Talk:Love jihad conspiracy theory/Archive 1

Hoax?
A notable Hoax is still a hoax.117.204.81.102 (talk) 13:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I just wonder How SOMEONE can find unreality in this matter. Even a simple google search can give enough links. If Love Jihad is a HOAX, Its a notable hoax. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.206.41.237 (talk • contribs) 05:58, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Definitely this is a Hoax spread by Right wing organizations in India to oppose Inter-religion marriage and to spread hatred among Hindus and Muslims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.193.221.142 (talk) 22:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Recent opinion polls have shown that majority of the people believe this is a hoax. Riyaz.Pookoya (talk) 14:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality and Notability
I believe the article doesn't satisfy notability guidelines as WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Having a few newsreports(even if they are from reliable sources) do not warrant a separate article.

The article is not neutral as it has some original research  synthesised to promote a case - the sources mostly talk about a court case and allegation by some organizations about "Love Jihad", but there is no other reference about the existence of such an organization or its "activity" as it is put in the article. ZencvLets discuss 09:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Edits reverted
I reverted several edits from User:Yusuf.Abdullah as it violated a number of core WP policies - a section named "Modus Operandi" was linked to a single primary source(ie, http://thatsmalayalam.oneindia.in/news/2009/10/16/love-jihad-kcbc-social-harmony-father-johney-kochuparambil.pdf), that too in Malayalam, not in English!. Another section titled "Similar incidents" contained incidents of "forced conversion" which do not belong here as you cannot synthesise that these have anthing to do with alleged "Love Jihad" activity in South India. Lastly, a section titled " Further Reading" is a clear nonsense - WP is not a soapbox for propaganda purpose by Bishop's Council or anything. The reference was in Malayalam, linked to a circular from the primary source and WP doesnt work that way. If you want to add a sentence, please look for a source in English linked to a reliable source. ZencvLets discuss 22:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * nothing but a propaganda edit. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Oniongas (talk) 16:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * True, the claims are outrageous and not supported by any reference.  Z e n c v  Whisper  18:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Zencv has been trying hard to get rid of this article from the beginning. First he has placed deletion request, then once that was rejected, started with revert wars. User:Zencv is indulging in vandalism.

Even though Love Jihad is a matter on which two high courts have sought details about and most of the newspapers in Kerala have been reporting with importance, User:Zencv seems to be trying to portray it as non-existing. User:Zencv should not try to enforce his personal agenda on wikipedia. 121.241.67.226 (talk) 10:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The user User:Zencv has been making edits repeatedly in defense of Jihadi organizations, despite several attempts by other users to provide quality information in this article. We should ask for Admin intervention? 125.16.65.7 (talk) 10:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, ask admins. Take your Nikkerwallahs with you as well. But if you want to add something here, you have to abide with policies here. This is not a placeholder for Sanghparivar propaganda  Z e n c v  Whisper  20:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Please maintain the professionalism instead of personal attacks. And if you want to make any edits make sure they are unbiased and well referenced, dont edit just because u think so.Oniongas (talk) 04:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

History
I have removed a section named "History" as well, as similar to other edits by Yusuf.Abdulla, this was also based on blatant lies. The source doesn't say anything about "Love Jihad" (and this incident has nothing to do with that). If he/anyone else thinks so, thats fine so long as they keep their opinion to themselves. But if they want to add it in the article, the source should support that. Please do not add these kind of materials in the future before discussing here in the talk page. Thanks  Z e n c v  Whisper  20:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You are misguiding others saying that User:Yusuf.Abdullah is banned in your edit sumary, also intentionally accusing him of sock puppetry. Please refrain from Personal attacks. Porsched sgools (talk) 05:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * See the language User talk:Zencv used above (nikkerwalah etc). And he is talking about policies, the language to be used, etc! User talk:Zencv is not a neutral person. See the list of his contributions - most of the edits are in favor of a group of organizations with similar objectives. Patriot indian muslim (talk) 09:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Admins,plz ban User talk:Zencv for supporting terrorist organizations and hurling personal abuse.116.68.88.49 (talk) 03:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Similar Incidents
Reference to similar incidents may not contain the phrase Love Jihad, Because it is a new term. But similarity is very clear. Reinstating the section removed by Zencv--Purger.kl (talk) 16:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If you wish to read our very first reference, you can see enough similar incidents. Please check this, this or this also--Purger.kl (talk) 16:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This is what we call synthesising. The problem is not just that the sources do not contain a particular phrase, rather they do not say anything about the relationship. It is not enough if similarity is clear only to you(or some other conspiracy theorists). Sources should support that. The example of Stanford prison experiment article is different - there they talk about experiments of the same name "Prison experiment" conducted by various other bodies such as BBC - Here you are trying to prove that all marital conversion to Islam that happened in many parts of the world over many years bear similarity to alleged things in India, which would be a blatant OR. Now one question: Why are you(who had made few other edits in WP) so keen to add it back before providing a logical argument here, how any of those mentioned incidents of "forced marriage" is in fact part of alleged "Love Jihad" in South India, rather than isolated non connected events.   Z e n c v  Whisper  18:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Category
I have removed the category "Jihadist organizations" as it is neither proved, nor exist any source which says that "Love Jihad" is an organization  Z e n c v  Whisper  08:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * An institutionalized activity whose name contains the very word "jihad" is 'jihadist' per se, if not an 'organization'. since there exist no category for it as such, i beg to differ zencv 117.204.86.150 (talk) 16:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you have any sources to support your theory?  Z e n c v  Whisper  17:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Zencv. The "Love Jihad" is perpetrated by a number of organizations but is not an organization in and of itself.Pectoretalk 21:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, calling "love jihad" an organisation would be tantamount to calling "jihad" and organisation--UltraMagnusspeak 22:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Christian Views
The artilce refers to supposed Christian protests under two headings: First under "Communal Effects" it write about the views of the Vigilance Council of Kerala Catholic Bishops Council(KCBC). Later, Johny Kochuparambil, heading the same body, is described as a "Christian leader" and his views given as "Protest by Christian Organization". This is misleading. In fact, indications are that the statement by Kochuparambil was an un-authorized knee-jerk reaction. "Satyadeepam", Kerala's largest circulated Catholic weekly, published under the management of Eranakulam archdiocese and patronage of Cardinal Varkey Vithayathil, doyen of Kerala's catholic bishops, carried two articles criticizing unnecessary controvery created over the issue. The first article in the edition dated 28 October was by its Editor, Fr. Kuriakose Mundatan. The second article, in the issue dated 4 November, by prominent Catholic Columnist Lekha Rose, described the controvercy as "A Chase after a non existant black cat in the dark". The weekly has not published even a line supporting the allegations behind the controvercy.Jorjqt (talk) 07:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * How would you have reformulated the heading? Allegations by "Vigilance Council of Kerala Catholic Bishops Council" would be one option, but not sure whether we have to be as specific as this org. is not known much. As for criticism towards this organization by other Christian organizations, do you have some reliable sources? If yes, they can be included under the category of "Allegations by Christian ..." . Controversy per se may be the act of some vested interests among Christians and Hindus(who may have had shared goals in this regard), but in the context of this article, we have to take "Vigilance Council of Kerala Catholic Bishops Council" as a Christian organization even if they don't represent all Christians, as sources like this say so.   Z e n c v  Whisper  22:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Jony Kochuparambil issued the statement as Head of the Vigilance Council of the Kerala Catholic Bishops Council(KCBC). That statement is mentioned at two places in the article. First it is given as a warning issued by the KCBC. Again, under another heading it is given as the statement by a Christian leader. The wiki reader is thus led to believe that the reference is to two separate statements, one on behalf of an organization called KCBC and another by a community leader. KCBC itself is no mass community organization. It is only a body of Catholic Bishops of Kerala. As head of a Commission under the KCBC, Johny Kochuparambil is no community leader. He is only a functionary of one of the many organs under KCBC. In fact, the bishops would have seen Johny's statement for the first time in the next day's newspapers. It was ignored by the Catholic Press in Kerala and Satyadeepam, the mounthpeice of the Kerala Church publihsed two articles condemning the statement and its projection by the rest of the media. The statyadeepam article is in Malayalam. I can send the link to the article in the last issue of Satyadeepam, if you want. But you will need to sign in for reading it.Jorjqt (talk) 04:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Lead
I have rewritten the lead for following reasons


 * To include later developments, esp. court decisions.
 * To summarize properly as per WP:LEAD
 * To improve paragraph and structure
 * To rephrase to past tense for some of the sentences

 Z e n c v  Whisper 15:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problems
This article contains a pastiche of text copied or too closely paraphrased from non-free source.


 * Example
 * The article:
 * The Kerala Police told the Kerala High Court that there are reasons to suspect concentrated attempts to persuade girls to convert to Islam after they fall in love with Muslim boys, but no organisation called ‘Love Jihad’ has been identified so far in the state.
 * The source:
 * Kerala Police today told the High Court there are reasons to suspect 'concentrated attempts' to persuade girls to convert to Islam after they fall in love with Muslim boys but no organisation called 'Love Jehad' has been identified so far in the state.


 * Example:
 * The article:
 * The Kerala High Court initially commented that it found indications of ‘forceful’ religious conversions under the garb of ‘love’ in the state, and asked the government to consider enacting a law to prohibit such ‘deceptive’ acts.
 * The source:
 * The Kerala High Court on Wednesday found indications of ‘forceful’ religious conversions under the garb of ‘love’ in the state, and asked the government to consider enacting a law to prohibit such ‘deceptive’ acts.


 * Example:
 * The article:
 * However, the High court subsequently put a stay to the police investigation saying it was wrong to target a community and police probe have not found any organised attempt to convert Hindu and Christian girls to Islam in the guise of love as alleged
 * The source:
 * The High court subsequently put a stay to a police investigation saying it was wrong to target a community and now police probe have not pointed to any organised attempt to convert Hindu and Christian girls to Islam in the guise of love as alleged by many in Kerala.


 * Example
 * The article:
 * The Karnataka government said 'Love Jihad', an attempt by some Muslim men to lure non-Muslim girls with promises of marriage and get them converted to Islam, appeared to be a serious issue and it would take steps to counter it
 * The source:
 * The Karnataka government Thursday said 'Love Jihad', an alleged attempt by some Muslim men to lure non-Muslim girls with promises of marriage and get them converted to Islam, appeared to be a serious issue and it would take steps to counter it.


 * Example
 * The article:
 * There is no ‘love jihad’ and I had gone with my boyfriend on my own, she told the reporters as she left the court premises with her lover whom she married.
 * The source:
 * "There is no 'love jihad' and I had gone with my boyfriend on my own," Siljaraj told reporters as she left the court premises with her lover whom she married.

There are other instances within the text.

Unless a clean version can be found in the article's history which can be restored, this article will need to be rewritten in the temporary space now linked from the article's front. The essay Close paraphrasing contains some suggestions for rewriting that may help avoid these issues. The article Wikipedia Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches, while about plagiarism rather than copyright concerns, also contains some suggestions for reusing material from sources that may be helpful, beginning under "Avoiding plagiarism". The article has been listed at the copyright problems board under February 8 to allow time for interested contributors to address these concerns. It will be revisited by an administrator on or around February 16th. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Since I have been unable to find a clean version in the article's history, I have replaced it. See note at top of the talk page for more information. Regular contributors are, of course, welcome to expand and improve it. Please note that the attribution history section cannot be edited directly. Instead, notes about that matter should be placed here. It is important that the attribution not be altered. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Moonriddengirl, great work and as a bonus, the copyright-vio. free version is cleaner as well. Article has ample scope to be improved, esp. details related to court decisions.   Z e n c v  Whisper  20:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This article as a whole is a giant hoax, simply trying to insult a particular community. Needs to be deleted. Riyaz.Pookoya (talk) 14:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Listen administrators,governments and high court changed their views in this issue ,so remove the article because only use of tha article is to split the communities --Fazlu2010 (talk) 12:41, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Marriage?
The article ends by saying a young woman had a new husband. Is this what is happening? In that case the love probably is real, despite claims in the article it is insincere. Also this is found in other faiths, not just Islam. Very common in fact. Is my younger brother a victim of a "Love Crusade" since he married a Catholic lady? Steve Dufour (talk) 15:54, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Guess you'd have to ask the Karnataka High Court. :) I figure they'd probably say no, since they released that woman. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:20, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

i suggest for the changes in title from 'Love Jihad' to Love Jihad Controversy' because court, govt and police found no real love jihad activity.--92.98.225.25 (talk) 13:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think that's a good idea. We don't unnecessarily "disambiguate" titles (makes it harder for people to find them), and the article should itself make clear the current findings of the courts. We'd have to leave a redirect anyway, so people looking up "Love Jihad" would still find the same article. But if you want to propose a move, you can place Movenotice at the top of the article and see how others feel.


 * Having the article should not add to or create new controversy; it's a place where those who encounter reference to it elsewhere can read to get a hopefully verifiable and neutral view of what is and isn't going on. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Content on the Kerala CM Charge
Twice, content has been added in a new section on the statements of V. S. Achuthanandan. These have had to be removed for copyright concerns, as they duplicated material from external sources without following copyright policy and non-free content guidelines. However, since it seems both contributors may not have realized it, I'll note that Achuthanandan's comments are mention in the article, as the last paragraph in the last section. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Deletion request
a word love jihad is insulting a particular community, Jihad (arabic) means struggle(english). they are saying love jihad. read the entire article, they talking about one community. I don't know what is going on in wikipedia, lot of pages are against a single community. if you are not delete this page most of muslims they not believe in wikipedia pages. i will some proof what they said in love jihad pages.

Please see the below proof published by various newspapers. http://www.deccanherald.com/content/35486/kerala-police-have-no-proof.html http://news.rediff.com/report/2009/nov/11/no-conclusive-proof-of-love-jihad-kerala-dgp-tells-hc.htm read the second line honorable judge words below famous newspaper published the judgement http://ibnlive.in.com/news/karnataka-high-court-flooded-with-love-jihad-case/107583-3.html

In india, a lot problem is there, one communities attack another communities, they don't like love between two community man and woman. so avoiding this they thinked very crucially and said this name to single communities. A lot muslim girls also convert into hindus and christians due to love i will give many proof. see the proof http://www.topix.com/forum/world/pakistan/TEBDPU7EM93ODSUGE

Please search in google, you can find lot of muslim and christian girls convert to hinduism. If you are not deleted this page, wikipedia is trying to demage and attack a single community with secular name. now also i am confident in wiki administrators, they all are secular and neutral persons, even i changed lot pages which hates other communities is deleted by wiki admins. i have confident you guys will delete this page. i submitted a LOT PROOF TO YOU. i don't know fluent english writing, anyhow, i hope you understand my words.Asik5678 (talk) 05:42, 2 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohasik (talk • contribs)
 * I understand you feel offended by this page but need to reject your request to immediately delete this article as blatant hoax. It was already discussed at Articles_for_deletion/Love_Jihad and kept. While that is not written in stone it would need another discussion to get it deleted. But the abundant coverage makes it unlikely do be deleted even then. A first step would therefore be to incorporate the sources that you provided and check the article on any violations of neutral point of view. If the title then does not represent the events or is unduly offensive, you can also propose a name change. --Tikiwont (talk) 19:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Asik5678, Tikiwont is correct that we should not delete the article. I did take one of the references you provided, and added it to the relevant section of Popular Front of India, and brought a source from that article over to this one, to reflect the assertions by some parts of the government that there is no organized love jihad. I confess that the situation is quite confusing, given the disparity in finding and allegations from various parties, but we shall have to muddle along with the sources we can find. I do appreciate you bringing sources to our attention. --Nuujinn (talk) 20:03, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.hindujagruti.org/news/9832.html. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:45, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Recent edits
I have removed several recent edits from the article for various policy based reasons. First, this sentence:
 * Former Kerala Chief Minister V. S. Achuthanandan referenced the alleged matrimonial conversion of non-Muslim girls as part of an effort "to make Kerala a Muslim majority state".

is in the body of the article. Putting it into the lead without noting counterclaims (such as "The Kerala Congress responded strongly to the Chief Minister's comments, which they described as "deplorable and dangerous"") is putting undue weight on one view. This is not permitted on Wikipedia; it is not up to us to determine whose view has the greater validity, but to accurately and evenly report on all sides.

With respect to this content, there are a number of issues:

First, many of the sources cited do not meet reliable source requirements. Of those that do, I'm not seeing reference to support the claim "The activity of luring hindu women has been reported many a times throughout the country causing widespread communal riots."
 * seems reliable. What it says is "22 percent [of riots were caused], by the “religious processions;” and others, by “personal ill-feelings, cricket matches, sudden quarrels, and love affairs between Hindu girls and Muslim boys and vice versa" There is nothing in that sentence whatsoever to indicate that the love affairs between these Hindu girls and Muslim boys "and vice versa" are anything besides genuine and consensual love matches. The term love jihad is not mentioned in that page at all.


 * may not be a reliable source; even if it is, the only reference to "love jihad" in it is in a comment left by a reader. This is definitely not a reliable source, and it is not usable on Wikipedia.


 * is a video testimonial of unknown origin posted by somebody who calls himself "Aen". It says nothing about rioting. It does not constitute proof that the activity "has been reported many a times".


 * does not mention riots.


 * says nothing about riots.

The body of the article mentions numbers (under the "scope" section); "widespread riots" is not supported.

With respect to this:

The lead has already been expanded to mention "While similar activities have been reported elsewhere" and specifics are in the section on scope, with some of the same sources referenced there. However, some of these sources are also not usable:
 * the first Islam Watch, has been discussed at RSN with appropriate skepticism as a citation for anything controversial (see). This subject is highly controversial, as editors have already tried to manipulate it both to strengthen claims that Love Jihad exists and that it does not.


 * This source is being used to support a claim that the activity has been reported in Bangladesh. Bangladesh is not mentioned in this article.


 * The article here is from faithfreedom.org. According to earlier RSN conversation, this seems to be a weblog, which would also not be reliable.

In brief, the lead must not be unbalanced towards either view but should accurately summarize the article, and unreliable sources such as comments are absolutely not permitted in any article on Wikipedia. I will ask for further feedback on some of the other sources atWP:RSN, from those who may be more familiar with the publication than I. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:27, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Feedback requested here. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:37, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The Gulf Today
Content was removed here with an assertion that it was sourced to an unreliable partisan source, but no explanation has been given as to why The Gulf Today would be an unreliable source. I scanned the Reliable Source Noticeboard and found no indication that this source has ever been discussed and declared unreliable:. Please explain in what way The Gulf Today fails to meet WP:IRS. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:07, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


 * And Tehelka calls this a hoax.. That looks like a reliable source. Dougweller (talk) 14:03, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


 * This really looks like a low quality article which lacks a neutral POV. Would request the admin to make necessary edits and lock it in some way. ~Romil 20:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Please identify the parts of the article you find non-neutral. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:09, 3 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Given the lack of hard evidence for this phenomenon, one should seriously consider categorizing it under Category:Conspiracy theories. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 15:34, 3 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I think it should be renamed to "Love Jihad Conspiracy". There's no documentary evidence to suggest it's true (though the whole grooming cases are true, they have nothing to do with "conversions" however), and several reports have come out from reputable sources saying no evidence exists for such a phenomenon. 92.22.3.208 (talk) 18:06, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Sikh Section
Just thought I'd open up a debate here. The Sikh section seems reliable since it's from a study. Given that there was some biased editing by an IP, most of it was cleared up here. That version should stay. Reliably sourced content should not be removed, especially research and reports from studies, and universities. Further since the the study talks about a similar concept to love jihad (without mentioning it directly) it does refer to it tacitly and implicitly through it's content and descriptions. Removing the source on grounds of the name of the action does not necessarily negate the action and description of the content itself. It does not have to be explicit. Further it's been cited at least 4 times in academia - so seems reliable enough. There is also another source that talks about it in detail. NarSakSasLee (talk) 15:18, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I've also just noted that the section is actually more neutral than I initially thought, it doesn't call the act "love jihad" but describes basically what love jihad is to the Sikh community in the UK from the report and uses quotes from the report, none of which seem made up - amalgamating quotes has also been taken care of with some care, with the [...] making this clear. NarSakSasLee (talk) 15:35, 15 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I have read the source, and I have re-read it, and re-re-read it, and I do not see the link between this article and the source. It is about forced conversion among Sikhs in Uk and could be useful in Forced conversion or some other article. I am not questioning the reliability of the source. It is simply on things other than "Love Jihad" which is the subject of this article. It is OR and synthesis to force that source into this article. It is a direct violation on WP:OR,WP:SYNTHESIS. That source is not about the subject of this article and does not belong in it. It should be deleted from this article in keeping with WP:OR, WP:SYNTHESIS which are core policies. Regards.OrangesRyellow (talk) 13:25, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, I can attest to it that it isn't synthesis at all (quotes cannot be synthesised), nor does it come under original research violation, since it isn't making up claims or twisting them to fit an agenda. Could you clarify with some examples please as I can't actually see anything in there that violates any of those policies? As the article suggests "Love Jihad also called Romeo Jihad, is an alleged activity under which some young Muslim boys and men reportedly target college girls belonging to non-Muslim communities for conversion to Islam by feigning love." and "In the UK as well there were concerns regarding Muslims..." - the report details a similar concept within the Sikh community which is worthy of inclusion - it may not exactly be "love jihad" but it's very similar - the section even highlights this by calling it "trapped love" and the report makes numerous references that it's a religious dispute between communities. In the spirit of collaboration I'm willing to reach consensus to change the section only if overwhelming evidence is provided with examples. That would be a good starting point. NarSakSasLee (talk) 14:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Just because B and 8 are similar does not mean that they are same. Similarly, "Love Jihad" and "Forced conversion" may look similar to some, but they are not same. In "love jihad", one has a jihadist impulse, which is far more fanatical and unscrupulous than the normal Islamist impulse to convert (resulting in "Forced conversion"). So they are at a totally different level and are distinct concepts. There may be other differences too. I myself am doing OR here, but my OR gets no place in the article. This source is being used on the strength of the OR that "Love Jihad" is same/similar to "Forced conversion" and this is how it becomes a violation of WP:OR policy, and that is why it should have no place in the article.
 * I am afraid using this source does involve synthesis. Here's how. The source is being used to convey the sense that "Love Jihad" is an imaginary, baseless concept. This is being done on the strength of the OR that "Love Jihad" and "Forced conversion" are same/ similar & combining it with the source, is being used to convey that the source is saying that "Love jihad" is a baseless concept. This is how it is synthesis. Actually, we have no source (except the opinion of WP eds, which are inadmissible in article space) that the two concepts are same/ similar + this source does not say that the issue of "Love jihad" is baseless. It is only saying things about "Forced conversion" etc. So, you see the synthesis part now. The source is being made to say things it does NOT say. I hope I have been able to convey myself clearly. Thanks.OrangesRyellow (talk) 05:15, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

They're clearly talking about the same kind of activity on page 5. But we have a number of problems here. First, while the same kind of activity, this is part of a broader concept of which "Love Jihad" is a specific part. This could be addressed by repurposing this page under the broader concept, but at the moment it does seem to be WP:UNDUE.
 * The positioning of the material is obviously intended to inflate what it actually is - a working paper. It says so in the url. It was later published after completion (as I mention below here), in South Asian Popular Culture, a respectable publication, but there is nothing to support the claim that the working paper was published in a journal in 2008 or has ever been published in a journal "for the University of Leeds, for the Centre for Ethnicity & Racism Studies". (Also: that sentence does not have a subject.) The prominent reference to this student's school at the time of the writing clearly suggests a strong involvement on the part of the Centre and the University that is not supported by any source.
 * The language is not neutral. "incredibly widespread." "Most alarmingly"
 * The section is not accurate. It says, "The report was done to see whether the phenomenon and allegations of "forced" conversions and "trapped love" was true", but this is in clear contrast to the purpose of the paper expressed on page 21: "This paper has sought to demonstrate how the ‘forced’ conversion narrative has been constructed within the Sikh diaspora in the UK." The abstract also notes the paper's purpose: ". By examining the construction and manifestation of this narrative, this paper will explore the question of Islamophobia to explain why such a sensational account composed of ‘villains and victims’ or ‘friends and enemies’ has remained so prominent within the

Sikh diasporic community." It also says, "The report concluded by saying most of evidence simply does not exist" - where does it say that? Or anything like that? Please provide a direct, explicit quote. It's clear at this point that Sian is a reliable source - never mind the book, which we can't access, this working paper was eventually published in a reliable source. But unless this paper is repositioned, it merits only a much smaller section, and it must be made accurate quickly. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:29, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * ""incredibly widespread." "Most alarmingly" - They aren't in the reference, however I thought these were neutral terms. I support their removal then. I didn't realise that. I suppose they a bit tabloid-like.
 * "The report was done to see whether the phenomenon and allegations of "forced" conversions and "trapped love" was true", but this is in clear contrast to the purpose of the paper expressed on page 21: "This paper has sought to demonstrate how the ‘forced’ conversion narrative has been constructed within the Sikh diaspora in the UK." - I don't think that's a contrast. Is that not just a summary of what the paper talks about? "Predatory" Muslim males seeking innocent Sikh women in relation to the concept of "White slavery" that was prevalent in antisemitism during the 30s? Also the book is accessible on Google Books (I'm able to read it?). Could you please write the version you'd think would be more neutral and accurate here in the talk page please? NarSakSasLee (talk) 17:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The paper very clearly says what it is about - it is a study of "how the ‘forced’ conversion narrative has been constructed within the Sikh diaspora in the UK." To say the report was done to see something when it says itself that it was done for a different reason is simply wrong. And I will edit the article directly. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:23, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * All right. I've taken a shot at it - I've tried to neutralize the language and be clear on what the paper is about. I have also reduced the section, because it is certainly WP:UNDUE to spend too much time talking about something in the UK that is not the topic of the article (although I agree with you that it is related). If we do repurpose the article to discuss the concept beyond the term, we really need more sources for the UK. We can't rely too extensively on any one source's perspective. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:49, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Moonriddengirl. Thanks for making the article more neutral. I do not fully agree with the current version but the latest edits do seem to represent a major improvement. Further, the lead contains the phrase "...though no evidence exists to suggest any of these reports are true" This seems to be undue to me. The source could not find any evidence. Ok. But this does not mean that no evidence exists. There may be evidence which this source could not find/does not know about. Moreover, Sian does not seem to have made much of an effort to find evidence and proving/disproving evidence was not the objective of that source. Sian seems to be trying to find a psychological/anthropological type of explanation for the "forced conversion" narrative and has explained it in those terms. So, using this source to say no evidence exists seems inappropriate. Moreover, the "Scope" section contains the proclamation "...(though in the UK it has been proven false)"  This is misleading because the source is about forced conversion among Sikhs in UK and is not about forced conversion in UK as a whole. I would be grateful if you could review these phrases in the article. Thanks and regards.OrangesRyellow (talk) 04:14, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree that they are problematic and have removed them pending the production of other sourcing. I also removed a lot on the UK in general, as it was unsourced and off-topic. "Love Jihad" seems to be regionally specific, and while it makes sense to me to talk a bit about other areas, undue focus in the lead to content not covered in the body of the article doesn't work. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:50, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks Moonriddengirl. The article does look much more focused and meaningful now.OrangesRyellow (talk) 18:03, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

 * I've moved it - it's not an official investigation, regardless of what else it may be or say. Official investigations are conducted by governmental bodies, not by universities (or students at a university - see her bio). Beyond that, what makes this a reliable source? Has this student paper been published anywhere other than the website? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:47, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

See this source She lectures at the University of Manchester and is a Professor. I've reverted back, it's backed a racism research center.NarSakSasLee (talk) 19:11, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * And I have moved it again. The official investigation section is about government investigations - I'm sure you will notice that they are the only ones discussed in that section. All other investigations are discussed in the section below. Putting it with the official investigations is WP:UNDUE. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:14, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Just to avoid confusion here; even if it's backed by a racism research center (that are funded by the government anyway) that still doesn't mean it's an official investigation? NarSakSasLee (talk) 19:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That's right - official investigations are police and governmental investigations. Racism research centers have no judicial authority. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:21, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh okay. Right. That's very strange! It's just that the prefecture I come from uses reports from research centers funded by the government to make decisions and they are counted as official investigations. NarSakSasLee (talk) 19:25, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If it's funded by a government, it might be official, but we'd certainly need some evidence that it was. At this point, I'm not sure why you see this as an official racism research center investigation. What have you seen that indicates that this is more than a single-author research paper? (I have, by the way, found its official publication, which can be helpful: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/14746681003798060. She was a student at Leeds, certainly, but I have found nothing so far to suggest that the department claims any ownership of the work. They are not mentioned at the official publication, for instance. Her biography credits her as a post-doctoral research fellow.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:41, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, she's been cited at least 4 times in other academic research work (see above). I don't mean this as an insult (really I don't), but when you say "I have found nothing so far to suggest that the department claims any ownership of the work", the mere fact that it's published on their website indicates that it belongs to the university and is backed by them. If it didn't belong to them they wouldn't have published it and hence others who have peer reviewed it before publication would not passed it for others to cite it in their academic work (see Google Scholar for people who have cited the work). Further universities don't publish doctoral research that's wrong, they publish things if they are correct... I can't really see why that would indicate it's unreliability. If anything the material isn't questionable at all. NarSakSasLee (talk) 21:57, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I probably should clarify, that the study shouldn't be labelled as an official investigation by the government, but rather by the organisations that supported it. NarSakSasLee (talk) 22:03, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying it's not reliable - I'm simply not finding anything to back your assertion that it is a paper backed by a racism research center. Universities frequently give space to the work of their students, especially at that level. She may be a fine scholar, and the fact that it has been actually published (as I linked above) makes it a reliable source in itself, but it doesn't mean it's backed by a racism research center. You can't say that the study was an official investigation of the racism research center - as opposed to independent research by the student - without a source that indicates as much. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:44, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * In the original reference it said it was backed by a racism center. And since it's on the Leeds University website I don't understand why their word can't be taken as fact? One of the logo's is of the racism research center. NarSakSasLee (talk) 17:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Their word of what? Where does it say that they published this in a journal or that it was an official investigation they launched rather than her own research submitted to them? There's no doubt that she is affiliated with them, but all we know is that it's a working paper, as it says. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:22, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

POV
I have removed the POV tag here, as it was not accompanied by an explanation on the talk page of what POV issues exist. (I'm perplexed that the edit summary refers to "notability" rather than neutrality, but that would be a different tag. :))

As the POV template usage notes indicate:

Happy to talk about what needs improvement, but please don't restore the tag until that process is followed. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:54, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi All
I just recently reverted an edit by a user who claimed that the BBC somehow disproved the "forced conversion" narrative. However the BBC makes no mention of "forced conversion" - just that she was abused by a bunch of criminals - it also does not mention the victim being Sikh - the fathers name sounds Sikh but then again Buddhist rapists have been known to use the name too. I don't think that warrants deleting an entire academically backed up section. 92.22.73.241 (talk) 00:59, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Sikh claims - UK
I've just added the undue template to this section because I'm still not comfortable with the amount of weight being given to one scholar in this article. I am concerned that this does not meet our neutral point of view policy. As far as I know, she is respected but not regarded as a definitive expert here. Her voice could be balanced by adding in counterviews from the UK, but neither Sian nor those who feel differently about the matter are actually using the term "Love Jihad". I fear that this will push us further and further into the realm of original research.

I'm wondering if it belongs in this article or if it should rather be including in the article it's actually discussing: Forced conversion. Unless somebody can come up with an another alternative, I propose moving it to that article (with modifications to make it fit) and then referencing it here with either a "see also" or by altering the introduction to read something like this:
 * Love Jihad also called Romeo Jihad, is an alleged activity under which some young Muslim boys and men reportedly target college girls belonging to non-Muslim communities for coercive conversion to Islam by feigning love.

--Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:12, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I endorse the deletion of that section since the term 'love jihad' is a term applied to incidents in India and not used in the sources for that section about incidents in the UK, this section need not be added to the forced conversion article either, since it is undue weight to quote from a single personal view rather than based on reliable research, multiple studies and/or verified news/police reports for example Coasttrip (talk) 13:25, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I reverted Coasttrip as it is clearly from an academic journal and the Twitter comments weren't appropriate, but I agree with Moonriddengirl having looked more carefully at the source. I also removed the bit about something the police may have believed in 2007. I don't think changing the introduction is appropriate. Dougweller (talk) 14:30, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Dougweller, I didn't dispute that it was published in an academic journal but a single paper is undue weight, also it was still used as reference, excessive quoting bordering on copyright infringement and POV all break wiki rules. You also have no right to remove a valid news story from the birmingham mail simply states something perfectly relevant to the subject matter, are you saying the police are not a reliable source? Coasttrip (talk) 14:37, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Copyright infringement? I can't see that, Moonriddengirl? How many words were quoted? As for removing the news story, I've got every right. It doesn't mention Love Jihad, and the statement " police believe she may have been forcibly converted to Islam" is not backed by the source. Then there's the lack of a court case and conviction. We very rarely if ever use a report like that in an article. Dougweller (talk) 16:48, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I note that one other editor reverted this news story because it provides no evidence of forced conversion, and I've removed it from a 3rd article. Please both be more careful about making sure your source backs your edit and don't use news stories like this - news stories in several sources reporting a conviction might be useful, but not this sort of news report. Dougweller (talk) 17:12, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


 * It's a similar phenomenon. I think it deserves at least a section somewhere since it's all about basically "love jihad" - girl falls in love in Muslim guy and somehow she's made to convert. NarSakSasLee (talk) 21:56, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * "all about basically" is not necessarily the same and leads us to the position where articles like this are cited (the one Doug removed). There's nothing in that article at all to indicate that it's about love jihad. :/ It is, however, about "forced conversion", just like the source under discussion here. (It does not prove that it happened, of course, or verify a conviction, but it affirms community fears.) This article states "While similar activities have been reported in places like United Kingdom, the term has been used to describe the activity in India." It would require complete rewriting to change the focus from "love jihad", and since the article has been kept at AFD, I don't think that's a good approach. Instead, as I say, we already have an article on forced conversion. I think this would work well there.


 * I think Coasstrip may have misunderstood, however, some of the details about the source under discussion. :) First, there were no quotes from the source at all, aside from the singling out of several striking phrases. It was entirely summary, and I see nothing even remotely likely to be a copyvio. Coasstrip, if you disagree, please point out the copying you see. Second, he wrote, "its a book being sold on amazon not an academic paper", but I'm sure didn't notice that the citation he removed here was to an academic paper by Sian published in South Asian Popular Culture. I do not dispute the reliability of the source or the way it was used, except that I think it's used in the wrong article. I do think, though, that if merged into forced conversion or split off into a separate article it could use support from additional articles on the subject. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I personally think it should be mentioned in Sikhism in the United Kingdom, Islam in the United Kingdom and Forced conversion. Any other mention elsewhere would probably be excessive. However I still think it should be mentioned here somewhat if not in a small sentence but that's just personal opinion. But it's ultimately up to consensus. NarSakSasLee (talk) 16:19, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Recent Reverts
@IP: I just reverted your additions, because those sources are insufficient. One of them is from a xenophobic website, the second is a dead link that in any case only reports a quote, and the third only talks of sex offenders; there is no mention of conversions, so it is not relevant to this page. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:30, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * v93 - the 'xenophobic' website was replaced in my most recent edits, by a reputable newspaper the independent.66.225.160.172 (talk) 21:07, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I have reviewed the content, and agree - as sordid as is, there's no mention at all of conversion there. No reference to "Love Jihad." It is not a usable source for this subject. Currently, the other link doesn't work at all, but the quote doesn't offer any evidence that this is connected to forced conversion, which is this article's focus. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:48, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * moongirl: if it is "convert" you want in an article... ok.66.225.160.172 (talk) 21:07, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That's the subject of this article. To quote, "Love Jihad, also called Romeo Jihad, is an alleged activity under which young Muslim boys and men reportedly target young girls belonging to non-Muslim communities for conversion to Islam by feigning love." (emphasis added.) That's what Love Jihad is. Other sexual offenses, however grievous they may be, or misbehavior are off topic. Only content related to the alleged seduction of non-Muslim girls for the purpose of conversion is appropriate here. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:10, 22 March 2014 (UTC)


 * IP, you've been reverted now by 3 different editors. It would probably be a good idea to suggest any further edits here before making them. Dougweller (talk) 21:40, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

One of the sources cited in the last edit makes reference to conversion. The others seem to be unrelated to "Love Jihad". Again, such behavior may be reprehensible (although I'm unsure if all the sources are reliable, but it is out of scope for this article. If the purpose is not conversion, it's not Love Jihad or related. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:51, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It looks like you've tried to change the definition of "Love Jihad", anonymous author. You can't do that. :/ This is "original research" and is forbidden by our core policies. See WP:NOR and WP:V. "Love Jihad" is a specific term referring to a specific activity, and we can't change that definition. Can you show any reliable source using the term "Love Jihad" to refer to activities other than seduction for the purpose of conversion? If not, then these other activities are not "Love Jihad." --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:54, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * IP, you have now hit 5 reverts, by my count. You need to stop, else you're in serious danger of being blocked. As MRG said, the source you provided does not use the term "Love Jihad" and is hence not relevant to this page, however unpleasant the actions described in the article may be. Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:10, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I see no choice but to report this to the edit warring noticeboard. Even the latest addition is demonstrably wrong - the source identifies Love Jihad clearly as "an alleged plot by Muslim youths to woo and convert Hindu girls to Islam." --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:18, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * i hope to have satisfied you with the sourced references that define 'love jihad'. please do not eliminate references that demonstrate the topic.  why are you hostile to a properly referenced introduction? 66.225.160.172 (talk) 02:29, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * While it's nice that you are talking now, the content you are adding is inappropriate for the reasons discussed above. This is a highly contentious article, with a long history of people attempting to whitewash it or to use it to malign Muslims. I watch it for such activity, having come into it as an admin years ago on earlier problems. It is particularly important that this article have high quality sources for information that does not deviate from the source. Your modified definition is blatantly inaccurate - the source you cite defines "Love Jihad" as an effort to woo girls for the sake of conversion. This article has a specific and limited scope; "Love Jihad" is a defined activity. Grooming activities do not fit unless they are for the purpose of conversion. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:33, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * thanks for your good will moongirl. i have eliminated your 'dead link' (see below) because i can see the link just fine.  you may be the victim of a government screen.  similarly, molestation was indeed defined in the first para of this ref.  please refrain from your evident bias on this topic.  66.225.160.172 (talk) 02:43, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it is - it is defined as "love jihad", an alleged plot by Muslim youths to woo and convert Hindu girls to Islam". Please explain how you can use this source to support a claim that Love Jihad is conducted for purposes of molestation when the source says that the purpose is to "woo and convert Hindu girls to Islam." --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:44, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * the whole first para reads as follows:

Summing up in one breath all that a man holds dear – land, cow and women – the line added to the earlier VHP bogey of "love jihad", an alleged plot by Muslim youths to woo and convert Hindu girls to Islam. And given that the riots apparently started with the molestation of a Jat girl by a Muslim man, it made the volatile communal cauldron of western Uttar Pradesh explode. please refrain from your biases.66.225.160.172 (talk) 02:49, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If you look at my contribution history, it's pretty clear that I have practically no involvement in articles related to Islam, the support of it or the opposition of it. My bias towards WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPV isn't going anywhere. :/ The definition of "love jihad" is clear - there is nothing in that source that suggests that the purpose of Love Jihad is molestation. Anyway, the article is protected, and we will have time to hear from others on this page to reach a consensus definition. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 03:12, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * yes, i agree that the definition is clearly indicated by Stephen Brown have you discovered why you have an inability to view that page? are/were you on a university campus? 66.225.160.172 (talk) 13:25, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Evidently it's something to do with the laptop. It works on the desktop. I've copied the definition below, where we are working towards consensus on the definition for after the protection ends. Please, feel free to voice your opinion there. Once the protection ends, consensus can be implemented, or possibly sooner. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:51, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

"dead link" not so
this link is not dead from my desk; check with your government, moongirl. sorry to break it to you.
 * Is there any particular department of the US government with which you'd like me to check? This constitutes yet another revert, I'll note. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:37, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * maybe it is your ISP, dunno why, but the link exists. i am happy for you to call for help on this topic 66.225.160.172 (talk) 02:45, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Definition
So, we have several days now to work out a consensus version of the definition.

The anonymous Canadian editor would like a source for that definition. Sources are not promoted in WP:LEADCITE, but for challenged or controversial content is appropriate. So I'm okay with that. Of course, the definition must conform to sources.

On my desktop, I can see the citation that was resolving in a 404 error for me. The three sources cited all define Love Jihad either explicitly or loosely.
 * says "'Love Jihad', a religious conversion racket which lures gullible girls by feigning love...."
 * says, "The love jihad’s modus operandi involves a heartless strategy of luring vulnerable girls and young women to convert to Islam by feigned love and promises of marriage."
 * says, ""love jihad", an alleged plot by Muslim youths to woo and convert Hindu girls to Islam."

So, all three sources agree that the purpose of "Love Jihad" is religious conversion ("religious conversion racket"; "convert to Islam"; "convert Hindu girls to Islam").

All three sources agree that the method of "Love Jihad" is romantic seduction. ("by feigning love"; "by feigned love and promises of marriage"; "woo".)

Hence, I propose the following definition:
 * Love Jihad, also called Romeo Jihad, is an alleged activity under which young Muslim boys and men reportedly target young girls belonging to non-Muslim communities for conversion to Islam by feigning love.

So, let's see what kind of consensus emerges, here. User:Dougweller, User:Vanamonde93,, do you agree? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:57, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Looks good to me. Dougweller (talk) 13:35, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me too, see no reason to change it. Also, not going to be online for the next few days, so can't follow up on this discussion. Cheers, Vanamonde93 (talk) 13:46, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Looks inadequate to me. moongirl omits the bulk of source her source "6"   which is refereble by name="fpm", as follows . This type of selective quotation is not appropriate for this forum and moongirl should be censured.  In fact last night she wrote (under this page section '"dead link" not so', see above) that she was unable to see the link.  All of a sudden, the next day, she can see the link.  moongirl omits this part of the definition in :

Sometimes, however, the jihad Romeos in England used a more brutal approach. A story in the Daily Mail two years ago stated that police were targeting such Muslim extremists and working with universities against “aggressive conversions.” These involved Hindu and Sikh girls being beaten up and terrorized by the Muslim men they were dating until they converted. The Hindu Forum of Britain, the story says, claimed hundreds of Sikh and Hindu girls were victims of such vicious intimidation. Some even had to leave their university to escape their tormentors.
 * 

Like in Kerela, the former Muslim testifies that money was paid for conversions and that it came from outside the country. And the higher the educational and social status of the victim’s family, the more money the jihad Romeo received.

In essence, the love jihad is a form of demographic aggression.


 * the Daily Mail story is referenced here. "Police are working with universities to clamp down on "aggressive conversions" during which girls are beaten up and forced to abandon university courses."


 * Moongirl omits the actual Love Jihad definition (as of Sunday 24 Mar afternoon) of molestation :

Summing up in one breath all that a man holds dear – land, cow and women – the line added to the earlier VHP bogey of "love jihad", an alleged plot by Muslim youths to woo and convert Hindu girls to Islam. And given that the riots apparently started with the molestation of a Jat girl by a Muslim man, it made the volatile communal cauldron of western Uttar Pradesh explode.
 * 


 * so the actual Love Jihad definition of

Love Jihad, also called Romeo Jihad, is an alleged activity under which young Muslim boys and men reportedly target young girls belonging to non-Muslim communities for conversion to Islam, molestation and sexual gratification by feigning love. The term has been used to describe the activity in India, while similar activities have been reported in places like United Kingdom.. Official investigations in India have found no truth behind the allegations.


 * might be modified to include "aggressive conversions" and externally-financed "demographic aggression", to keep "molestation" and to keep "feigning love" , as follows:

Love Jihad, whose actors have been called Jihad Romeos, is an alleged activity under which young Muslim boys and men reportedly target young girls belonging to non-Muslim communities for conversion to Islam and/or molestation by feigning love. The conversion can sometimes be aggressive, with "beaten up and terrorized" victims. The term has been used to describe the activity in India, while similar activities have been reported in places like United Kingdom. Official investigations in India have found no truth behind the allegations. Some sources have equated love jihad with a form of externally-financed demographic aggression. 66.225.160.172 (talk) 00:41, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

What the sources actually say
I think what you are proposing here, logged-out user, is an issue of original research, as I do not believe that the sources are advancing the position that you are reading in them. What matters here is what the sources actually say.

The definition of love jihad as given in all of the sources above clearly identifies it as an issue of seduction. (I have quoted them, verbatim.) No source identifies molestation as a purpose of Love Jihad. Love Jihad is broadly defined as seduction for the sake of conversion in the three sources above as well as others already cited in the article:
 * : "'love jihad', where girls from other religious background are allegedly lured to marriage and converted to Islam,"
 * : "love jihad meant that Muslim youth were being used to lure Hindu and Christian girls. The girls got married to Muslims and then were indoctrinated into jihad."
 * : "an alleged conspiracy of foreign-funded "charming" Muslim men attempting to seduce, marry and convert Hindu and Christian women"
 * ""love jihad", using charming young men to lure girls into converting to Islam with promises of marriage."
 * "‘love jihad' (conversions of girls from other religions to Islam after enticing them to marry Muslim boys)"
 * "Love jihad is a concept in which a man lures a girl with love and then forces her to convert."
 * "The Hindu Janajagruthi Samiti has organized a protest against ‘Love Jehad’ terming it the new weapon used by a certain religious group to convert girls after ensnaring them in love. "

I went about halfway through and stopped. Again, this is a broad agreement by sources on a definition - including the sources cited above - that Love Jihad is an activity in which women are romanced in order to convert them.

Since I believe your proposed change is against policy, I cannot agree to it. So far, we have three agreements to the original definition, but time to see if it is possible to achieve unanimous consensus. Unfortunately, it isn't always. Can you present a straightforward quote from any reliable source that proposes a different meaning for "Love Jihad" - that is, one that does not require that we merge content to suggest more than is actually written? If so, then it may be worth including somewhere, although putting it in the lead definition is likely to be a problem under WP:NPOV as WP:UNDUE emphasis on fringe sourcing, unless we are able to verify that a preponderance of sources view Love Jihad in that way. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:59, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Please see my reply below.

How do we define concept referred to by compound nouns?
I believe that an article entitled "Love Jihad" is about "love jihad", whereas you seem to limit yourself to only the one sentence in which you find the phrase. An example would be found in any reputable encyclopedia. I disagree with your limitation, and find it to be non-sensical. It would be curious to expect a one-sentence definition of a complex compound noun. I have quoted the sources extensively above and see no need to repeat them here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.225.160.172 (talk) 01:47, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Moongirl's misuse of WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE and use of the term "fringe sourcing" to refer to a definition in which 50% of the sources are from the Indian subcontinent is disturbing.66.225.160.172 (talk) 02:02, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to Moongirl for her work to indicate that: 66.225.160.172 (talk) 02:14, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * love jihad targets "were indoctrinated into jihad."
 * love jihad may be "foreign-funded" (which preponderates with )
 * love jihad "forces" individuals

A new lead sentence
Old:
 * Love Jihad, whose actors have been called Jihad Romeos,[3] is an alleged activity under which young Muslim boys and men reportedly target young girls belonging to non-Muslim communities for conversion to Islam and/or molestation[13] by feigning love

New:
 * Love Jihad, whose actors have been called Jihad Romeos,[3] is an alleged activity under which young Muslim boys and men reportedly target young girls belonging to non-Muslim communities by feigning love for conversion to Islam and/or molestation.[13]

Note the placement of "by feigning love". The rest of the first para is acceptable as per WP:NPOV especially WP:NPOV: note the copious use of "some sources" and "sometimes", which indicates a minority point of view with sources. I would omit the sentence "Official investigations in India..." because reliable reference would appear to be unavailable. 66.225.160.172 (talk) 05:14, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Responding to both of your notes - you're welcome, but these aren't new sources - they're all long cited in the article.


 * To bring this back around, we are talking about the definition of Love Jihad. It is defined clearly in multiple sources in the section above. WP:NOR says in its nutshell: "Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources themselves." The quotes above seem to clearly set forth the definition with no needed analysis or synthesis of published material. Contrary to your somewhat bizarre implication above that I am rejecting sources from any continent, I support following them closely and precisely, in accordance with core content policy. In the case of what is clearly a highly contentious articles, this is particularly important.


 * For that reason, I do not agree to your proposed change but prefer the one I suggested above just under . So, User:Dougweller, User:Vanamonde93 (when you get back), what do you think? Can we get consensus? Others not already involved in this discussion are very welcome to weigh in as well. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:20, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I still prefer your version. I also do not think the Telegraph article can be used as it doesn't mention Love Jihad. Dougweller (talk) 14:23, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Doug, The Daily Telegraph article does indeed mention the characteristics of "love jihad" according to the definition that is under discussion:


 * "A Muslim group calling itself Real Khilafa has been trying to whip up trouble by distributing a letter encouraging young Muslims to take out Sikh girls to get them drunk and convert them to Islam." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.225.160.172 (talk) 18:17, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Get them drunk and convert them to Islam? That's a characteristic of "Love Jihad"? I find it hard to think that anyone is going to convert because someone got them drunk. It also seems a very un-Muslim things to do. I can't take that seriously, even if it is in a newspaper. Even your Law and Order Foundation publication where you probably found it calls it a "Letter Attributed to Muslim Fundamentalists" - we've got no reason to believe it is genuine rather than an attempt to stir up trouble or violence, and it is a one-off story. We shouldn't use it. Like your other use of the Law and Order Foundation, if nothing else this is WP:UNDUE, particularly as it is so dubious. Dougweller (talk) 18:50, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I have to agree. It doesn't mention "Love Jihad" and it's certainly not explicitly the same activity. Almost all the sources mention marriage or the promise of marriage; others mention love. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You are both too beholden to your own personal concepts of (romantic?) 'love'. It blinds you.  The key is in the word "feigned".  How is love possible when it is "feigned"?  Feign synonyms:  act, affect counterfeit dissemble dissimulate fabricate fake imitate invent sham, give appearance of, make show of.  Antonyms include "be honest, tell truth, be true".  Is it your contention that it is impossible to "get a girl drunk" while "feigning love"?  These are young girls, as young as 12.  A reputable daily like the Daily Telegraph is "dubious"?  That's a stretch, Doug, and you know it.  We should use reputable sources to establish minority views, and tell the reader that this is a minority view by use of the word "some" or "one". This is WP:NPOV in spades.  66.225.160.172 (talk) 01:24, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't say the DT was dubious, I said the story was. Even major newspapers get things wrong. In any case, you are interpreting things - OR. I'm not saying anything is impossible, I'm saying that if the source doesn't mention it we don't. Getting a girl drunk doesn't require feigning love. And if you've read NPOV you've read WP:UNDUE. By all means go to NPOVN if you seriously think not using this is a violation of NPOV. Dougweller (talk) 06:38, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. We can't speculate that an event is "Love Jihad" if the source doesn't even use that term even if we think they're potentially related. That's pure synthesis. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:34, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Consensus implemented
Per discussion above, I have implemented the new lead sentence proposed by me and agreed upon by User:Dougweller and User:Vanamonde93. I have also removed the section on activities in the UK per discussion above, as the source does not connect the claims directly to Love Jihad. Please let me know if there are any issues. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:43, 2 April 2014 (UTC)