. From the numerous campigns [20] and conduct freedom parade & rally [21][22], this arguments are not credible. Just because of a muslim rightwing leader, it cannot be proven that they are against Indian Nationalism.
• Kerala CM charges: The balance of paragraph is questioned. All mainstream organizations has rejected VS Achuthananthan's [23] allegation. It is only the CPM who, for the political benefits brings this Love Jihad propoganda again. It looks there is a serious issue with this paragraph. -- Indiashines (talk) 12:23, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Good, but I suggest we take it one paragraph at a time and work to acheive consensus for changes. Also, let us all try to limit our comments to the material in the article, rather than editor's conduct--discussions of conduct do not belong here. I have checked the dead links and agree they should go. Does anyone else have any comments regarding my suggestions for the lead section? Nuujinn (talk) 12:43, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Please read below the comments and suggestion for the introduction. A neutral article on Popular Front of India should be realistic as possible. There are no dwarf of properly sourced information about this violent organization. The Love Jihad and the attack on T J Joseph should stay as part of Introduction as these are the improtant events in this organisation.The entrie Popular front of India leadership is in scanner on Attack of T J Joseph. Kerala Police have summoned two top leaders of the radical Muslim group Popular Front of India in connection with the case of a college professor’s hand being chopped off for allegedly preparing a question paper derogatory to Prophet Mohammed.Fifteen activists of PFI have been arrested for the July 4 attack on T.J. Joseph.[[24]]. Rick jens (talk) 20:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Suggestions on Introduction

A neutral article on Popular Front of India should capture the violent and true nature of their activities. It has been widely reported in media that the Popular Front of India is a Muslim,, radical, fanatic, extremist terrorist organization.

I suggest re writing the beginning paragraph as follows-

The Popular Front of India is a confederation of 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.

Rick jens (talk) 19:50, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Popular front of India- radical, extremist, fundamentalist, violent terrorist organization

1. Popular Front of India called as extremists- by CPI- [[25]]

2. It was a planned attack by Muslim extremists to avenge Joseph's role in a controversial question paper in March- The police admit that the main culprits are still on the run and say all of them are associated with the Popular Front of India (PFI), a Kerala-based militant Muslim outfit.- [[26]]

3. Popular Front of India (PFI), a Muslim religious extremist outfit,- By Kerala Chief Minister- [[27]]

4. radical outfit Popular Front of India- [[28]]

5. Congress and the United Democratic Front had taken a critical stand against the extremist activities of the Popular Front of India- [[29]]

6. radical Muslim group Popular Front of India- [[30]]

7. Muslim fanatic groups [[31]]

8.However, there isn’t a shred of doubt that the PFI, or a significant strand of it, is an extremist and violent organisation that has not let go of its SIMI antecedents- [[32]]

9.The Popular Front of India is a confederation of Muslim fundamentalist and extremist organizations which is active in southern India- [[33]]

10.Kerala Home Minister Kodiyeri Balakrishnan Saturday said some Muslim organizations in the state were trying to propagate terrorism in the name of religion.- [[34]]

Rick jens (talk) 19:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The accusation of the Chief Minister was based on the quotes from a book that was published originally in Urdu "Fitne Jamhooriyye". The quotes are from the Malayalam translation which ridicules National Development front and its activities and the police believes that it is an attempt to put the blame on Muslim activists.Johannas (talk) 08:37, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Popular front of India incarnation of NDF- links with SIMI & the Lashker-e-Toiba (LeT)

1.Incarnation of the ultra-Islamic National Democratic Front.- [[35]]

2.Majority of the leaders of this new front belong to the banned SIMI. The decision to launch Popular Front of India (PFI) was taken at a conference of KFD, MNP & NDF held on 22nd November 2006 at Calicut. The leaders of PFI include, K.M.Shareef, President of KFD, Gulam Muhammed, leader of MNP and Abdur Rahman Baqari of NDF had decided to confine their activities to South India. The PFI was suspected of involvement in communal violence in Mangalore and several places in Kerala. It is the first umbrella organisation of the SIMI related Wahhabi and Salafi Islamists in Southern India. In the coming years, it might replicate the roles of the Pakistani-brand militarised Deobandism in the peninsular states- [[36]]

3. The PFI (formerly the National Development Front) was formed in the seething post-Babri cauldron ofthe early ’90s. Though its SIMI antecedents are well known and its clash with the RSS and CPM has torn the region apart, the PFI positions itself as a crusader for the Muslim cause. But despite its venturing into softer outreach activities, its repressive social agenda and its ruthless violence make it a dreaded end of Kerala’s political spectrum- [[37]]

4. That the state intelligence wing has conducted a thorough interrogation of the arrested PFI activists to ascertain the details of those involved in preparing the pamphlets for the Ideological Camps (ICs). "We have also launched a probe to find the source of the Taliban CD which was seized from the premises of a PFI leader. The police suspect that the pamphlets were written by a person who had undergone training under the Lashker-e-Toiba (LeT)," highly placed police sources said.[[38]]

Rick jens (talk) 20:05, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

References

Blanking out game

IP based propoganda: I found that, there are some deliberate attempt from different users to blank out the article. There is a strong reason to suspect that there is some propoganda promoters working on this particular article. See blank-out histories:Latest:[39], [40], [41] Older : [42], [43]. Administrators had posted messages to the users continously to the users but they are doing this game in same repeated pattern for many times. I am wondering why the users are not revealing their identity. From the way of edits, it can be found that they are trying some sort of sock-puppetry from shared IP addresses. They want to add more filth to the article and they are not ready to accept any of the discussion points -- Indiashines (talk) 06:02, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Rickjens and other vandalisms users are Playing their propaganda to implement in this article also with the Personal Harassment to the organization through Wikipedia articles and Wikipedia itself, He Rickjens only started the major changes in this article recently,also continuing the Vandalism in this article, no other contribution in this topic what he says, from public -- {Achu 11:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)}

IP Based Vandalism

Stop deleting well sourced material to push ur agendas here, its quite evident this is all done since the news regarding arrest of madani has come out, plz this is not a personal website we have seen a spurt in deleting of sourced material only to be replaced by non sourced POV.115.252.42.141 (talk) 10:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello there, I have retrived the first paragraph before somebody vandalised it. But I am worndering based on this argument, why you are deleteting other edits like the activities section I added. If you have any concern, pls come and discuss first. -- Indiashines (talk) 10:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Plz go throught the history of this page, you have started pushing POV here from 4 august onward.115.252.42.141 (talk) 10:28, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

WP's main rule is to provide "sources", which you have not provided for even one edition, PFI's own website is not s real source as per WP rules. stop pushing POV here you are taking off well documented info just for some vested interests.115.252.42.141 (talk) 10:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

115.252.42.141 is trying to vandalize the article. why are you deleting such contributions from Indiashines? please restore that editing and lets discus about that and decide what to do. --DescriberOne. —Preceding undated comment added 11:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC).

Indiashines is deleting all the sourced data from the page to push his vested interests, if you go through the history of the page its clearly evident that he has started editing since 4th August(which also happens to be the date of his account creation) about the article with one track only he is deleting sourced material to put his own POV on the page.115.252.42.141 (talk) 12:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

IP 115.252.42.141, can you provide diffs showing these deletions? I see that Indiashines has added referenced material favorable to the Popular Front to the article, but no recent deletions. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:25, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

How to proceed?

We need to figure out a way to slow things down a bit and sort through some of these issues. Many sources have been presented, but many of these are sub optimal, being editorial pieces. Obviously, there is disagreement as to the nature of the PFI. Rather than focusing on the lead, perhaps we should start with a single issue? I would suggest the accusation of the love jihad. It seems that there was an accusation that the PFI was involved in this, but also that the authorities decided there was little or nothing to it. What are the best 3-4 sources for this issue? Nuujinn (talk) 22:04, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Love jihad: was a media propoganda which was sponsored by some right wing organisations in South India. It was discussed a lot in Kerala and Tamilnadu state. All this inflated baloon is broken when both highcourt from kerala and tamilnadu made separate court verdict that there is no evidence for Love Jihad. The court verdict was based on detailed analysis of report submitted by police and Indian intelligence officers. From numerous reports and evidences, Cour cannot find a single evidence which supports this allegation[44][45]. -- Indiashines (talk) 05:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

"In a recent raid, the state police also recovered pronographic CD's allegedly belonging to victims of Love Jihad." the source is not specified and its a disputed claim Elesssar 777 (talk) 06:51, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

It is the media which manufacture and manipulate the news to shape the approach and attitude of the people. Just take the case of love jihad, which was based on the fantasy of some communal minded forces who want to fish from the state. See the link: Muslim ‘Terrorists’ Manufactured By The Media. http://www.countercurrents.org/sikand260809.htm Johannas (talk) 08:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure countercurrents is a reliable source in WP terms, what do other think? And do we have some additional news sources for this? Nuujinn (talk) 11:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Mr Yoginder Sikand is a renowned scholar & a responsible journalist and his articles consistently appear in mainstream media. CounterCurrents is online since 2002 as per its website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.242.44.82 (talk) 15:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

What is countercurrents exactly? It doesn't appear to be a news source. Does anyone object to using it, at least to establish one side of the issue? Nuujinn (talk) 15:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

There are a lot of evidences showing that Love Jihad is a fake story. See examples here[46], [47],[48]. Love Jihad is a kind of HOAX, which is propogated by Hindutva Extremist organizations and they used to put this terminology in their articles long days back. For evidence see examples here: [49]. -- Indiashines (talk) 19:35, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Added POV and Copy Edit tag: In order to wikify the article, the article need to be modified. The first paragraph need to have only summary about the org. It should not have allegations and sub optimal, being editorial pieces as one of the Wikipedia administrator said in this discussion. The first paragraph is made from a mere allegation and HOAX called LOVE JIHAD. I have added -- Indiashines (talk) 10:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Some changes

I've made a few today, adding some references and cleaning up some prose. In particular I renamed the CM's section to Investigation of Love Jihad, and in both that section and the Attack on Professor T J Joseph section I have corrected some of the text that was not supported in the sources given. Please take a look and make comments if you have objections here--things have quieted a bit and I'd like us to move forward without falling into an edit war. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I have made some clean-up on this article. Also added some information after studying about the subject. I found the first paragraph was based on Love Jihad investigation and the references were all related to this particular HOAX. Other items in the first paragraph related to many allegations like terrorist links and other allegations. From my reading I found that this organization is working legally in India. Like any other organizations it is quite natural that they get allegations and criticism. Is wikipedia a right place to put all the criticism on the groups? I made a restructuring in the first paragraph. I did this edit as an effort to wikify the article. -- Indiashines (talk) 11:10, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Indiashines, I would suggest we avoid loaded terms such as hoax unless we have a reliable source that directly labels an event as such. So far, I haven't seen any, but such might exist. What I have seen is that some people say the love jihad exists, but so far, state police have seen no evidence of same. I think a good many of the changes you have made are good, what do others think? As for criticisms, if they appear in reliable sources, they can appear here so long as they do not violate policies such as WP:UNDUE. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

In the section "Involvement in violence and terrorism", the links are not correct ones. It looks like the nature of sentenes doesn't match with the NPOV policies of WIKI. Same applicable for Anti - India rants and Connection with other terror networks sections in the articles. Some of the links are in local languages and twisted from the original message. -- Fazlu2010 (talk) 09:04, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Fazlu2010, would it be possible to start a sub page here with translations of some of the more relevant citations in foreign languages? I believe is it reasonable to request such given that this is the english wikipedia. I'd help, but I lack the language skills. Nuujinn (talk) 12:27, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Fazlu2010, Could you please bring more info about the "twist"? As Nuujinn said, you have to give some translation or relavant info to prove the twist. BTW, I have highlighted some of the links which are not working or broken in the article. -- Indiashines (talk) 07:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

More broken links are found. They are highlighted in the article for citation. -- Indiashines (talk) 07:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Further to cleaning the article, I removed the unsoruced materials and put all criticisms under one label "Controversies". I hope you all agree on this. You can see the unsourced materials commented out and kept in the original document for your review. -- Indiashines (talk) 05:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Please let's maintain a neutral point of view

I've restored some of the negative coverage to the article, the material is I think well sourced. We need to present material as it is reported in reliable sources, positive and negative. I would suggest, since there is some contention surrounding this subject, that we discuss changes of sourced material.

To that end, I recast the lead, moving some of the material to other sections. I also deleted some references that I felt were not reliable sources, one being a personal blog. The lead really doesn't need to have references, so long as it accurately summarizes material presented (and referenced) in the body. Let's keep the lead very simple for the time being, and one we have a stable body in the article, we can work on the lead. I think the article is coming along very nicely, for what that's worth. Nuujinn 19:27, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Fake Drama: PFI officials says the CDs highlighted as Suspected to be Al-Qaida were the CDs which is distributed in public which shows the issues faced by Minorities and Dalits in India and which promote national integrity
picture taken on 15-Jun-2010 from Kannur

Hi Nuujinn, I found you brought some false allegations that is already discussed and removed back to the article. I would like to request to review this again. Under the Assault of T. J. Joseph section, I found you brought the point that Al-Qaida based CD is found from the activists. The police have not disclosed much about the CDs and documents[50] This itself shows their hidden agenda. To add to that, I got a very strong evidence that PFI activists were showing copies of CDs captured by Police in public after the police captured such CDs(see picture taken on 15-Jun-2010 from Kannur). According to their explanation PFI says[51] that The CD's were the video documentaries of various public programmes which are sold in public. This bring a strong suspicion that CPI(M) and its government is playing dirty games using Police and other government means. The reason could be they have a strong stand against CPI(M) as PFI strongly criticize their policies on minority politics. -- Indiashines (talk) 08:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

We can, I believe, include the mathrubhumi.com source you reference above, but we cannot pick and choose sources based on what they say. The PFI website, however, is not a reliable source for this topic, so we cannot use that. I believe that This itself shows their hidden agenda is a conclusion drawn by you, however, and not supported in the reference. That, and drawing conclusions based on the contents of the pictures would count I believe as original research, and thus not appropriate. We have to be very careful to reflect what reliable sources say and not draw any conclusions ourselves. Nuujinn 13:18, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, this is nothing to do with Original research which is applicable to the content of an article. This is a discussion page and not main article. If there is something suspicious and if the credibility is questioned, it need to be taken as Opinion as described in WP:NPOV section of Wikipedia. Here the credibility of Police forces are questioned at many times. While there was Paul Muthoot murder case, police had created evidences [52] recently and the one who manufactured this evidence is given best police award on last August. Asia-net channel had given the full coverage of a tehelka model investigation about this s-shape knife incident. At that time the government want to tarnish the image of BJP. So there are a lot of corruptions and dramas happening under this government. The government is trying to tarnish all the group which they think against them. Here in this case, a lot of people got arrested for keeping some books, which are legal and sold in market. For example a book written by a set of Dalit reformers is found evidences for Terrorism[53]. So the bottom line is that, unless the police give the details of the CDs in front of media and public, it is suspicious and can only be treated as Openion of police -- Indiashines (talk) 10:20, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

PFI is found to be a Nationalist organization promoting Independence day celebration and republic day. It is interesting to note that their news paper is inaugurated in 2006 January 26th on the republic day. According to Tehelka interview they have denied the use of such CDs [54] and said that it is against their policies. They say the palmlet sized from the office are ones distributed in public. The police doesnt have an answer for these arguments! -- Achu (talk) 11:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, please review WP:NOR. In the article, we have to follow the sources. If you all want to present text that claims that the police or gov are trying to tarnish the PFI, you need a reliable source. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Advertisement by members of the radical popular front of india

This wikipedia article has been hijacked by the members and employees of the radical terrorist organization. The entire matter has been written as an advertisement. Properly cited material has been replaced with advertisement from dubious sources and propaganda pamphlets.Rick jens (talk) 20:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I have added peacock to the most advertisement sections. I think Wikipedia administrators help is required in protecting this article as employees of the radical organization are making coveted effort to dump propaganda in wikipedia.

Rick jens (talk) 15:46, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Sections immediately above, recent revisions of the lead

User:Rick jens has written the sections immediately above, apparently as proposed drafts. I've asked him to clarify his intent and to sign his posts, but thus far he has declined. His proposal for the lead seems to me to be non-neutral and unnecessarily detailed for a lead, so I have reverted those changes (2x). Some of the material from the bottom of the article is new, and sourced, so I've restored that. Rather than fall into an edit war, please let's discuss these suggestions here. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, looks like we're drifting towards an edit war. I ask that folks bring concerns to this talk page. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:20, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:COI, WP:DUE, WP:Notability and WP:SOAP. Wikipedia is not a source for PFI activism. This group's primary notability is their Islamic militancy, and all the rest of the whitewash nonsense in this article is from Islamist-partisan sources like "two-circles.net" which fail WP:RS.117.194.200.237 (talk) 18:25, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

First of all, I'm glad to see you come to the talk page. Evaluating references can be tricky--if you feel that twocircles is not reliable, I suggest taking the question to the reliable sources noticeboard. Merely asserting that they are not reliable is not sufficient, can you produce evidence that the source is not notable? Also, please note, I'm trying to keep the lead very simple and neutral. I think the edits you and some other editors are pushing into the lead are one sided and violate neutral point of view. We have to follow the sources, and some sources stress the militancy, others the public service. We must remain neutral in tone and content. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Sections added above and in the article are used the reference are mainly the media interventions[[55]][[56]] for giving the good reports in different cases,but User:Rick jens used this for tarnishing the PFI with his Propaganda edits.Let's take the example from Deccan chronicle Reference No.36 [[57]]telling that there is no evidence of PFI links with terror outfits[[58]].but still probing,ok until when? no idea! So for coming to the conclusion now the government informed the Kerala high court that Popular front has no connection between terrorist outfits[[59]], because no evidence.It says currently NO,so how can User:Rick jens says that it has links? He is acting vandalism in Wiki articles.He is injecting his Propaganda in this article for dividing people in India through wiki by inserting non-sense in the article.It's a clear case of Vandalism.After reading the references[[60]],the readers will confuse and will realize the vandalism.I realized it.It's a bad-faith content.So all should remove.Also the veil issue existing let him give the latest news regarding that and links with PFI. Achu (talk) 16:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I had removed the session above because of non-sense content that i discussed in last talk Achu (talk) 14:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Rather than deleting sourced material, would you consider adding the additional material you mention above? Material that is sourced should not be removed, really, but if the article doesn't reflect the sources, the article can be amended. My thought it that the unfolding of events is important, and unless you are able to argue that a source is not reliable, the material should stay. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

That is a not a reliable sourced material.So additional material if i added regarding this,it will become a bad article with non-faith and non-sense content.If he has strong references,we should keep, also i will not violate any of your suggestions.But upto the deletion of content i was put my suggestions in the talk , and i had given the references which pointed that the session added and he gave the references are fully non-sense and inverted sentences.Some references given by me and User:Rick jens are saying the same , saying that has no evidence for his statements(but he says it has evidence,He distorted the sentences from a reliable source).So it's completely lie and he stand with his same propaganda edits.So why we should we keep such non-faith content? I deleted it after five more days, so in my opinion we should not keep any non-sense contents in Wiki. Achu (talk) 08:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, it seems that english is not your first language, and I'm having trouble following you. Are you suggesting that deccanherald is not a reliable source? If so, we should take that issue to the reliable sources noticeboard I've done that in regard to a couple of other sources, but have not gotten around to removing the associated material yet. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:10, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

No , deccanherald is a reliable source.The Reference No.36 [[61]],[[62]] from Deccanherald,But what actually reference saying that "No evidence of connection between PFI and International Terrorist groups".But User:Rick jens saying that PFI has links with International Terrorists.He distorted the sentences so this is completely non-sense ,that is what i said ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.241.15.65 (talk) 12:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The last talk was mine Achu (talk) 06:46, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, if the source is reliable, but you believe the source is misrepresented, the material should be rewritten rather than deleted. Choices between sources should be based on reliability and relevance. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:31, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Recent reversion

I've reverted an editors deletion of some material from the lead, and some material that is not supported by sources, just a head's up in case anyone wants to discussion it. I know the topic in controversial, but we must be careful to follow sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Again, I've reverted a pointy addition to the lead. The material is covered in the body of the article, and the recent edits by an IP editor cast the subject in a one sided fashion.--Nuujinn (talk) 21:17, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

It is not to be noted that the evidences of connection of PFI with Al Qaeda, Let and Hizb were found out by Sep 2010. (see [63]) This renders any report before this date stating "no evidence was found for their connection" null and void for use as reference to prove the "no-connection". 117.204.93.111 (talk) 14:42, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

This report indicates no evidence has been found, and came out sept 7, a day after the articles you've cited. Does it invalidate all of the prior reports? I think not, but by your reasoning it should. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I have made certain edits to reflect both the contradicting reports. hope you concur 117.201.245.237 (talk) 15:09, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

There's still a problem. The three refs for a connection between the PFI and terrorists are really just one reference. 1 2 3 are identical, and having all three creates the impression that the hindustan times is an outlier, and violates WP:UNDUE. I have some questions about reliability of some of these sources as well. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:21, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

63,62,[[64]] etc: these refs are saying that No evidence of connection with international terror groups and probing the connections etc: But these refs 1 2 3 are misrepresented the original news, You can check all news.That all are from the same date that government submit report to the Kerala High Court.So this is a good example that how one news paper representing the same news in different views(misrepresenting).Hope you all understood ! So for neutrality all POV and WP:SELFPUBLISH,WP:SPS edits should remove from the article asap. Achu (talk) 15:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Fazlu2010, how would you differentiate the reliability of these sources? We cannot pick one over another based on our knowledge or beliefs relative to the subject. Does anyone have any input to provide on how reliable any of these sources are? --Nuujinn (talk) 22:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Recent Lead Edits

An editor has recently added text to the lead, which I have reverted. The source say "Intelligence reports suggest that PFI has links with terror outfits like Lashkar-e-Tayyaba, Al Qaeda and Taliban, sources said." and "'Based on the evidence our agencies have gathered so far against the PFI and its anti-national activities, and the brutal attack on the professor, the case has been handed over to the NIA,' a government official said. " So what the source says is that PFI is being investigated by the NIA, and that a reports suggest connections. These are not sufficiently strong statements to support the assertion that the PFI "has been accused by intelligence agencies of having links to terrorist groups". Careful reading of the sources suggest that certain government officials and a number of unnamed sources have made accusations, but that the intelligence agencies themselves have remained less assertive. We are required to accurately represent sources, and the lead is supposed to be a general overview of the article. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:02, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

If the sources are credible, one can say that these were allegations/findings.

The article reads like an exercise to glorify PFI, and lacks neutrality. I think it needs less glorification and more neutral substance. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 07:57, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Allegations, yes. I don't think finding is supported, esp. since at least one source says there was no link found. I agree that more neutral substance is needed, the article has been pushed first one way and then another, and evidently this has been a hot button issue for politicians. Have a go at improving it, but please do stick to reliable sources and presented the material in a neutral fashion. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Complete picture should be given to the Wikipedia user. The latest edits removes repeated references as well as brings completeness to the wikipedia users by showing the conclusion of the same news article referred by the wike editor WBRSin. He/ She should read and express the complete news; partial news on controversial matters are misleading - as amply seen in this Pagee. WBRSin has not given the users a full faithful representation of the matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huhshyeh (talk • contribs) 19:35, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

That is a very vague and wild allegation to make, if you want to add to the wiki you are free to do so using well sourced references and not based on your personal opinion. You deleted this news reference and now have the cheek to accuse others of bias, maybe you should start explaining why you did that. I think you are a sockpuppet of User:Wasifwasif who deleted the same news references here

Finally this edit of yours is not supported by the reference. You made up that claim, I suggest you stop being a WP:VANDAL and drop your agenda. And guess what, your accusations only made me dig deep for more news on PFI and to tell you the truth the picture that emerges is ugly. I will be adding them soon. WBRSin (talk) 01:55, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Kerala Govt's affidavit Repeated twice

The info on affidavit filed by Govt. of kerala is clearly given in the respective section. Why do u feel that the same lines should be there in the article twice.?? Wasif (talk) 13:59, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Go back to your edit and see what you have done. Scroll down to the references section if you cant find your errors. You just deleted 3 references based on the silly claim of repetation. Undo the wanton vandalism and check you edits before you commit them. And finally there are no repetation, the ban on freedom parade is explained to the lay person unaware of the circumstances of the ban.WBRSin (talk) 14:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

All the 3 references which u mean are of almost same content. Stop dumping Wikipedia with all your news papaer items. Just one reference will suffice. add teh contents below if u feel to. STOP pushing POV.

You say discuss in talk page and then make three more edits 1, 2, 3 without discussing them here, one of your explaination for deletion is outright silly, you claim "unreferenced statement with a DEAD link", well guess what? you deleted the link in your previous edit that's why you cant find the link, Stop your vandalism, you are turning the wiki into a fan page. WBRSin (talk) 14:38, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

WBRSin, this is wikipedia - you need to base your claim on articles/links; how can you verify any "dead" link. Pls note that the link was a non-existent page even before the removal of the link. So, please know your references before you refer them to the users of wikipedia. Also, you simply revert to your old edits without reading your own references. Do re-read reference 7 (http://www.indianexpress.com/news/pfi-is-simi-in-another-form-kerala-govt-tells-hc/979440/); this time let the admins do the deletion or stop you from vandalizing pages are per your bias. Using the same link many times as reference to same article doesn't may increase the reference in terms of number, but not in terms of relevance. Hopefully, the Wiki admins can set this right too.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huhshyeh (talk • contribs) 00:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Just as i suspected Huhshyeh is a sock puppet of Wasif. Mate you need to check the edits i pointed out to your alter ego Wasif. Check this edit by him where the Times of India article with the refname=murd was deleted and then Wasif in the next edit complains about the dead link. I can see what you are upto. Trying to censor out the truth about the involvement PFI in extermist activity. Even the courts have agreed with contention that PFI is the new face of the proscribed SIMI, and have upheld the ban http://www.business-standard.com/generalnews/news/ban%22freedom-parades-by-pfi-activists-upheld/39748/

As far the double quoting of TOI link, one has refname=toi and another has refname=murd and has been used in other parts of the wiki. Will consolidate them both into one refname. WBRSin (talk) 03:30, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

@ Childish and biased vandaliser WBRSin. Pls go through twice before you make any comment here. It takes so much effort to make you understand that a link you added exist no more.Wasif (talk) 13:51, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Why so you angry? becoz the truth hurts, Isnt it? Looks who is calling others vandaliser, you tried to delete the murderous deeds of PFI and were caught red-handed and now you do taqiya, lol WBRSin (talk) 17:15, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

WBRSin,the wikipedia is smarter and mature to screenout sock puppet - so let them be the judge of that technically. A dead link is a dead link -and its is still non-existent; and that too the page in a different language - Malayalam; I wonder whom you are trying to kid here.Any logical would be able to understand - it simply doesn't have to be the same person. The people here are seasoned; they will know the difference between a vandal and a contributor. (e. I reckon you are facing a 6 month ban for a similar act). My contribution, albiet small, have been diverse. No offense WBRSin; let the Wiki admins be a judge of your distorted story. The courts have upheld the ban; not that the allegation that the PFI is a new face of the banned SIMI. If so, the High Court would have asked the Supreme Court to ban the Popular Front consequently. And thanks for removing the extra references.

I hope the admins take stock of the proceedings of this page and act justly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huhshyeh (talk • contribs) 18:01, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Yawn, long rant from you, If you wanted a link other than from malayala manorama which is a local newspaper you could have just googled the title. Well I have made edits with correct reference link. Dunno why you are angry with me? I didnt add that link in the first place. WBRSin (talk) 18:32, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

WBRSin, the whole purpose of putting links is for authentication for the Wiki users; Wiki user/readers don't thus need to "google" again. I see you took time (and persuasion) to "google" for another reference and then put it - I guess you must have expected the normal wiki users the same. Anger - for what - I guess I make it a point to all why things are being done - rather than your approach of simple deletion or reversion without looking at the reasons and simply putting labeling the editor as vandals. If you hadn't added it, why simply re-put the same "dead" link? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huhshyeh (talk • contribs) 05:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism by Huhshyeh

User:Huhshyeh again vandalised the page and deleted citations leaving the page with 3 reference errors, check here, scroll to references list to find them. Will restore the page soon. WBRSin (talk) 04:11, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I too can create a heading using the same; however, let the admins decide who is the vandal. I guess your ban on Assam violence clearly shows that, instead,you are in some extra effort to further your view, hence resorting to vandalism. Pls do that in some blogspot not on Wikipedia.

I would ask to check the reasons of my edit, read the links and act accordingly. Don't act disruptively. BTW, the link gives you the counter claim from the PFI on the allegation - most of them covered what follows. It gives the other side of the what is being claimed; the readers deserve the right to know the other side of the story; it helps promote neutrality of Wikipedia

I'm going ahead with edits so that the readers have a better view of the topic. Huhshyeh (talk) 06:00, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

@ WBRSin, yOu were so blind in your bias, to remove my edits that you even vandalised the link which i have added for Thol.Thirumavalavan page and VCK page. This not the right forum for your bias. You can have websites on your own to push your POV. Pls Open your eyes to check what other users ahve done. Also, you keep on removing the warnings given in your page which is NEVER an allowed practice in WP. The next time you continue to vandal, i have no option but to report to Admins and let them decide on you as they did on Assam violence page. Wasif (talk) 06:15, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

More evidence of sockpuppetry, Wasif makes an allegation of vandalism on my page at 06:08, 7 September 2012 (UTC) and Huhshyeh reverts the page deleteing citations at 06:09, 7 September 2012

Proves my point that Huhshyeh and Wasif are the same person indulging in blantant POV pushing to hide the criminal deeds of PFI. Point to note is PFI is the same proscribed SIMI banned by Union Government for its terrorist acts such as bombings. Admins need to take a clear stand against terrorism and revert the page back to NPOV.

To Wasif, Thol.Thirumavalavan and VCK wikipage dont exist, they come up as redlinks, you don't even know how wikipedia works, own up to your stupdity and stop linking to dead pages. WBRSin (talk) 06:28, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Wasif continues where Huhshyeh left and deletes the involvement of PFI actiivists in the murder of CPI(M) and RSS workers, this is what he deleted.

These days its has become very easy to use words like STUPIDITY in WP on entry of users like you. If you STOP at my version and look at the Blue links of Thol. Thirumavalavan and VCK you will know to whom the word stupidity refers to. Pity your biased rage whcih made you to get banned for 6 months on a topic and heading towards next and accusing me of STUPIDITY.Wasif (talk) 10:31, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Your highlighting of red links [65] is self-evident. Still laughing at you. You think you can hide it lol. WBRSin (talk) 12:08, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Murder of CPI(M) and RSS workers

The Kerala government in a affidavit informed the Kerala High Court, that Popular Front of India had active involvement in 27 murder cases, mostly of cadres of CPI-M and RSS.

And proof presented before Kerala High Court http://www.indianexpress.com/news/pfi-is-simi-in-another-form-kerala-govt-tells-hc/979440/ PFI activists are involved in 27 murder cases, mostly of CPM and RSS cadres, said the government’s affidavit, adding that the motives were communal.

Goes to prove my point that this blantant POV pushing by Wasif and his sockpuppet Huhshyeh is to hide the criminal nature of PFI. WBRSin (talk) 07:07, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

The global terror links of PFI to terrorist Al-Qaeda, http://www.financialexpress.com/news/alqaeda-has-come-to-kerala-govt/677937/0 The Kerala Government today informed the state high court that investigators have obtained evidence regarding the connection of radical outfit Popular Front of India (PFI), which allegedly launched a brutal attack on a college lecturer in July, with Hizbul Mujahideen, Lashkar-e Taiba (Let) and al-Qaeda.

This needs to be added too. WBRSin (talk) 07:33, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

These days its has become very easy to use words like STUPIDITY in WP on entry of users like you. If you STOP at my version and look at the Blue links of Thol. Thirumavalavan and VCK you will know to whom the word stupidity refers to.

The link clearly says the Governments stand was rejected. WP is not a garbage to dump all false statements. Wait for CONSENSUS on this matter. Wasif (talk) 10:22, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

lol at your lack of comprehension, read the article again, the court agreed with govt petition and upheld the ban on PFI parade due to crimial nature of the group's activities. another article to help you understand.

Ban on ‘Freedom Parades’ by PFI activists upheld http://zeenews.india.com/news/kerala/ban-on-freedom-parades-by-pfi-activists-upheld_791347.html

Kochi: Kerala High Court on Thursday upheld the ban imposed by the state Government on the conduct of 'Freedom Parades' by activists of Popular Front of India (PFI) at Kollam and Kozhikode on August 15.

Earlier, the Government had submitted that the PFI, is the 'resurrection' of banned SIMI in another form and along with National Democratic Front (NDF) had 'active involvement' in 27 murder cases, mostly of cadres of CPI(M) and RSS.

Dont be in denial now. WBRSin (talk) 12:15, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

WBRS; not in denial. Just see both sides of the story . A person can only see that if there is no bias; so, to be a useful WP contributor (and not a vandal), read what others have to say about the whole matter. However, if you are unable to do that and still want to promote your stance, you may use some other alternate media, no WP. Hence, urging to act justly and not deny the Netizens their right to know the complete story; else, I would need to report you are a vandal officially. And let the admins check for your other claim - me, being sockpuppet. Repeatedly spreading falseness does influence the masses; doesn't however, change the truth Huhshyeh (talk) 18:15, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Dont threaten me with your empty threats. rina.in is not a WP:RS so your blog link was removed. Rest of your post is self-pitying emotional histronics. WBRSin (talk) 18:28, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

References

WBRSin's one-sided approach to certain Wikipedia topics continues

WBRSin, no threats - this is not the streets : as I can see such an attitude in your edits: already banned from another topic, and this would be your next- am quite sure. On what basis are you reverting? Just so that Your view is projected? I'd expected better - but it seems that you have shown whatr you really are - let the admin decide your state  : then let's see who's really self-pitying. Anyways, "undo" is very easy - I am "undo" ing to a comparatively standard introduction that included the allegation: not just allegations (how many introduction have you seen WBRSin with only allegations at start?)..This would shows 1. Your standards that needs improvement, big time 1. Your (biased) state — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huhshyeh (talk • contribs) 00:23, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello, WBRSin. I noticed once again that you recently removed some content without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. The removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you Huhshyeh (talk) 01:03, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Speak in proper english, dont just rant about your loss of face. The truth about PFI will be added whether you like it or not. You are the one doing vandalism and removing links to news articles and adding links of webpages connected to PFI, Twocircles is a islamist site and not a reliable source so dont add it.WBRSin (talk) 03:43, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

WBRSin, Please STOP your vandalism by removing the sourced content of rejection of Kerala Governments claim by the High Court. The matter is referred to Admins. Pls wait for their intervention and let them decide. Wasif (talk) 06:53, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Kerala government has stated PFI is the new avatar of banned terrorist islamist group SIMI, Wasif and Huhshyeh keep removing this info from the lead section to hide this criminal nexus. here is the news source http://www.indianexpress.com/news/pfi-is-simi-in-another-form-kerala-govt-tells-hc/979440/ WBRSin (talk) 13:30, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

It seems that you are unable to see the whole picture, here Ms. WBRSin...Same reference had shown the Kerela HC rejection - yet you seem to ignore that. My edit included both sides. It also included the cooperation of the NCHRO. Neither of the two points did you consider - you seem blinded in your one-sidedness to be frank. It's good that Wasifwasif has reported you - it will be good that the WP users get a more neutral view. And who ever made you an WP admin to warn me of a being blocked :-)? As I repeatedly mentioned in my talk, you would need to change before you simply accuse others. Let the admins decided if there is Wasif or me is alias : they know things better; hope they never make you one Huhshyeh (talk) 19:45, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Stop your POV pushing Huhshyeh, NCHRO is not a national or an independent organisation as the name suggests, one of its member P Ahmed Shareef is part of the PFI, so not a reliable source for your claims. It's like one criminal vouching for another criminal's innocence. And you dont even know what you are talking about, what the heck is "cock puppetry" that you are accusing others of, lol WBRSin (talk) 04:05, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Inter-organisational membership isn't new. Prof. Nagari Bhabaiyya is a well known human rights activist - and he current hold the chair for the NCHRO: http://www.nchro.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=7432:general-assembly-of-nchro-at-hyderabad-prof-nagaribabaiya-elected-as-new-president-of-nchro&catid=18:nchro-news&Itemid=29 . May be he too is in league with the "Islamist" PFI. WBRSin seems to be as ignorant and one-sided as seen from the start of his WP "edit". Already banned from editing another page, the ban for this page is seen to come. To get logic working, one needs to think straight; a clouded biased mind wont work - seems like WBRSin will remained so. (Excuse the word, changes made in my previous edit). WBRSin seems to think that he is an admin- let the real admin do their part. Huhshyeh (talk) 05:29, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions

Since the bickering seems to have hit a fever pitch here, I'm imposing discretionary sanctions on the article. Everyone here needs to cool it and discuss things. In particular, WBRSin, you're not making yourself look good right now. I have no problem handing out sanctions as necessary. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:02, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

There is a massive reference deletion and POV pushing going on by User:Wasifwasif and User:Huhshyeh, see for comparison between the last correction and the current version, Most of the addition by both users are not WP:RS sources like the site nchro which is connected to PFI. This needs to be set right. Since you are interested i suggest you take the lead, i will wait a few days and see how this goes. WBRSin (talk) 04:29, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your interference, Blade. Now others can contribute both "major and minor" views of as per the WP:RS page. On the reference deletion, I am not really sure of how deletion took place: I'd merely added the new references - please loop in the WP coders to check the software side. On WBRSin claim of the reliability of the sources, I guess I've only used one or two links from the NCHRO sites - and as I see the PFI work on the Human Rights Front involves not only the NCHRO but also noted activists like Arundhati Roy as seen in recently (ref 35 from the Main page). Also, as suggested in the WP:RS page, User:WBRSin continually had overlooked the other detailed of the ref 6 - I wanted to bring out the fairer more accurate picture. I see someone still trying to removed references from the IP 180.215.119.100. May be things need to cross-verified from the admins side. No one is perfect, IMHO. Huhshyeh (talk) 09:44, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Deletion by User:Wasifwasif

User Wasif has deleted the 'citation needed' tag from the SMS hate campaign section. It says 'There was no eveidence against PFI', but the given reference contains just the claim of a PFI activist. Please support the content with valid reference or it will be removed.Cyril84 (talk) 17:16, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Reverted to the last version - Cyril84 (talk) 05:09, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

when there is a reference, 'citiation needed' is not appropriate. Instead edit the content accordingly. I am doing that. Wasif (talk) 14:09, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

There are two claims: There was no evidence against PFI, and they denied the accusation. The second one is backed up by reference, but the first claim has no reference. If you think it is improper, I'll make it 'not in citation given' - Cyril84 (talk) 05:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Attack on T.J Joseph - vandalism by user Wasif

The first reference from rediff clearly says that the revelation about Taliban model court came during the interrogation of Popular Front activist Ashraf, who is the first accused in the case. This is clear vandalism by user Wasif by removing a content without checking the given reference. - Cyril84 (talk) 05:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Remove the reference where a politician charged. if it is there then, the sentence should be re writtena ccordingly. Wasif (talk) 14:00, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

vandalism by user Cyril84

Hi, The second last paragraph in THE HINDU link and the middle lines in Zee News page has got them. your deletion seems improper and reverted. Wasif (talk) 15:17, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Wasif, Please quote the content which says allegations on the PFI are proved false. I couldn't find them on the above mentioned references. The references has only claims by PFI leader Abdul Hameed and PFI chairman EM Abdul Rahiman. The articles no where says allegations on the PFI are 'proved false'. - Cyril84 (talk) 06:29, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Cyril, I don't know about all allegations, but Love Jihad allegation is clearly unfounded as seen from the 2nd paragraph in the Section "False allegations of love jihad" I think it's safe to remove the whole section - because you can't allege something which is non-existent in the State - compliant with the observation of the DG of Police. May be a Cyril84 can start a separate section "love jihad" and add to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huhshyeh (talk • contribs) 13:57, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree. When the case is closed saying the allegation is False, WP doesn't need to hold it. Wasif (talk) 14:31, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Cyril84, The line above clearly says, .......refuted by PFI. Still for better clarity re phrasing the next sentence too.Wasif (talk) 14:07, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Ban on Freedom Parade

The claim on 'high court rejecting the Kerala Governments's stand' is dubious. This will be removed.

1. The given source doesn't clearly say which stand was rejected.
2. All other sources reports that the government pleader's contentions are accepted by the court. See sources TOI, Zee News

--KuttiMama (talk) 09:34, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

KuttiMama, the first paragraph of Reference #10 (http://www.indianexpress.com/news/pfi-is-simi-in-another-form-kerala-govt-tells-hc/979440/) gives the goverment's stand on the Popular front. That stand is rejected by the High Court. So, add and remove only after looking all side of the story; maintain neutrality and bring out the better sense for the courtesy of the Wikipedia users. Huhshyeh (talk) 10:37, 14 April 2013 (UTC)Huhshyeh So, the government didn't produce any evidence in from 2010 to 2012; the HC reason for rejection is quite understandble. Huhshyeh (talk) 10:47, 14 April 2013 (UTC)Huhshyeh

Hence, factually there is nothing dubious; unbiased discussions most welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huhshyeh (talk • contribs) 13:02, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Why is it dubious?

• What did the court say on 26th July 2012?

The court rejected the government's "stand" [which is still unclear] on the application seeking permission for the freedom parade and directed it to inform its decision on Monday. Source: IExpress

• What did the court say on 2nd Aug 2012? (ie, the very next week)

Accepting senior government pleader C S Manilal's contention that granting permission to conduct the parade would jeopardize communal harmony in the state, Justice T R Ramamchandran Nair dismissed the PFI petition. Source: TOI Zee News

So in a nutshell, rejecting the Govt's stand (whatever the stand was), was only an interim verdict and directed Govt to provide more clarity next week. As per the final verdict on 2nd Aug, the High Court accepted the argument that freedom parade would jeopardize communal harmony in the state.

Also the 'lack of proof' Ref #15 you have given is from a different case happened back in 2010, which is the hand chopping case. This is related to lack of evidence on LeT and Al-Queda connection, which is not relevant here.

Highlighting an interim verdit is not so neutral. So I'm adding the dubious flag back, please discuss before removing it. --KuttiMama (talk) 14:41, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

It's obvious

• What the court said on 26th July 2012

The three references gives the Government stand on the Popular Front - that it's an offshoot or form of the banner SIMI.

  There was no interim judgement from the HC; it was a claim by the State government for which no no evidence could be provided . SIMI still remains banned.

• What did the court say on 2nd Aug 2012 ( the next week)

   Court verdict is clear : upholding the decision to ban the Parade to preserve communal harmony. Such decision have been taken with other organisation - SIMI link or not. 

KuttiMama, SIMI connection/offshoot/another form was claimed and not proven (even now); hence, the HC's rejection of this stand. The ban was, however, upheld, in accordance with the Government request to preserve communal harmony You may discuss this further before the dubious tag is removed Huhshyeh (talk) 21:35, 14 April 2013 (UTC)Huhshyeh

Not so obvious

- There was no interim judgement from the HC

No. The reference clearly says there was. If there was no interim judgment, then why did you highlight that statement in the wiki article?

interim judgment refers to civil cases Never mind the above jargon; rejection is rejection, and you have answer the rejection of the government stand yourself below Huhshyeh (talk) 16:24, 15 April 2013 (UTC)Huhshyeh .....

- The three references gives the Government stand on the Popular Front - that it's an offshoot or form of the banner SIMI.

Don't mix up Govt's stand on banning freedom parade and the claim that 'PFI being another form of SIMI'. The court rejected the government's stand on the application seeking permission for the freedom parade and directed it to inform its decision on Monday. If you say the court rejected the SIMI connection, you have show it clearly in the reference.

.....Kuttimama, you have furnished the first sentence and the last sentence of the same article; and still you don't accept the rejection of the government "stand" Mix up? It's clear; the reference is self exploratory, a self-sufficient proof. Huhshyeh (talk) 16:24, 15 April 2013 (UTC)Huhshyeh

- No evidence could be provided for SIMI connection

Thats a false statement. The affidavit says: PFI's national chairman Abdul Rehman was the former national secretary of SIMI, while the state secretary Abdul Hameed Master was SIMI's former state secretary. Most former leaders of SIMI were either identified with this organization (PFI) or were at present holding various portfolios in the new organization which itself demonstrates that the organization is a 'resurrection of SIMI' in another form.

SIMI is a banned organisation; if the Front was truly a SIMI offshoot, it would face an automatic ban; wonder why the HC didn't refer to the SC for this. May be because the same State Government had claimed Taliban & Al-Qaeda links to the Popular Front (Ref#15). Luckily, the courts and the Judges are biased the most media and certain communal elements in the state machinery....Of the 80000 or so members being claimed, I wonder how many of them are of SIMI. Huhshyeh (talk) 16:24, 15 April 2013 (UTC)Huhshyeh

Nowhere in the article says the SIMI connection was rejected by the court.

 Only one of the three "clear" things mentioned below are clear

There are three things which are clear in the sources:

1. The court did not reject or accept the SIMI connection claim.

--->Unclear : "did not reject or accept the SIMI " so what did the HC do about the banned "SIMI" connect?

2. The court rejected the Govt's stand on freedom parade on 26th July.

--->law and order situation; HC accepted this argument => Clear

3. The same court accepted the Govt's stand on 2nd Aug, after seeking further clarification from the Govt.

---> Unclear: Where is the mention of clarification,Kuttimama? " The court rejected the government's stand on the application seeking permission for the freedom parade and directed it to inform its decision on Monday."Huhshyeh (talk) 16:24, 15 April 2013 (UTC)Huhshyeh

This is why the statement is dubious.<--- seems like two of your 3 "clear" statements are unclear.Huhshyeh (talk) 16:24, 15 April 2013 (UTC)Huhshyeh

If you argue the SIMI connection was rejected in the court verdict, you have to back it up with clear references. Add at least one reliable source which clearly says it. 

--KuttiMama (talk) 04:39, 15 April 2013 (UTC) If not the SIMI connection, which else could be the goverment stand? It's quite contextual. Still welcome to discuss, but let's not waste too much time Huhshyeh (talk) 16:24, 15 April 2013 (UTC)Huhshyeh

Implied conclusion

"If not the SIMI connection, which else could be the goverment stand? <--- The question was to you, Kuttimama. The answer being : " It's quite contextual." Huhshyeh (talk) 12:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC)Huhshyeh - This is a perfect example of Implied conclusion.

You yourself is not sure what else could be it, but finally coming to the biased 'contextual' based conclusion that the court rejected SIMI connection. It may be, or may not be, but the article just doesn't say it.

Wikipedia is no place for such conclusions. See No original research - Examples <--- It's a conclusion from the article - just correlating the initial and final paragraphs as learnt in "Reading Comprehension" section of the English language curriculum taught in schools ; its not from anywhere else.

If you can find a source which clearly says the court rejected SIMI connection, I won't disagree. Or you can keep it, but have to clearly say 'which' stand was rejected by the Court.

Note: I have changed it to '[which]' --KuttiMama (talk) 09:18, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Anyways, "which" seems OK compared to "dubious".... Huhshyeh (talk) 12:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC)Huhshyeh

Misleading by deliberate omissions by users like Kuttimama

I've notice time and again that there are omissions from the same sentence from the references given. I don't understand the exact reason why this is being done. Full light and justice not being done to the page, hence.Users like Kuttimama just being an example. Let's try to keep things neutral; let both views been aired here to maximize neutrality. Huhshyeh (talk) 05:10, 25 April 2013 (UTC)Huhshyeh

In his latest edit, User Kuttimama tried to mislead the wikiusers and readers alike. The reference <http://www.mathrubhumi.com/english/story.php?id=135471> he had used, clearly shows this - the word "alleged" is deliberately missed by Kuttimama. In fact, by co-joining the events/ findings of 2010 and 2013; he / she tried to bring out the facts, distorted. @Wikiadmins, please note this unhealthy behavior by user Kuttimama, something clearly against WP ethics. Huhshyeh (talk) 07:21, 25 April 2013 (UTC)Huhshyeh

Let's keep it neutral

Huhshyeh, you are always welcome to make modifications, if you feel I omitted something. Did I ever delete a properly cited content from you? I haven't distorted any facts also - First raid and second raid have both retrieved country-made bombs, weapons and documents related to terrorist ideologies. When a similar event happened again in 2013, I just combined both to avoid repetition.

Some early reports used the term 'alleged PFI activists', however the first reference (which is also the latest) clearly says 'KERALA COPS CONFIRM POPULAR FRONT TERROR CAMP IN KANNUR'. This is why I've avoided the terminology 'alleged', but I'm still keeping the term 'alleged terror camp'.

"The Popular Front leadership and those arrested claimed that a Yoga training programme was being held at the facility as part of a personality development programme the outfit had organized." - which basically means that PFI leadership has admitted that the people attended the camp were infact PFI members.

Providing verifiable sources is the criteria for editing a wiki page I suppose. Correct me if I am wrong. @Wikiadmins are welcome to verify this.--KuttiMama (talk) 03:57, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd say, let the dust down - such issues always see many changes, claims and counter claims..I prefer not waste time on those.. @Kuttimama, my query was only regarding the initial reference that was provided - not the later references that followed suite... Let's keep neutral - I prefer the same too...Huhshyeh (talk) 20:11, 28 April 2013 (UTC)Huhshyeh

Conspiracies against PFI?

Before providing reasons behind conspiracies, first provide sources to prove that there is conspiracy against PFI. Citing a PFI leader is not a proof and is purely an original research. --KuttiMama (talk) 06:19, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

@Kuttimama, what was reported from news sources is being referenced here.. The aim is that both views being aired to ensure bias does come in this WP topic. Allegations (mentioned under a special section itself)and Conspiracy being claimed by the leaders are two sides of the same coin. Proving or Disproving is something that I don't/cant' do: I can merely provide references, three of which I've already given. As such, you may go ahead and remove the citation tag you have given - if you don't any specific reason/agenda not to remove it Huhshyeh (talk) 20:02, 28 April 2013 (UTC)Huhshyeh

Huhshyeh, if the conspiracy is a only claim by PFI leaders, I recommend a re-structure of the sentence to reflect that. The current statement makes an assumption that there is an authentic report on conspiracy.--KuttiMama (talk) 09:04, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Kuttimama, it's been like that from initial edit; just re-read and find the use of the word "reported" - in the 1st sentence - and "conspiracy" already in quotes in the 2nd sentence; this already suffices the query raised; hence do the necessary...Huhshyeh (talk) 18:32, 29 April 2013 (UTC)Huhshyeh

Too much of talk. Term "reported" is cleverly used against "leaders reasoned as to why numerous allegations were being made and conspiracies being hatched". This is why I suggested a re-structuring of the sentence. You can clearly see a pre-assumption that conspiracies exists against PFI. Nowhere it says the conspiracy is only alleged by its leaders. Hope you got it, or else I'll go ahead and change it. --KuttiMama (talk) 11:02, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this talk wasn't needed in the 1st place; the initial use of "reported" had already said it all (restructured or not) - similar to the other reports from media. 3 sources have cited to suggest the leaders view; whatever reason they have expressed has been added consistent with all the cited sources; so is there are need to cite it again, Kuttimama? I believe not - it would seem too mean of me to remove the tag you have put; so kindly do the honors.Huhshyeh (talk) 20:02, 30 April 2013 (UTC)Huhshyeh The Honor have been done; conspiracy has been put in quotes Huhshyeh (talk) 22:25, 6 May 2013 (UTC)Huhshyeh

Vandalism from 149.199.62.254

Ok, now the user at 149.199.62.254 seems to be gun-ho with changing the articles without any evidences - a clear case of Wiki Vandalism. Hence, reverting the changes unless there is some real evidence from the user IP 149.199.62.254.

@Admins, please have a check on this user IP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huhshyeh (talk • contribs) 08:34, 25 May 2013 (UTC) . Also, Admins, may be it's time to make this a semi-protected page so that valid users are able to edit (and not vandal)Huhshyeh (talk) 08:50, 25 May 2013 (UTC)Huhshyeh

False allegations of love jihad

The allegation has already been cleared; as mentioned previously, I think it's time that this section be moved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huhshyeh (talk • contribs) 14:38, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, an allegation when cleared by court saying, No such matter did exist there is no point in holding the piece here. Wasif (talk) 15:11, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I think it's OK to removed now. There is already a Wiki page for the so-called "Love Jihad" Huhshyeh (talk) 05:10, 25 April 2013 (UTC)Huhshyeh

Removing the section as mentioned 40days before; reference from The Hindu is being furnished [66] Huhshyeh (talk) 13:45, 25 May 2013 (UTC)Huhshyeh

Semi-protection for Page

There is large scale vandalism of this page by skewed elements mis-editting WP. Revertions are being made to article editted with clear references, hence. WP Admins, please note this trend for this page; semi-protection being called for. Huhshyeh (talk) 12:17, 25 May 2013 (UTC)Huhshyeh

Again, we see sentence removal from a certain IP address without giving any reason. Hence "undo" ing this removal. Reiterating the need to make this page semi-protected. Huhshyeh (talk) 18:40, 16 July 2013 (UTC)Huhshyeh

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:49, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

07 April 2014. Major editing in previous few days.

I went through the entire article one section in a day and cleaned up grammar mistake, original research, and weasel terms. I have tried to keep each edit small and provided descriptive summary. Please discuss here if you want to undo my changes. After more study I may be taking some sources to Wikipedia:RSN for discussion. Jyoti (talk) 07:44, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

@Jyoti.mickey: Did you analyzed the changes I recently made to the article before reverting the same? Okay, have a look at this diff. link. I left an edit-summary "fixing" and I fixed a missing "left chevron" (<) from ref. It really is worth leaving a message before on talk page for? Anupmehra -Let's talk! 12:50, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

@Anupmehra: Okay. Jyoti (talk) 12:54, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I noticed, you've used WP:Twinkle to revert my changes, there you could use "last" clickable option in the top column, it'd be showing you last changes made to an article. "Please give more comment than "minor fixing" before deleteing a significant portion containng several reference" edit-summary for this change is really NOT helpful. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 13:03, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, @User:Anupmehra I admit it, I made a mistake in reading your edit. When you pointed out I understood. And I replied okay to you. Perhaps I should have typed this text at that time itself. My edit-summary reflects my mistake. I haven't challenged or discussed your revert after you pointed it out to me. Regards. Jyoti (talk) 12:25, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

@User:Wasifwasif I have left a talk for you on your talk page. copying them here for other editors also to discuss: I have undone your recent edits assuming good faith. You can see this talk page section. There were small incremental edits with descriptive edit summary over a week. Please do not blindly overwrite them. Several good improvements were lost in the bulk copy paste from much older revisions by you. Do specific editing at a time with descriptive edit summary. I have restored your POV tag on the article. Thank you. Jyoti (talk) 04:28, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

About "Discrediting source P C Katoch and link" -- copied from user talk page to article page.

Can you please give a reason for this thisrevert? I had provided two academic source of which one is a defense journal. Your edit summary only says "Discrediting source P C Katoch and link" -- I have undone the edit. There were large disruptive edit by another user who (effectively not literally) imposed a much earlier revision of the article ignoring the discussion on the talk page. I have retained his POV tag though. Jyoti (talk) 04:52, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Jyoti PC Katoch is no historian. The observations are his own; the general is now pro-right wing - already joined the BJP, the political party of the militant RSS. The grounds for discrediting source is quite clear. If you want WP article to be neutral, provide sources and info. from both sides. Huhshyeh (talk) 06:08, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

There is no rule that we can refer only historian. The content referenced from his work from his book and the defense journal is not a matter of history either. What is the other side you are talking about? If you find that some thing more needs to be added please do so (with reliable reference) but you may not discredit the references at your will, they are reliable source. Jyoti (talk) 10:07, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

If it's no historian, it's a personal opinion. Personal opinions of person already "right" inclined towards a party (BJP) known for it's anti-minority bais, is hence a biased source. Hence,Jyoti , in all certainty, it's not reliable as per WP. Huhshyeh (talk) 10:29, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

You have weighed in a lot of personal opinion each time. That aside, I disagree with you. A journal reference and a book reference are reliable source IMHO. Besides the author is a retired defense personal of highest reputation. And it is likely he has good understanding of the subject concerned here. Please take it to WP:RSN and find consensus there if you want it to be not treated as RS. Jyoti (talk) 10:42, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

My edits in WP is always backed up by references. The references online doesn't say that the PFI has ISI links. So, apart for the right-wing bias of the Ret. General, the actual content doesn't support your edit. So, Jyoti, I will have no option that to revert the paragraph - I'll wait for your quick response, however, as a matter of good faith, if you really want to give the WP readers the most neutral and the most widest of views. Huhshyeh (talk) 11:19, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Huhshyeh, please make up your mind: Do you want to argue that 1. He is not historian? 2. The references cannot be treated as WP:RS? 3. You want to discard the reference because your online references do not say the same? My response is clear and consistent since my first reply to you on this topic -- please take references to WP:RSN if you want to discard a journal and a book by a author of high repute writing on a subject of his field. Hereis an online reference from The Hindu where it was stated by Home Minister V.S. Acharya also. Since it is mentioned by Home Minister and discussed in Defense Journal and Academic book it is not a passing remark. Jyoti (talk) 11:40, 18 April 2014 (UTC).

Both 1&2. He is not an historian. 2. The journal you have given doesn't "link" the PFI to the anti-national ISI. So, before actually putting the source, please check what's actually given the source, and accordingly edit the WP page. So, unless you can put the correctly what is given in your own source, I would need to revert. For the new link provided, let me see how you present both sides of the story. Doubtful, but let me put you in good faith, Jyoti, again. Huhshyeh (talk) 13:54, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Now you are chasing a 4th agenda that the content is not present in the sources? I have checked the source -- I am not clear what is your challenge? What is sourced from the reference is present in the reference. Jyoti (talk) 15:21, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

4th agenda? Wonder which are my 1-3rd..Jyoti, the defense journal given as reference|source doesn't give the content of "links" b/w PFI and ISI. So, edit the content as present in the source. So, check & double-check the edit you make/change on this page, esp. since the page has a long talk history. When/if you publish details from the new source given, I would like to see both parts of the story submitted; let's see if the (initial) BJP tilt/bias remains -not much of a challenge, I'd say. Hope I'm clear, at least now. Huhshyeh (talk) 17:39, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

The content in this article is "Retired Indian army officer P C Katoch has claimed that PFI has links with ISI." For the last time I repeat this is backed by the given sources. Each time you reply you come up with a different issue? I am copying all your changing queries here and responding:

1. He is not a historian -- he does not have to be. Period. << His NOT being a scholar/historian does make personal opinions cloud.

2. The references cannot be treated as WP:RS -- please take it to WP:RSN. Period. << Reference given doesn't comply with the edit.

3. No online references on the subject -- Hereis an online reference from The Hindu. << The reference indicated in the online defense journal

4. Content is not present in reference -- I disagree, please check again. Period. << No change, read again - I'd need to revert if you can't put in what you read in the source.

5. The derivation for proving the link is not given -- it need not be. This is not court proceedings. That is why 'claim'. << Atleast, there is some agreement here.

6. Both parts of the story -- I have no clue what you mean. Go ahead and add it? One sided view from the same source; like your latest omission of the HC's reject of the 2010 Kerala police claim,

7. BJP Bias -- He was not part of BJP nor is the Home minister. Period << He (PC) has joined th BJP; the HM is a BJP/RSS --Here is one of many references for the HM - all anti-minority

Jyoti (talk) 23:57, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

<< shows the inline Replies;Jyoti you can stop the "bias" and incomplete edits from the same source. Huhshyeh (talk) 07:07, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:FOC Focus on article content during discussions. The content in this article is "Retired Indian army officer P C Katoch has claimed that PFI has links with ISI." You have been raising new objections each time and I have patiently replied to all of them. I have nothing to add, my replies remain the same as above. 1. He does not have to be historian. 2. Take reference to WP: RSN if you think they are unreliable. 3. The news article link was to satisfy your personal query. 4. Content is present in reference. 5. This Wikipedia article is not a court proceedings. 6. Go ahead add whatever part you want to present -- I have not hindered you. 7. He was not part of BJP. The HM being part of BJP when he was alive does not make it any less credible besides that is not we are really discussing here -- we are discussing P C Katoch and credibility of a Defense Journal. I would not want to respond on your harping of bias and incomplete edit -- I do not see a reason behind your outrage. This looks motivated. --Jyoti (talk) 10:00, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Deleting entire section without discussion

User:Wasifwasif You have deleted this twice: 1, 2. I also think it did not stood in court. That should be presented instead of deleting the entire section! Please restore the section, edit out any bias and present the outcome of the court. WP:VNT applies. Jyoti (talk) 14:56, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Its of no value to add information about an incident in which PFI had no involvement as proved by court. Wasif (talk) 15:20, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Wasifwasif, It was mentioned prominently by mainstream publishers(1, 2, etc.). You have reverted twice without any discussion. Can you provide a WP:RS supporting 'PFI had no involvement as proved by court'? Please check WP:VNT. Jyoti (talk) 16:47, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I have reverted. If you may substantiate with a WP:RS then edit this and mention the court decision also. Jyoti (talk) 12:52, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Have aadded tags. It you who need to substantiate your caims with WP:RS. Wasif (talk) 15:14, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

No, I did not add the content so the burden of providing reference is not on me although I did add it now. Since you removed entire section twice and not just the two statements that you tagged with citation needed tag and also made bold claims for doing so without furnishings supporting reference the burden was on you to substantiate your actions. Jyoti (talk) 05:01, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

You have made further editsto the section without giving a heads up here or providing any edit summary, I have editedafter you explaining my view in the edit summary. Here are two more WP:RS accordingly: 1, 2. Jyoti (talk) 18:19, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

School Chalo campaign deletion

This is the nth time this section is blanked out, while it's a annual programme. WP admins, request you to make this a semi-protected page so that such deletions are not done from some random IP. Unbiased users have the right to know all sides of the story. Huhshyeh (talk) 21:58, 16 July 2014 (UTC)Huhshyeh

Incorrectly presented info. from sources; biased sources

There seems to be more misrepresentation of facts from the same source. As I have asked Jyoti, I ask others editors to check the sources, and the present both sides of the story. Allegation and Accusation are to be presented accordingly; not as facts on the WP. "Biased" WP editors will be tagged as Vandals. Huhshyeh (talk) 14:44, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

For the records, User:Huhshyeh added this section in the context of the previous section About "Discrediting source P C Katoch and link" -- copied from user talk page to article page where he argued that my edit was biased. He brought new objections in every new reply and repeatedly (three times) said he would revert. As of now, it seems he has abandoned the discussion. Jyoti (talk) 08:38, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Jyoti, I was away. You still haven't given the visual evidence I've asked for in the discussion. So, please do that instead of telling I've abandoned the discussion Huhshyeh (talk) 22:05, 16 July 2014 (UTC)Huhshyeh

User here. have a open mind of whaat other Editors say, read to their point carefully, go and verify with Non Biased sources and then coma back to WP to make an Edit. This way you can create some constructive info rather than standing to your point and simply blaming the editors (its a kind of vandalism too)like i was did in Dargah page. Wasif (talk) 10:59, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Too much use of 'alleged'

How come all PFI related bad deeds are 'alleged' and credits are absolute?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nimrodindia (talk • contribs) 15:34, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

When the matter is just an allegation and nowhere proven by any court of law then its just an allegation. @Nimrodindia, What fault did you find in that? Wasif (talk) 16:35, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

It seems that the Wiki main page for the Popular Front is mainly meant for allegations? May be a separate page is needed to the same, plan to do so as well. let me know your suggest prior. WP is meant to source information, not just to highlight information by some biased editors. The same biased editors seem to sidestepped related activities.. Huhshyeh (talk)Huhshyeh — Preceding undated comment added 03:20, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Huhshyeh, if you want to create new page on criticism on PFI then go ahead, I can help you to improve that page. But it doesn't mean that this article will not have any criticism regarding PFI. We need only reliable sourced info. It is not personal website of PFI to glorify PFI here, they can do it on their personal website or social media account. Here we should write about both sides but exclusively from reliable sources. This article needs clean up. --Human3015 Say Hey!! • 04:57, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Human3015, my sentence means what it says. Both sides need to brought to the WP readers, and shouldn't seems biased. This page seems biased in comparison to the similar pages like that of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh etc. Even clean ups are welcome. Huhshyeh (talk)Huhshyeh

Kautilya3, you can watch this page, Popular Front of India is claimed as social working organization by its followers while Police claims that said organization is involved in several terrorist activities. My edit regarding police's claim has been removed 1-2 times, while followers of this organization keep on adding social claims from un-reliable source. You can see how lengthy lead became. You are good at NPOV. You are interested in such issue. For now you can keep this page on your watchlist. You can improve it whenever you will get time for this. Thank you.--Human3015 Say Hey!! • 08:22, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Kautilya3, please do watch the page, and strike the right balance. :Human3015, allegations are allegation, and I still see more allegations in the same section. If you are able to find otherwise, please revert. As of now, I'need to revert since that seems more accurate at present. Huhshyeh (talk)Huhshyeh

These kind of problems arise from an overreliance on newspaper sources. They only report allegations and don't have the authority to make definitive statements. To find authentic information, we need to look at scholarly sources. So, please look at them. I will add in a few. If you can't access them, you can ask me and I can email you copies. If you have been around for a year, you can also join the Wikipedia library which provides access to many journals etc. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 08:34, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Kautilya3, I will use the WP Library too. Pls share references. In the meanwhile, our friend:Human3015 seems to "NPOV" claiming Original research for facts backed up with references. I need to correct that. Pls have a check, and give a feedback to make things saner

Deletion of unrelated content

Suggest article clean up for repeated info. Also for unrelated content like"Murder of Vishalkumar" - clearing that now.

Urging a less rigged more precise articles here and throughout WP — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huhshyeh (talk • contribs) 05:25, 25 June 2015 (UTC) Huhshyeh Why is "Kidnap and Murder of boys for ransom by KFD" put in the same section? Huhshyeh (talk)Huhshyeh — Preceding undated comment added 05:28, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I think "New Indian Express" is far more reliable source than "Muslim Mirror" and other your favorite "sources". --Human3015 Call me maybe!! • 07:17, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

May be, but these 2 sources have not been reprimaded by the PCI like the NIE has been Huhshyeh (talk)

Section removals

"Accusation of "Violence in Shimoga, Karnataka" is proven false from sources & , and hence being removed.Huhshyeh (talk)

Press Council of India stories, reliability of "reliable" media and their "sources" the NIA and IB, and the validity of allegations section itself

Apparently, PFI filed a complaint with the Press Council against pretty much all the mainstream newspapers charging them with faulty reports. In such a situation, the mainstream newspapers don't constitute WP:THIRDPARTY, and it is fine to use Muslim community sources. However, please use as reliable sources as you can find. Use inline-attribution, e.g., "TwoCircles has reported that...". - Kautilya3 (talk) 09:31, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

No all mainstream, Kautilya3, 10 in precise. Complainting is one thing, but the PCI taking the papers to task is another things.

Incidently, it's a game reversal - the PFI here accusing the Press, while all the while the press, at least some of it, have been found at fault by the Press Council. Hilariously, if we go through the "accusations" and allegations against the PFI mentioned by the "reliable" media sources, both the the NIA and IB doesn't seem to justify that they are the real sources of media content. Nor has the Judiciary put any verdict against the PFI, even in the recent "most infamous" hand chopping case, the accused are alleged members? So we have a loads of unaccounted words here used as propaganda by some in media, denied by goverment sources, unverified by the Judiciary. So please Human3015 and his alias Irrigator go ahead and fill the page with the PCI warned NIExpress news...Huhshyeh (talk)

The denial from NIA and IB don't mean much. Complaint was made against 10 newspapers, but only one was taken to task by the Press Council. So, the other 9 continue to be reliable sources for us. The fact that PFI made a complaint doesn't make them unreliable. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:17, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

In more detail, a newspaper can say they have sources inside the NIA and IB that provided information. That information may be unofficial and the official statements might deny it. However, unless the papers have published retractions, we presume that they are reliable by WP:RS policies. The official statements of NIA and IB are not reliable for Wikipedia, but the newspapers are. - Kautilya3 (talk) 09:24, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Kautilya3 there are directives from the PCI to some newpapers to retract statements. While the supreme authoriy of the Press in India, says that around 10 in mainstream media have erred by giving false info on the PFI, how can one validate the false reports from these 10 papers, esp. with respect to the Popular Front? I think this need to be taken up at the WP Policies level, and WP Admins be informed as well. And Kautilya3, how are "Mangalorean.com" and "daijiworld.com" unreliable? -they are as per user Human3015. As per our earlier discussion, such minority local newspaper sources are not. I guess User:Human3015 has missed out on that discussion as well, and carry out a new blanking of a section. In any case, I have brought such revert and blanking out to the WP Admins notice. Let them decide what need to be done with such editors.Huhshyeh (talk)

Well, you can take it to WP:RSN if you want to question the sources or WP:DRN if you want to raise issue about a content disagreement. But, I don't yet see a clearly stated dispute. Is any of the reports cited by our article labelled as a false report by the Press Council of India? Please answer that specific question. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:25, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Reverts

pls let's kknow the claim of unreliability of "Mangalorean.com" and "daijiworld.com" before re-reverting — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huhshyeh (talk • contribs) 14:58, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Huhshyeh, then next question to you, why you deleted recently a claim from "Times of India" that intelligence agencies found role of PFI in Mumbai, Pune and Hyderabad blasts? Any reason to delete? "Times of India" is one of most reliable source for India related articles and you deleting it while same you insisting that "Mangalorean.com", "Muslim mirror", "Daijiworld" are reliable? Why you deleted "Times of India " claim? --Human3015 knock knock • 15:19, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

As always, User:Human3015, u fail to read the reason for revert/edit. pls re-read it from the history of the page for that particular edit Huhshyeh (talk)

Copy pasting the same line for the latest revert on section "On false accusation..." As always, User:Human3015, u fail to read the reason for revert/edit. pls re-read it from the history of the page for that particular edit Huhshyeh (talk)

Huhshyeh, you should self revert yourself, your these kind of edits will lead you to WP:Topic ban. We can't declare accusations as "false" in section title. --Human3015 knock knock • 20:46, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Human3015, the section deals with the known false charges, so it can be put? Any grammatical reason? Huhshyeh (talk)

Messed up article

Someone is creating a Positive image of PFI here. Administrators must track him/her down. 50% of this article is fake propaganda.--Silver Samurai 10:28, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Silver Samurai, this has been big issue here, I have took this matter to ANI, they suggested me to go for ARBITRATION ENFORCEMENT on involved editor who created positive image of alleged terror outfit.{because this article comes under DS) This article needs clean up. I have not gone for arbitration yet. You can help to cleaning up this article, but don't delete all positive claims, those who belongs to reliable source should stay here, also if any allegation is from unreliable source then delete that too. Thank you. --Human3015 knock knock • 12:46, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Popular Front of India. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120425080615/http://www.popularfrontindia.org/pp/sites/default/files/4%20Booklet%20design.pdf to http://www.popularfrontindia.org/pp/sites/default/files/4%20Booklet%20design.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:43, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Many baseless "allegations" and unreliable sources.

Many stupid allegations like "connection with international extremists groups" , "Love Jihad" etc. are given by author without any reliable proofs and evidences from official investigations. If it is proved that there is no connection and allegations are false, then what is the need of writing such unnecessary heading which will give a bad image to the reader. From the article, it can be be understood that this article is written by personal judgement.Most of the allegations made by biased medias are just copied here. The author has given the information without investigating and studying about the matters.

Anyone can make pages and write opinions but should not impose it on others by portraying any organization with personal interests. Proving allegations by news reports is a bad idea, because most of the news agencies now are corrupt and gives news as per their interest. This can be seen in the recent fake footage roaming in the media to rise the JNU issue. You must also make clear what the RSS/sankhparivar goons did in Shimoga.RSS workers were the ones who ignited the violence by throwing stones and destroying shops and vehicles.

I understood that you support neutrality from the talk , but you have to be more careful while deciding what is to be given in the page. Fish124 (talk) 08:55, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Popular Front of India. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.coastaldigest.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=11989%3Apfi&catid=59%3Atop-stories&Itemid=67
• Added archive https://archive.is/20120906203401/http://www.popularfrontindia.org/pp/story/chairmans-introductory-remarks-during-social-justice-conference-office-inauguration-get-togeth to http://www.popularfrontindia.org/pp/story/chairmans-introductory-remarks-during-social-justice-conference-office-inauguration-get-togeth

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:18, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Manitha Neethi Pasarai

The organisation is currently merged with the Popular Front of India. Kutyava (talk) 11:37, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 November 2019

Change the first line to "The Popular Front of India (PFI) is an extremist and militant Islamic fundamentalist organisation in India" from "The Popular Front of India (PFI) is a Neo Social Movement"

The lead mentions it as a new social movement which is what the organization says, but secondary sources say it's an Islamist outfit and radical Muslim organization.

The official twitter account says- https://twitter.com/PFIOfficial

"A Neo-Social Movement which strives for the empowerment of marginalized section of India."

But what it says about itself is not right. What other news media says should be seen by Wikipedia.

List of sources

source 1- https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/this-is-india-not-afghanistan/2011/02/04/ABOyT5E_story.html source 2- Kerala-based Islamist organisation PFI's Gulf link exposed; NIA claims it collected funds from expatriates - https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/nia-kerala-islamist-organisation-popular-frot-of-india-1053512-2017-09-27 source 3- Kerala Asks Centre To Ban Islamist Outfit Popular Front Of India, Says Report - https://www.outlookindia.com/website/story/kerala-asks-centre-to-ban-islamist-outfit-popular-front-of-india-says-report/308332 source 4- NIA chargesheet lists radical outfit Popular Front of India's crimes: Why hasn't it been banned? - https://www.indiatoday.in/programme/the-people-s-court/video/popular-front-of-india-nia-chargesheet-helping-isis-trains-cadres-in-explosives-1069319-2017-09-27 source 5- https://www.thequint.com/explainers/explainer-why-government-wants-pfi-banned-popular-front-of-india source 6-Bengaluru: NIA accuses PFI,SDPI of terrorism in murder of RSS worker - https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/bengaluru-nia-pfi-sdpi-rss-murder-terrorism-1123833-2018-01-06 source 7- Ban Kerala’s PFI for ‘role in acts of terror’: NIA tells home ministry - https://theprint.in/defence/ban-keralas-pfi-role-acts-terror-nia-tells-home-ministry/9933/ 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. - https://www.newindianexpress.com/cities/kochi/2019/may/12/prof-joseph-to-relive-trauma-of-terror-attack-in--memoir-1975692.html source 9- https://indianexpress.com/article/india/jharkhand-six-months-after-hc-struck-it-down-state-govt-bans-pfi-again-5582893/ source 10 - https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mangaluru/let-centre-ban-pfi-other-communal-forums-khader/articleshow/62385740.cms source 11 - http://archive.indianexpress.com/news/pfi-trying-to-make-kerala-a--muslim-country--says-vs/651344/ source 12- https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/radical-muslim-outfit-faces-ban/articleshow/60917635.cms source 13 - https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/kerala-police-to-seek-legal-opinion-on-invoking-anti-terror-law-in-student-killing/articleshow/64868333.cms?from=mdr Source 14- https://www.sundayguardianlive.com/news/pfis-expansion-assam-alarms-police-authorities source 15 - https://www.scoopwhoop.com/all-about-popular-front-of-india-that-could-soon-be-banned-for-its-terror-links-love-jihad/ source 16 - https://www.outlookindia.com/website/story/islamist-popular-front-of-india-involved-in-terror-acts-nia-submits-report-to-go/301575 source 17 - https://www.sundayguardianlive.com/opinion/kerala-lefts-love-islamist-pfi-deep-roots source 18 - https://www.livemint.com/Leisure/4yef4a1QSSveodVZbHnIAL/TJ-Joseph-the-professor-who-gave-his-hand.html (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,)

In this article those lines which mentions about positive works by PFI are mostly Muslim owned websites which have links with Popular Front of India.

This was correct according to above sources. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Popular_Front_of_India&oldid=895190630 AntonyGonzalveZ (talk) 14:57, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

 Note:. I collapsed the sources for readability and asked for help with this one at WP:NPOVN. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:43, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

 Done It looks like that was the stable version before we had these problems. I've changed it back and cleaned up some other things, although that lead could do with cutting down, too. - ChrisWar666 (talk) 01:45, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 April 2022

This article is written by pro government, pro rss fascists without any factual basis. This article should be edited with the accurate details and not with biased nature of rss 27.6.88.125 (talk) 12:55, 15 April 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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:04, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 May 2022

Popular friends of India is a social movement working in India for over two decade. Not extremist Islamic organisation. Or Authentic government citation required 91.73.96.217 (talk) 06:45, 4 May 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.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 May 2022

This article is looking unfair and , politically motivated, only negative baseless false allegations highlighted in the article things requesting you to please edit it on the bases of true facts. it looks like some opposition party updated this article to defame PFI. 103.196.202.91 (talk) 11:42, 24 May 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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:46, 24 May 2022 (UTC)