Talk:Love jihad conspiracy theory/Archive 2

Move to Love Jihad Conspiracy
This page should be moved to Love Jihad Conspiracy since there is no evidence that this practice exists through the many investigations over the issue. StuffandTruth (talk) 04:27, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm really indifferent to whether the page is at "Love Jihad" or "Love Jihad conspiracy" (not with a capital C, since it's not part of the term), but am not sure that your explanation for why you think the page should be moved is really clear to me. :) I would read "'Love Jihad' conspiracy" as "conspiracy to commit 'Love Jihad'". If you mean to suggest that it's a hoax, I don't think that the new title you propose would do that. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:20, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * "Conspiracy theory" would solve that problem. StuffandTruth (talk) 23:04, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * If the dominant sources call it a conspiracy theory, then I would support that move. Unless we find that, though, I think we're probably on shaky ground as far as WP:NPOV and WP:COMMONNAME go. I think the lead makes pretty clear that these allegations are entirely unconfirmed, which I hope helps. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:59, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * As per Moonriddengirl, although the notion seems to be a conspiracy theory, there don't seem to be very many sources calling it such, and so the move is a little questionable at this point. We have sources making the allegations and refuting them, but none really going that extra yard and calling it a conspiracy. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:21, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Map
I have restored the map of religious plurality to the article. I don't think that it makes sense simply to have a map of India; the existing map seems to do a better job representing one of the core issues here. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:39, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I ✅ with Moonriddengirl for same reason(s), as mentioned.-- Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider t c s 16:06, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Likewise. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:42, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Edit the article to add a recent case related to Love Jihad making a lot of press in India
Ranchi police on Tuesday night arrested Raqibul Hasan Khan alias Ranjit Kumar Kohli, accused of deceiving national shooter Tara Shahdeo into marriage and forcing her to convert to Islam, from near IGI airport, New Delhi.

I believe this article on love Jihad must include this case too. It seems the accusation is credible in this case and has been getting a lot of press coverage and public attention.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Love-jihad-National-shooter-Tara-Shahdeos-husband-arrested/articleshow/40942634.cms http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Love-jihad-National-shooter-Tara-Shahdeos-husband-arrested/articleshow/40942634.cms http://www.ibtimes.co.in/love-jihad-ranchi-man-tortured-wife-convert-islam-607652 http://zeenews.india.com/sports/others/national-shooter-tara-shahdeos-husband-arrested_1460781.html http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/love-jihad-tara-shahdeo-rakibul-hasan-khan-ranjeet-singh-kohli-jharkhand-police-delhi-police/1/379218.html

The articles refer to this case specifically with "Love Jihad" title. please edit the article as it seems it is locked.

Apart from this, the article in its current form seems to indicate that this is just a "wild conspiracy" theory, but with so many recent cases and this recent case, the article must be more neutral in tone.

Anyway, please add this current hot issue in this article.

Whocares2014 (talk) 23:30, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The article is protected apparently because somebody keeps removing the sourced summary that say official investigations have not disclosed evidence of this activity. I would agree that this incident merits mention (although one of your sources is repeated and one does not use the term), but note that it is an isolated incident which is evidently just a prominent allegation at this point. Are there any credible sources meeting WP:IRS that verify the existence of Love Jihad? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:52, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Moon! The article isn't neutral and seems to project a particular idea that these accusations are just 'wild theories'. I am quoting directly from this article "The Karnataka CID said it has not found any evidence of ’Love Jihad’ in a case involving the marriage of a non-Muslim girl from Karnataka with a Kerala Muslim youth and it had sought a two-month time from the State High Court to further probe the incident.[5] The police said there was no organised attempt by any group or individual in Karnataka to entice girls and women into marriage. However, a large number of Hindu girls have converted to Islam of their own will."


 * Here an isolated case has been taken into account and it is being projected as if it refutes the allegation entirely. IF it can be done by referring to just one article, that doesn't sound right too. Have a look at this article:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/india/11014030/Hindu-woman-gang-raped-and-forced-to-convert-to-Islam.html

A Hindu girl for gang raped and forcibly converted to Islam in India. 'Official investigation' was done and culprits were caught. It total, the article is not neutral at all, as is expected from WP.

Whocares2014 (talk) 00:20, 27 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Although the term is in the press recently but I have not been able to find a source which acknowledges the theory. Most news articles use the term while reporting in context of right wing allegations. Also recently (a day or to ago) BJP one of the hard pushers of this theory opted not to use the term in its official party motion which criticised crime in women in general and against Hindu women in particular. I contrary there are several articles in media which clearly mention use of this term as right wing propaganda and political stunt due to upcoming by-elections in UP and assembly elections in other state. The government(s) & police have denied the theory. So, in crux till now we don't have any credible sources meeting WP:IRS that verify the existence of Love Jihad.-- Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider t c s 03:20, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The link you give in your second note, Whocares2014, isn't about "Love Jihad" - it doesn't mention the term, which makes sense because gang rape has nothing to do with feigning love to trick somebody into converting. It's a horrible story, but unrelated. "Love Jihad" is a specific, clearly defined activity, not any form of forced conversion. So far, what I'm seeing would seem to support a note something like "In August 2014, the term rose to national prominence again when champion shooter Tara Shahdeo alleged it in connection to her own marriage, allegations her husband denied." It doesn't bear too much attention yet, because that would constitute undue weight, but I think the press on the matter seems to be widespread enough to document the attention properly, without drawing conclusions as to its accuracy. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:32, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * FaizHaider, I think you are too close to the issue to have a neutral opinion on this matter "but I have not been able to find a source which acknowledges the theory". The entire Indian Media is reporting on it as a case of Love Jihad, but you fail to see it.
 * Moon, thanks! But I belive the line you mean to add is good, but we need to add more to it. I feel the case in Karnataka and its investigation has been paid too much of an overdue weight in this matter. Let's make this article more neutral. Whocares2014 (talk) 19:16, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * you may try to sideline me by your "you are too close to the issue..." comment, but the undue push which you have been giving actually shows that how close you are to this whole allegated theory. You are trying to rewrite the article based on a developing story based on media reports which are just using the term while reporting in context of right wing allegations. While discrediting official investigation reports which were initiated and accepted by courts. The official machinery (mind, that, as of now Govenment of India constitutes right wing parties) is still saying that this whole allegation is right wing propaganda and there is no established proof that this is an well planned activity for conversion. Regarding developing story of shooter Sachdev and her allegations, the story has developed since her husband was detained yesterday by police and media has reported that he has altogether different allegations against his wife the shooter; additionally he claimed "that he is a Sikh and his name is 'Ranjit Singh Kohli'". So, remodeling the article based on developing story with no-official confirmation yet is surely a POV push.
 * As of now what we can have, has been proposed by Moonriddengirl. Also, we may put current ongoing event tag to the article. Deffinitely official investigation reports as matter of fact are more RS than mere media reports so they deserve more weight.-- Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider t c s 06:59, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * News reports are secondary sources that are reliable. "Official investigation report" do not have that privilege. -- AmritasyaPutra ✍ 08:53, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * News reports are not always secondary sources because most newspaper articles are primary sources. Also, I want to state that, "Primary" is not another way to spell "bad" and "Secondary" is not another way to spell "good". For details please refer Identifying and using primary and secondary sources. Coming back to "official investigation reports" as matter of fact the reference being used in article are News reports and hence going by your above comment the info comes from secondary sources that are reliable. Noramlly, I don't quote policies in discussions becuase I assume editors will be aware of them and may also know that we always have exceptions to them and above all to keep discussion short.-- Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider t c s 12:14, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, agreed, all news articles are not secondary, neither are they all primary, right? Do you say that all the reference presented here are primary? Just asking in short. -- AmritasyaPutra ✍ 12:20, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * To get the answer, I'll suggest you refer Identifying and using primary and secondary sources, it has clearly explained how to decide what is Primary & what is Secondary, merits & demerits of both, when we can use them & when it is better to avoide them.-- Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider t c s 13:22, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * yes, of course, nice reference, thank you. Can you just reply to what I asked? -- AmritasyaPutra ✍ 12:51, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 September 2014
117.200.208.45 (talk) 15:25, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Padlock-silver-open.svg Not done: According to the page's protection level and your user rights, you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Go ahead and create it. Cannolis (talk) 16:39, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request
Please change Karala to Kerala in the first sentence of the second paragraph of the Lead. Karala is not part of India!

✅ thanks for pointing that out - Arjayay (talk) 17:04, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Lot of new analysis and reports on Love Jihad in main news sources. Will add them after due consideration.
{| class="collapsible collapsed" style="width:100%;font-size:88%;background: transparent; text-align: left; border: 1px solid silver; margin-top: 0.2em; " ! style="background-color: #CFC; text-align:center; font-size:112%; color: black;" | Only collapsing to help keep clear what hasn't been used yet - see below

Three sample new and unique analysis/cases: -- AmritasyaPutra ✍ 08:53, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white; font-size:112%;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white; font-size:112%;" |
 * http://daily.bhaskar.com/news/BIH-now-love-jihad-case-in-bihar-girl-forced-to-change-her-religion-pleads-for-justi-4731591-PHO.html
 * http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/love-jihad-taekwondo-national-player-from-kanpur-up/1/380151.html
 * http://www.niticentral.com/2014/08/31/love-jihad-more-than-just-a-conspiracy-theory-236926.html


 * Please, keep in mind the policies like Identifying and using primary and secondary and reliable sources. Better to put the content you are planning to put here on talk page and have consensus, once decide that can be moved to article space.-- Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider t c s 11:02, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I will keep policies in mind. Thank you. -- AmritasyaPutra ✍ 11:29, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Here is one more analysis from UK:http://www.hindustantimes.com/punjab/amritsar/love-jihad-exploitation-of-uk-sikh-girls-by-pak-youths-worries-akal-takht/article1-1177246.aspx Most definitely a secondary reliable source. I could find it indexed in Questia also. Thank you. -- AmritasyaPutra ✍ 14:49, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Two more:
 * http://www.indiatvnews.com/news/india/love-jihad-hindu-girl-commit-suicide-after-conversion-41273.html
 * http://deshgujarat.com/2014/09/03/love-jehad-minor-girl-commits-suicide-accused-booked-under-pocso/
 * All the six references provided so far here are reliable sources and each one has Love Jihad in the article title itself. They are from six different independent publishers. -- AmritasyaPutra ✍ 06:34, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Some of these, I think, are more usable than others. To break it down, is an opinion piece - it's not vetted in accordance with WP:IRS, as its disclaimer says, "Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in this article are the author's personal opinions. Information, facts or opinions shared by the Author do not reflect the views of Niti Central and Niti Central is not responsible or liable for the same. The Author is responsible for accuracy, completeness, suitability and validity of any information in this article." Hence, it falls under WP:NEWSBLOG and is only usable to say "This writer says that...." Per WP:UNDUE, that may be an issue (I'm not familiar with the author). The India Today and BIHAR-JHARKHAND pieces seem usable to support that two individuals said they were a victim of Love Jihad, but that has to be carefully managed as well - maybe in a statement like "allegations of Love Jihad were made in 2014 in [region] and [region]" or something.  may support a statement that concerns are spreading into other groups. This is really, really horrific, but refers to what happened as "suspicious" - it does, however, very clearly support that "Amid intense debate over Muslim boy and Hindu girl relationships, many cases have been reported on 'Love Jihad' and the number of cases are increasing rapidly." How is this love jihad? There doesn't seem to have been any effort to convert the poor girl. :/ I think that what we're seeing is evidence that concerns about Love Jihad are spreading rapidly. We have yet to see a conviction or proof of any conspiracy, although it looks like Love Jihad may be undergoing a shift of meaning to any kind of sexually related crime committed against non-Muslim women by Muslim men. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:35, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the inputs! As you have suggested I will not use the NitiCentral newsblog and keep as close to source as possible. About the article from deshgujarat, the opening sentence reads "victim of Love Jihad", so I kept it in the list and it surely is not irrelevant. There are news about Love Jihad in independent verifiable sources spread over years. I will not rush and wait for any further immediate info on these reports/incidents to come. -- AmritasyaPutra ✍ 10:53, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay, a few more stories of interest -, ,. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:29, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for those Moonriddengirl! I was searching with articles starting with the phrase 'Love Jihad'. One more here. -- AmritasyaPutra ✍ 04:32, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * And, I have few here,
 * Love Jihad: Allahabad High Court asks Uttar Pradesh government, EC to file response,
 * 'Love-jihad' row: Allahabad High Court issues notice to Centre, Uttar Pradesh government,
 * India's Fake 'Love Jihad',
 * The Sangh Parivar’s fight against ‘love jihad’ is a political trick,
 * ‘Love Jihad’ is a Sangh Parivar hoax agenda to re-divide the country: Popular Front,
 * Women activists hold press conference condemning love jihad ‘myth’, say individuals have right to choose, Civil society groups condemn ‘love jihad’ propaganda,
 * 'Love-Jihad being used to create disharmony',
 * 'Love Jihad' and religious conversion polarise in Modi's India,
 * NO EVIDENCE OF CONSPIRACY

Earlier this month a national-level rifle shooter Tara Shahdeo complained of being a "Love Jihad" victim, saying her Muslim husband hid his religion when they married in the eastern city of Ranchi.

In response, hardline Hindu outfits rampaged through the town and declared a day-long strike. Other violent protests have broken out in recent days close to New Delhi.

A pamphlet named "Love Jihad" is being widely circulated by members of RSS at Hindu weddings, festivals and outside colleges across the country.

Written in 2011, it links the concept of "Love Jihad" to the rule of Muslim Mughals in India centuries ago - a popular theme with Hindu nationalists who feel Hinduism was weakened by foreign rule.

Police say sporadic cases of trickery by unscrupulous men are not evidence of a broader conspiracy. In Uttar Pradesh, police found no evidence of attempted or forced conversion in five of six reported "Love Jihad" cases in the past three months.

"In most cases we found that a Hindu girl and Muslim boy were in love and had married against their parents' will," state police chief A.L. Banerjee told Reuters. "These are cases of love marriages and not Love Jihad."
 * And, here is an third-party academic sources,
 * Hindu Nationalism in India and the Politics of Fear, Dibyesh Anand, Palgrave Macmillan, 25-Oct-2011
 * Hope above links will be beneficial. Thanks.-- Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider t c s 07:29, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * A lot of good sources there. :) I can't see any of the content from the book (although I'm sure others can; Google varies that), but there's plenty of reliable news sources. This one looks like a "he said/she said" opinion column but the columnists seem like they might be notable enough to call out by name, as per WP:NEWSBLOG, but it will have to be carefully balanced for weight. I'm not familiar with some of the sources - is twocircles.net reliable? I only glanced at the articles, since I don't personally have time to start working on this right now, but thought at a glance that http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2014/09/04/hindu_nationalists_exploitation_of_love_jihad_Modi_BJP looked promising. I notice it has "blog" in the title, though, and I'm not familiar with that source, either, so I wasn't sure if it was also a WP:NEWSBLOG situation. However, when I went back to evaluate it, they wouldn't let me look at the article again unless I register for an account, which isn't happening. :/


 * Anyway, it seems like the article is going to need some overhaul in light of all the new sources discussing the theory. I'm traveling next week and might not get to pitch in before then (although maybe over the weekend), but I'll try, unless somebody else does it first. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:20, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider! twocircle is not exactly reliable source. blog.foreignpolicy article is a newsblog. Others look fine! Regards. -- AmritasyaPutra ✍ 12:50, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know how you have concluded that twocircle.net not to be reliable becuase in the archive link you have provided nothing is concluded.-- Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider t c s
 * It looks like a pretty strong leaning, though, Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider. :/ We've got one person who says no, two people who say they are reliable only for citing opinion, one person who doesn't outright say no but finds it questionable, and one person who says yes. (Another, the person who raised the question, seems to go back and forth a bit.) Maybe it's worth raising the question again? Meanwhile, we've probably got plenty to go on. That Reuter's article, for instance, seems very strong. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:17, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I ✅ with you Moonriddengirl!-- Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider t c s 22:56, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Few more links, -- Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider t c s 19:53, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * 'Love Jihad', students and teachers,
 * Love Jihad campaign treats women as if they are foolish: Charu Gupta, Interview with Associate professor of history at Delhi University ,
 * Who loves Love Jihad
 * I think I got the interview. :) There are tons of news stories just from the last day! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:03, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Here is a very touching (and alarming) story. Kautilya3 (talk) 15:52, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Here is a very touching (and alarming) story. Kautilya3 (talk) 15:52, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Few more links (recent statement of UP Govt. in court), -- Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider t c s 18:37, 16 September 2014 (UTC) Few more links (Meerut 'love jihad' victim retracts her claim), -- Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider t c s 11:01, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * UP govt. denies existence of 'love jihad'
 * No 'Love Jihad' in Uttar Pradesh, state government tells HC
 * http://zeenews.india.com/news/uttar-pradesh/no-existence-of-love-jihad-in-up-govt-tells-hc_1470404.html
 * No 'Love Jihad; in UP, State Govt Tells HC
 * Love jihad row takes new turn in in Uttar Pradesh
 * Love jihad row takes new turn in in Uttar Pradesh
 * Meerut Woman Goes Back on Statement in Blow to 'Love Jihad' Pitch
 * Meerut girl denies rape and forceful conversion, 'love jihad' theory jolted
 * Meerut woman denies 'love jihad', says she eloped
 * Meerut Love Jihad row: Girl denies rape, forced conversion to Islam

Recent update
I'm taking a stab at it. There are a few things I'm not sure what to do with, and I'm going to track them here for ease. I plan to keep adding to this as (or if) I find things I'm not sure about. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:00, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * In, we see "Reacting to Gupta's comments, SSP Shalabh Mathur said the term "love jihad" had been coined only to create fear and divide society along communal lines." What does SSP mean? Is that a person whose opinion is worth individually calling out?
 * SSP means Senior Superintendent of Police, for details you may look into List of police ranks in India & Superintendent of police (India). The rank is equal to "Deputy Commissioner of Police" and is one of the high ranking posts who supervises big/important districts.-- Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider t c s 18:14, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you! :) I'll put that in, then. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:15, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I'm out of time. Hopefully that's a good start - there are going to be tons more sources emerging, and we'll probably need to tighten the balance to make sure that we give proper weight to everything and not too much attention to this current wave. It's just kind of hard to assess how 2014 will stand in the long run against previous waves. Right now, it's looking much larger to me, but we're in the middle of it.

Since Chicago Tribune picked up the Foreign Policy piece, I have found it very useful for background. Its international spread gives it more weight as a reliable source. Nevertheless, I have attributed it.

Those were some great sources. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:00, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * for all the effort.-- Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider t c s 20:42, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, I was going to complain about the Chicago Tribune piece. There are myriads of reasons for Hindu-Muslim tensions and distrust.  To attribute it all to the Partition of India is pretty dumb.  I would actually like to see the section 1.2 of the article dispensed with.  Newspapers as reliable sources for news, not for propounding theories. So, this is actually against WP:RS policies. Kautilya3 (talk) 21:26, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Obviously, I don't think so, so let's see what others think and get consensus. :) (Worthy of note - it doesn't attribute "all" - it says there are roots in it, which is an entirely different thing.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:41, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

To further clarify that it's not attributed to all one thing, the article includes a new background section on marriage traditions. It could really use something on politics, as over and over again the sources relate this to political tensions between parties in India. Unfortunately, that looks like a really massive undertaking for somebody who knows next to nothing about politics in India. I could try to do it, but I think I'd need a ton more time than I have. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:58, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 September 2014
Muslim may marry "People of the Book", interpreted by most to include Jews and Christians, with the inclusion of Hindus disputed.No gender inequalities

125.22.43.16 (talk) 06:50, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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. Cannolis (talk) 07:15, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

By which or under which?
Both are correct, but our usual writing standard for this article has been supportive towards under which. Bladesmulti (talk) 02:28, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

removal of section
A section of this article was removed today here by reason that "News papers are WP:RS for only news, not commentary." I'm restoring pending more information on this. WP:IRS says that commentary in newspapers "are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author" - what we have here is precisely that: statements explicitly attributed to the editor or author. I believe we need more information to remove this material in this context. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:50, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I remember complaining about it when it first got inserted. I think it is totally over the top. Even assuming that we can use news commentary with in-text attribution, why would we want to do it? What do we know about this reporter that makes his opinion so important to go into an encyclopedia? Do we have corroboration from any other source, preferably a scholarly source, that goes even remotely near his theory? And, why do we need to give an entire section to a random opinion of a random reporter? What about WP:WEIGHT? Kautilya3 (talk) 22:23, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * As the article notes, Kautilya3, his piece was run in one paper and picked up by another. The author is a widely published journalist who has been cited in a number of books . It's not an entire section, but a subsection. I have no issue with merging those with the other sections, but the current divisions seem helpful structurally. I'm open to feedback from others here, just as I was when you mentioned your concerns last time. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:46, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Most of those are false hits. He has only a handful of citations, probably owing to some coverage of Glen Beck. He doesn't show any expertise in India or South Asia. I would say the right amount of weight is one sentence, that too only if we are discussing the views of a number of scholars. Remember that Wikipedia is supposed to represent scholarly consensus, not any one scholar's views. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 23:16, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * How many citations are a handful? I see writing for The Atlantic, Foreign Policy, Mother Jones, Washington Monthly, Salon, The Las Angelas Review of Books, Reuters, and the New Reublic, among others. That's without touching the books where he's cited. And, again, this particular article was picked up and run by a second publication at least. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:14, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Removal of the word "alleged"
The word "alleged" has been removed from two sentences in this article. I have restored the status quo pending consensus. The second time it was removed with the notation: "it specifically notes that cases have been prosecuted against people who committed rape jihad". I see nothing in this article about any individual being convicted of love jihad. User:BeastBoy3395, can you please point out any such convictions? I note that in November 2014 this reliable source was still referring to it as an unproven, alleged activity. (It's important to note that the question is not whether forced conversion exists; it's a question of whether people are feigning love to trick women into converting - that is, practicing "love jihad" to reach this conversion.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:13, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I have a problem with keeping the word "alleged" in; I just think it's dubious since, as the article lower down states:In October 2009, the Karnataka government announced its intentions to counter "Love Jihad", which "appeared to be a serious issue".[57] A week after the announcement, the government ordered a probe into the situation by the CID to determine if an organised effort existed to convert these girls and, if so, by whom it was being funded.[58] One woman whose conversion to Islam came under scrutiny as a result of the probe was temporarily ordered to the custody of her parents, but eventually permitted to return to her new husband after she appeared in court, denying pressure to convert.[59][60] In April 2010, police used the term to characterize the alleged kidnapping, forced conversion and marriage of a 17-year-old college girl in Mysore.[61]


 * I mean, come on. Are we supposed to believe that these police officers are lying? BeastBoy3395 (talk) 13:04, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


 * That question doesn't merit an answer. A charge is an allegation until it is proved in a court. It can't be reported as a fact until scholarly sources acknowledge it so. Wikipedia reports scholarly consensus. - Kautilya3 (talk) 13:09, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with Kautilya3. "appeared to be" is by no means proof of activity, and the rest of that section makes quite clear that official investigations - including the probe that was ordered - have found no substantiation. Until there is such proof, this remains an allegation. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:13, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I've googled this, and multiple sources show that love jihad is real, and that people have been convicted of it. As such, I have added it back. BeastBoy3395 (talk) 13:58, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If you want to claim that's a reliable source, you should re-read WP:IRS. Even if that source were reliable, it doesn't say people have been convicted of "love jihad". Huon (talk) 15:13, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


 * It doesn't change the fact that they were convicted, now does it? It also does describe love jihad, as its described here, sexual misconduct by Muslims to seduce girls for sexual purposes. Also, here's another source. The Guardian is very reliable. BeastBoy3395 (talk) 15:20, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I've removed it again. BeastBoy3395, please show where in any reliable article there is verification that anyone has been convicted of love jihad. Specific quotations. What Vijaykant Chauhan believes is immaterial. Besides being unreliable, the other link you provide has nothing to do with love jihad, which, again, is about pretending you love somebody to trick them into conversion. Kidnapping a teenage girl and forcing her into sexual slavery is horrible, but it's an entirely different situation. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:32, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I fully agree with Moonriddengirl. The Guardian does not in any way claim love jihad is real but rather profiles someone who says so - for context it cites this paper by a historian which explicitly say the "love jihad" campaign is a "hate campaign of Hindu organisations" and calls the claim that there is a love jihad "fake". Quote the Guardian: "Since then [a similar campaign in the 1920s detailed by the historian], the idea has periodically regained currency when purveyors such as Chauhan are granted a fleeting moment of relevance." Huon (talk) 16:05, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I am adding to this 2015 discussion in 2017. The article still overuses the term "alleged". High court has recently passed the verdict to annul a marriage based on the proven "love jihad". Based on the NIA's investigation and evidence, the supreme court found it alarming enough in 2017 to order a widespread inquiry of all such reported cases. Article needs clean up, see these latest sources here, 1, 2, 3 and 4. 222.165.9.81 (talk) 20:41, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Love Jihad in Israel section
I have removed these sections pending any connection of a reliable source to these interfaith marriages and "love jihad" - the feigning of love to convince women to convert. The term is most definitely not included in this article or this one. The "love jihad" article is not about any interfaith marriage, but specifically about the accusation that young Muslim men are faking romance to lure women to convert. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:02, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Europe and USA
What about sexual jihad in Europe? E.g. this and many other. ones. Zezen (talk) 10:04, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Your examples have nothing to do with the article, which is about " an alleged activity under which young Muslim boys and men are said to reportedly target young girls belonging to non-Muslim communities for conversion to Islam". Two of them are about recruiting Muslim girls to ISIS, another about Muslim girls fleecing ISIS. I've reverted you because of that. I replaced the paragraph that you moved from the lead with no explanation, and removed the citation request as the cites are in the article per WP:LEAD. Sources for this article need to discuss something that the sources call a "love jihad" involving non-Muslim girls. Doug Weller (talk) 11:00, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Love Jihad. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131211033101/http://www.sahilonline.org/english/news.php?catID=coastalnews&nid=6624&viewed=0 to http://www.sahilonline.org/english/news.php?catID=coastalnews&nid=6624&viewed=0
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110727072118/http://www.mathrubhumi.org/news.php?id=25130 to http://www.mathrubhumi.org/news.php?id=25130

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 05:17, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Love Jihad. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.ucanews.com/2009/10/13/church-state-concerned-about-love-jihad

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 06:48, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Singling out Muslims
>>> In 2016 The Vigilance and Anti-corruption Bureau of Kerala is mulling bringing religious conversions, involving financial benefits, under its scanner.[79] The VACB director's statement on religious conversions assumes significance in the wake of a recent police intelligence report that nearly 5,700 persons had been converted to Islam between 2011–2015 across Kerala.The report, compiled by the state intelligence and submitted to the state Director General of Police seven months ago, had stated that out of the total 5,793 converted, 2,729 were women.Of the total number of persons converted, 4,719 were Hindus and 1,704 were Christians, it said. As per the report, 1,074 people were converted to Islam in 2011, 1,117 (2012), 1,137 (2013), 1,256 (2014) and 1,209 (till October, 2015). There were media reports that money was allegedly involved in such religious conversions.

When did allegations became facts? And it is well known that Indian nationalists use money to convert Muslims. It is never mentioned in the article.

And why is the following report relevant?

http://www.firstpost.com/india/keralas-missing-youths-spate-of-conversions-love-jihad-cases-hint-at-more-disappearances-2890416.html

It clearly has no evidence of love Jihad but the article is written in a way that makes it look as if it is a case of love Jihad.

And this source is clearly biased.

And it is also should be noted that Islam doesn't promote any of this and is in fact against it. Muslims who marry hindu girls are often deemed as bad Muslims by others.

>>> It is clear that Allah has not made it permissible for Muslims to marry non-Muslims, though there is an exception for Muslim men to marry women from the People of the Book (i.e. Jews and Christians). Hanafi scholars have pointed out that even this exception is in many cases disliked or even sinful if one cannot be sure that it will not influence one’s religious devotion or beliefs, or that of one’s children.

http://seekershub.org/ans-blog/2010/12/22/can-a-muslim-man-marry-a-sikh-or-a-hindu/

>>> A further requirement for a convert Muslim is to free himself from those beliefs of his former faith or religion which are not in line with the Islamic beliefs. (Contemporary Fatawa of Mufti Taqi Uthmani (DB) p.269)

It should be borne in mind that it is not a correct practice to embrace Islam for the sake of Marrying a Muslim boy or girl only. If ones real purpose is only to marry a Muslim girl/boy, and he wants to register himself as a Muslim only because he cannot marry the girl/boy without it, while he does not have faith in the basics beliefs of Islam, he/she cannot be a Muslim completely. (ibid)

With regards to your question, as she has accepted Islam it would be permissible for you to marry this woman as long as the conditions of marriage are found.

“The contract of Marriage concluded is through offer (ijaab) and acceptance (kabool)….. The contract of Marriage of Muslims is not concluded unless there are present two Muslims, free, major and sane witnesses, or one male and two women…” (Hidayah p 325-326 v 2)

Only Allah Knows Best

http://islamqa.org/hanafi/daruliftaa-birmingham/88309 — Preceding unsigned comment added by SakibArifin (talk • contribs) 10:47, 10 March 2017 (UTC)


 * although most of your post is inappropriate as it is more of a forum style post discussing and arguing about the subject, you point about the paragraph in question is correct and I've removed it. But please in the future concentrate on improving the article, not discussing the subject of the article. Thanks. Doug Weller  talk 13:32, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Love Jihad. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140323091755/http://www.frontpagemag.com/2009/stephenbrown/the-%E2%80%9Clove-jihad%E2%80%9D-by-steven-brown/ to http://www.frontpagemag.com/2009/stephenbrown/the-%E2%80%9Clove-jihad%E2%80%9D-by-steven-brown/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:01, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Removing unsourced claims
I am removing unsourced claims/text from the lead, see here. 222.165.9.81 (talk) 17:47, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Issues with the article: Do not bite me, collaborate instead
I am here with good intent to collaborate in a constructive manner. The article has several issues. 222.165.9.81 (talk) 19:56, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Too long: It has too much unnecessary verbiage that can be easily condensed, for example, community response section can be condensed to just 2 or 3 statements. It is no where near a good encyclopedic article.
 * 2) Dump of all relevant information: Article has become dump of all the related material. It is not a synthesis of relevant information in a concise encyclopedia manner. The whole article need a clean up and rewrite.
 * 3) Lead is messy and redundant: Lead itself is messy which also contains redundant text. Lead also needs revamp. Just include the key conclusions and not the summary of all the discussion.
 * 4) Outdated - Frozen in time: Article is written as if it is frozen in 2014. And all my edits to take it forward have been reverted. Stop trying to silence me with unfair warnings by keeping a badly cluttered article in 2014 that has slowly become a dump of things related to this topic.
 * 5) Disruptive reverts and aggressive unreasonable warnings: My attempts to clean up the article and take it forward have resulted in me being bombarded with warnings on my talk page, without bothering to discuss this here with me first, or without reviewing all my edits in entirety but selectively taking some edits to revert those.Please do not bite the editors.
 * 6) Discouragement of editors effort to clean it up: I wanted to undertake the clean up. But no one has responded to me here, instead they pounced on me on my talk page. Now I am discouraged to touch this article any further, given the aggressive attempts of others to shut me out. Can we collaborate constructively here instead. Stop pounding people wrong way. Discuss it here please. or else, please let me edit it peace. Give yourself a goal, "I will not warn anyone. I will investigate in detail. I will practice benefit of doubt and good faith. I will use positive means. I will use no negative methods including warnings." Please stop using distasteful warnings as weapon to permanently shut people out of wikipedia community. Thanks.
 * 7) An example: how I was attacked by trying to do the right thing: Specifically, I had attempted to remove the "outdated" claims from the lead that authorities have found no evidence of love jihad. This claim in the lead is no longer valid. High court had termed a marriage a case of lvoe jihad. Supreme court asked NIA to submit evidence for the unbiased assitance. Based on the evidence submitted, Supreme court was sufficiently alarmed to order investigation of all such cases. Basically, the court has declared phenomenon to be real and wider investigation has been launched by the unbiased authoritative agency. See these latest sources here, 1, 2, 3 and 4.
 * 8) What next: let us clean it up Regardless of aggressive bombardment of unreasonable warnings at me, I will still try to do the right thing by attempting to clean up, such as condense the lead and article, delete the outdated stuff, keep only the most relevant synthesis in concise form, rephrase accordingly. I will do it after a day or two. Anyone has anything to discuss, please do it here. You are welcome to clean up before I do. Just do not bite me again later for doing the right thing.
 * 9) Please remember: exercise restraint, avoid issuing trigger-happy warnings Please avoid wasting time in silly reverts and avoidable improper-warnings. All this time I wasted in reinserting unfair reverts and fending off the disruptive warnings, I could have used it to clean up the whole article. What a waste of my time, and your time as well. Be more responsible please. Try to leave a good taste. Do not try to create or preserve unpleasant fiefs. Do not hit people with warnings as prime and first resort, e.g. by disguising this as BRD types of guidelines. This unpleasant nasty weapon must be used extremely rarely, after you have tried other positive pleasant collaborative constructive options, or else you are just shutting people out of wikipedia by making it a hellish experience for others editors.

2 or 3 sentences can't encapsulate everything. Also you're ruling and information is "outdated" as the entire thing correct because of a case of one marriage being annulled and seen as a danger of love jihad. Regardless, no one has been convicted of luring the woman. The article is about a phenomenon, not one marraige being called as such. The case is under challenge anyway. If more cases are confirmed and then the phenemonen established, it should be added. NIA is still investigating. We are not here to rule what's true or false or outdated as you claimed. This is what I told you, there's no attack so please don't make bad faith allegations.

Also you have been informed by another user to not remove content in lead≈ if sources are in the body of the article. As for the lead/summary, it was short enough until you needlessly removed it. And the first time you removed the content needlessly termed it as unsourced primary research POV, which is again a bad faith allegation. I am not against collaboration, but instead of removing, let's just point out and try to correct if you feel there's a mistake. 117.225.17.211 (talk) 22:38, 16 August 2017 (UTC)


 * An editor made a suggestion that if the content is sourced in the body of the article then it let it stay in the lead. It sounds sensible to me, so no problem in going with to his suggestion. There is a problem if the text in the lead or body itself is misleading with the "blanket statements". For example, "all official investigations in India launched in 2009, 2010, 2012 and 2014 have found no evidence of the activity" is what I removed and you are trying to retain. A statement can stay if it is sourced in the body, no problem with that principal. There are other problems with the accuracy and reliability of this statement. There is nothing to say all investigations said so, this is not the correct representation of the facts and sources as some investigation found no evidence, other investigation found traces of love jihad it but lacked sufficient evidence and some investigations were still continuing. Hence making a blanket statement that all investigation in those years found no evidence of love jihad is a misrepresentation of the sources, while omitting the fact that an alarmed Kerala High court had asked the govt in 2009 to frame the rules to prevent the love jihad. Correct way to rephrase it is "Some investigations in 2009, 2010, 2012 and 2014 either found no evidence or lacked sufficient evidence to substantiate these allegations, though Kerala High court was sufficiently alarmed to ask the govt in 2009 to frame the rules to prevent the love jihad" or something like this. We can discuss what is the right way to rephrase it that reflects the reliable synthesis of the sources. Misrepresenting the sources, as if no cases happened is India, while omitting other major facts, would be dubious. This is what I am trying to fix in my edits. I am not introducing any OR, or my own text, I am only removing or correcting inaccuracies/misrepresentations that exist in the article. Regarding your statement "We are not scholars or correctioners. Unless you have doubtless proof that the police did not say it, please do not remove it." here, we must remove content that is misrepresented, misquoted, not reflective of the source, and if it is unreliable content or newsreport even from an otherwise well known source. I think you are confusing the Headline (in bold inside the source your used) here as the direct quote from the DGP. This is not a direct quote from the DGP. It is instead a rephrased (and misquoted) Headline by the source. A rephrased interpretation done by the source of a 3rd party authority (DGP) can not be used as the direct quote or statement of the authority. It can not also be used to imply that it was submitted to the court if the source explicitly does not say so. i can not be phrased in a way that can be easily misinterpreted or presents only half the truth. Source has further quoted what the DGP exactly said, so please use only the direct quote of the DGP as mentioned in the quote inside the source instead of reinterpretation of the quote by the source because that reinterpretation is misleading and you are incorrectly attributing it directly to the authority within inverted commas, which is not the right way. Using the statement made by the source and putting it in the inverted commas as if it was the direct quote by the police is not the right way. It was not a direct quote in the inverted commas in the source, putting it in the inverted commas is a misrepresentation. And, if if it was not a "statement made to the court under oath or affidavit", not even a written press statement from the police, then this statement it of low reliability, specially it is attributed to no verifiable name, since the statement is not verifiable hence does not meet wikipedia criteria also. WP:RS. Your source [http://in.reuters.com/article/india-religion-modi-idINKBN0GZ2OC20140904 here} says "Police say sporadic cases of trickery by unscrupulous men are not evidence of a broader conspiracy. In Uttar Pradesh, police found no evidence of attempted or forced conversion in five of six reported "Love Jihad" cases in the past three months." but you actually quoted as if it was a direct quote from the police, which is not so in the source. It is the source's statement/interpretation of what police says, and source has not mentioned who in the police said so. Neither this statement by police made in court under oath. Source that you are using does not mention that police made any such submission to the court that no love jihad cases. There is a big difference between "statement made to the court under oath or affidavit" (false statements lead to imprisonment) versus statement made outside the court (includes lose talk too). Giving it undue weight of importance is unacceptable way of editing. We can even ask a third party for help to review these edits and sources to ensure the correct weight, phrasing, etc is used in the article.

222.165.9.81 (talk) 00:33, 17 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Most of the statements attributed to the police have no verifiable names of the spokesperson, they are not even "submissions under oath to the courts' but mere wishful opinions either of the no-name unverifiable police or the writer of news article, all such sources are low value, unreliable, nonverifiable POV even if they appear in the well known newspapers. They can not be given undue weight in the article and need to be discounted or removed. Only things proven in the court (for the news, statement by no name police do not meet the wikipedia criteria) or secondary reliable reputed scholarly sources are acceptable.

222.165.9.81 (talk) 00:41, 17 August 2017 (UTC)


 * First of all please don't say I'm trying to retain "all official investigations in India launched in 2009, 2010, 2012 and 2014 have found no evidence of the activity". Also do not accuse anyone of "vandalism", that never occured. I am currently not making any generalization. You have been needlessly accusing me. I have myself expanded it to make it clearer so please do not accuse me of trying to retain a blanket generalisation. I added back sourced content you removed unsourced primary research POV, but never added them back even after Doug Weller informed they don't need to be duplicated and be sourced in lead. Then as I said,

I myself expanded it. I have pointed out where the police has stated that they haven't fpund evidence. While you are talking to me about teh rules, you yourself don't know about them.
 * Also you are making baseless allegations against reliable sources. The source which you are saying I misquoted the headline is Deccan Herald: (http://www.deccanherald.com/content/35486/kerala-police-have-no-proof.html). The actual headline is Kerala police have no proof on 'Love Jihad'. The first para in bold black There is no organisation in Kerala whose members lure girls by feigning love with the intention of converting them into Islam, according to Director-General of Police Jacob Punnoose. There is nothing misquoted or fabricated. It is directly attributed to him. Now please tell me what proof do you have for your claim it isn't his? What you are doing is pure OR. Such practice of calling something fabricated, miquoted without evidence is unacceptable. It is not me misunderstanding anything, it is you knowingly making baseless accusations.
 * The Reuters source (http://in.reuters.com/article/india-religion-modi-idINKBN0GZ2OC20140904) directly mentions Police say sporadic cases of trickery by unscrupulous men are not evidence of a broader conspiracy. You removed it. I have done some rewriting in the article and now all valod concerns are solved as it says what the source did.
 * Your reasons that it doesn't meet WP:RS because it is not submitted in court is not a part of the rule. Not every investigation will go the court, wven though I don't say it didn't go, it might have I don't know that. Another is that there is no names. We don't base our articles on whether names of the spokesperson etc are given. There is no such rule. Again another made-up rule. But regardless, you are making up your own rule which doesn't even exist in WP:RS. Honestly, I should ask someone to check and correct your edits to remove your edits. You have also violated rules many times. If you want to selectively remove or push any agenda or edit per self-interpretation, that cannot be allowed. I have no problem in your view. However, when you continue to disregard real Wiki rules and make-up rules, that is unacceptable. 117.224.238.4 (talk) 01:30, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Let us discuss all the issues one-by-one. Discuss the article related issues here and not on the personal talk page, so that the consensus with the wider set of editors can be reached. I will create subheading below for each issue and then you and other editors can pitch in with the help to resolve. For each issue, we can try to be as specific as possible and offer alternative rephrasing and solution. That would be the faster way to resolve it. Thanks. 222.165.9.81 (talk) 08:44, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

This is a warning to both of you to not to edit-war, disrupt or impose your own versions. Discuss first. I have been blocked in the past for exceeding limits even when I didn't know. So I advise you to refrain from making edit first. I suggest you to talk first. I shall request temporary semi-protection as it is clearly a controversial issue where editors do what they think is right. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 01:55, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Please see my discussion above on my talk page. I am directly taking it with the other editor point-by-point and I have already invited others for discussion on the talk page of the Love Jihad and my this is what I created there multiple issues with article and unsourced claims. I am doing everything to avoid edit wars and to build consensus. This is not a fair allegation or warning. Since the other editor started to revert, I created discussion points on the article talk page, and subsequent to that I have temporarily stopped making changes to his edits (even before you arrived here) and am encouraging him to engaging in discussion as you can see above. If you check the edit history, you will notice that to avoid edit-warring I have stopped making changes to the contentious ones and any latest edits made to those contentious ones are by other editors and not me. I have instead resorted to creating the discussion on the talk page for the resolution. I will create point-by-point issue discussion below for breaking the problem down into solvable components. I also request you to please review the issues and points of discussion, and provide your third party view. You are welcome to directly edit the article, if it is faster for you. Thanks. 222.165.9.81 (talk) 07:59, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

You are wrongly claiming you removed unsourced edits. The outcome of the soecific investigations you removed was alresdy mention in the article. See Love Jihad. You were also informed by Doug Weller, not to remove if sources are in the body of the article. You yourself have said you let them stay after he poited it out. You are going back on your statement of your fault and this is not good. You been continuously doing what you wanted even while discussion was ongoing. It seems as if you want the article to be written as you want it. 117.199.88.74 (talk) 16:59, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Please Help: Point-by-point resolution of pending issues
Dear all, you are requested to please help us by joining the discussion below. The article that was create long ago, has slowly become lengthy and needs a good clean up and rewriting. There are issues with the quality, reliability, verifiability of sources and the way those have been synthesized, phrased or attributed. Specific issues have been numbered (A, B, C, etc for easy referencing) and created to isolate those to solve one by one. You are welcome to add your own issues (please remember to number those). Now please read the subsequent issues, some or all of these might still be unresolved even at a distant future date, so please read all. Thanks. 222.165.9.81 (talk) 09:06, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

A. Proposed rephrasing of "Love Jihad" definition
Current, definition has some unnecessary words in it. definition should be clear, direct, concise and without fluff. Examples of good definitions are Rape, Murder and Terrorism that contain no unnecessary verbiage such as "alleged", "said to", "reportedly". Definitions by definition definitively define the concept without the appeasing clutter. The "allegation of love jihad" are not to be confused with the "definition of love jihad itself". Hence, I am proposing to remove the "are said to reportedly" from the definition.

From current phrasing of the definition: Love Jihad, also called Romeo Jihad, is defined as an activity under which young Muslim boys and men are said to reportedly target young girls belonging to non-Muslim communities for conversion to Islam by feigning love.' Sources provided by the earlier editors are 1, 2 and 3.

Changes proposed-A1: To proposed phrasing of the definition: Love Jihad, also called Romeo Jihad, is defined as an activity under which young Muslim boys and men target young girls belonging to non-Muslim communities for conversion to Islam by feigning love.' Sources provided by the earlier editors are 1, 2 and 3.

222.165.9.81 (talk) 09:06, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

B. Please reference again in the lead to avoid contention
I am requesting all editors to reference everything in the lead even if it has been sourced in the main body of the article. For most other low-contention articles, I buy into the commonsense suggestion made by another editor that the content does not need to be referenced again in the lead. For this article, specially it has been contentious, I request all editors to either cite the reference in lead again or remove the text. Reasons for this are as following:

(i) It is a contested article. To avoid contentions, article must be well cited, it is much harder to read the whole article and then verify the lead. It is much easier to verify the lead of a contentious article if it has been source cited properly even if the main body already does so. Wikipedia rules about the mandatory use of in-line citation for the contentious statements in the lead clearly state that, "the lead must conform to verifiability ... and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and direct quotations, should be supported by an inline citation." Not providing references, specially when I have already contested it once, make it valid candidate for deletion, edit-warring and reverts (in violation of wikipedia rule I previously mentioned ) on my removal of contentious material should be avoided. Better insert the references please.

(ii) Include inline citation for the content that is challenged. I have challenged it few times, do not keep reinsert without providing the inline citation. Wikipedia Citation guidelines also make that rule clear, "Wikipedia's Verifiability policy requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations, anywhere in article space."

(iii) If all all other statements are cited in the lead, except one of two statements. Then it is a good way to "follow the uniform standard across the lead" to cite those again in the lead before reinserting, specially if those have been contested/deleted/removed by other editors. if contested, inline citation is a must.

(iv) Doing so will improve the verifiability and ease of undertaking it.

(v) It will eliminate chances of being removed in future by other editors, who might not read the whole lengthy article.

(vi) Directly cited lead can be checked if the "synthesis" in the lead accurately reflects the sources.

(vii) Directly cited lead can be checked if the "synthesis" in the lead does not have any undue weight in a contentious article, False balance, Bias in sources, Handling neutrality disputes, Words to watch, Lack of credibility.

(viii) An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof. hence cite them again in the lead to avoid contention and false balance.

(ix) It becomes easier to check the goodness of article.

Changes proposed-B1: Currently, there one or two uncited and synthesized statements in the lead, and those are not conforming to the uniform standard used by all other statements in lead that have been appropriately supported by the references. Please, either insert the supporting reference (preferred option) or let us remove those. Those statements are: "Arising in a background of national religious tension, the alleged activity is based on the power of emotional appeal in religious conversion."

Changes proposed-B2: If we decide to keep the statement then delete the overused word "alleged" and retain the following with the references. Alleged should be deleted because we are not discussing the allegations here, we are not discussing if the phenomenon is real or alleged only. This statement is about how love jihad activity is based on emotional appeal (in both alleged or real cases). "Arising in a background of national religious tension, the activity is based on the power of emotional appeal in religious conversion."

222.165.9.81 (talk) 09:47, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

C. Half-truth in the lead
The following statement in the lead has several issues: In November 2009, DGP Jacob Punnoose stated there was no organisation whose members lured girls by feigning love with the intention of converting. He told the Kerala High Court that 3 out of 18 reports he received expressed some doubts about the tendency. However, in absence of solid proof the investigations were still continuing.(based on source1). In December 2009, Justice K.T. Sankaran of Kerala High Court found indications of forceful conversions. He stated that from police reports it was clear there was a "concerted effort" to convert women with "blessings of some outfits".(based on source2).

Issues are: (i) Self-contradiction: The second statement contradicts the first statement. Lead should be synthesis, not contradictions within single source. Article Lead is not the place to capture all the details, but only

(ii) Incorrect use of the news highlight as direct quote: The editor seem to have misunderstood the Subhead kicker (introductory summary subheading line or brief paragraph, located immediately above or below the headline, and "typographically distinct" from the body of the article) in the source1 to be part of the actual body of the article. This might not be a deliberate attempt on part of editor but due to misunderstanding the concept of the lead paragraph, [Highlight#Other_uses|article highlight] and Subhead or kicker. In the source1, the "Bold Text" on top of the article is not part of the main body of the article because the actual article begins after the text in the bold ends. This bold text is "subhead" or "kicker" or "ticker", which is the summary of article rephrased in the view or POV of the reporter. It is better to use only the non-contentious direct quotes of the third-party authority (DGP of Kerala police) from the main body of article instead of directly attributing rephrased highlight or summary subheading as an actual quotes from the authority. For comparison see another example here, you can notice 3-point highlight or Subhead on top and just like the source1 this example article also begins after the end of highlight/subhead. I wish other editors clearly understood this differentiation between subhead and the main body of the article.

(iii) Subhead not supported by the text in the main body of the source: The statement in the subheading in bold black on top of the article is not mentioned or substantiated by the reporter within the article, this also make the validity and reliability of the report itself questionable, specially due to bias in source (e.g. inappropriate rephrasing in the sibhead), Words to watch, Lack of credibility. inflated claims "no evidence found" in "all cases" just based on one person's opinion of a specific case or only a subset of cases Weasel word (words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that a specific or meaningful statement has been made, when instead only a vague or ambiguous claim has actually been communicated) As explained, per wikipedia guidelines, instead of blindly taking the source editors must check if the source reporter has misrepresented the facts, if the report or source has inaccurately rephrased the statements with own POV, etc. In such cases the source should be rejected, at least reject the contentious rephrased parts (such as summarized subhead or highlights of article).

(iv) half-truth statements mislead easily: There are several ways to represent the facts. Half truth are dangerously misleading. Please understand this first Scenario-1: Half truth: "India is world's third richest nation in terms of PPP GPD". This hides the poverty in India. Scenario-2: Half truth: "India has world's largest absolute population of poor people". This hides India's collective riches and power. Scenario-3: Less incomplete truth: "India is world's third richest nation (PPP GDP) with world's largest absolute population of poor people". This does not make the income disparity explicitly clear (only implies so, article lead should be direct, clear, explicit). It does not give nay indication of Indians ranking or its position in the development curve (lower-middle income developing nation). Scenario-4: Complete truth: "India, a lower-middle income developing nation and emerging regional power, is world's third richest nation (PPP GDP) with world's largest absolute population of poor people and associated problems and opportunities of a developing nation." This is more comprehensive and acceptable.

Scenario-4 like statements are ideal to have in the lead and article, I found several statements that do not even meet scenario-3 standard and they fall in the category of scenarioa-1 and scenarioa-2. Again, this might not be a deliberate intent of editors, but preserving and protecting these edits is counter productive and against the collaborative editorial spirit of wikipedia.

(v) DGP was reprimanded by the court for making vague statements (first statement in the lead, see top of this item-C) In December 2009, DGP Jacob Punnoose was [reprimanded by the Kerala High Court Justice [[K.T. Sankaran]] for being vague (for his blanket statements that no evidence of love jihad). This truth is not captured at all. It makes the current lead similar to scenario1 and secnario2 I described in the previous point-iv. This truth needs to be added, and it is already in some of the sources used in the article but only selective synthesis to extract half-truth has been done.

(vi) Court found DGP statements not valid, DGP statements should not be in the lead. In this case, the court subsequently (December 2009, Justice K.T. Sankaran of Kerala High Court) found indications of forceful conversions. He stated that from police reports it was clear there was a "concerted effort" to convert women with "blessings of some outfits".(based on source2). This clearly refutes the DGP's statements, and hence DGP statements should not be in the lead, it can be kept in the main body. Article lead should have the "proven verifiable evidence conclusions". (v) Keeping the key point of the source is misleading The Source2 has the prominently heading "Kerala HC asks govt to frame laws to stop ‘love jihad’." While secondary logic from the source has been used but this more important point it totally kept out of the edit. This should be highlighted.

(Vi) The way current two statements (beginning of this section-C) in the article leads are phrased they give impression as if DGP in Nov and Justice of court in December 2009 might not be the same case, make it clear it is the same case. Lead gives the inaccurate impression by giving undue weight to the discredited statements of DGP that there was no evidence of love jihad. Court had reprimanded the DGP for those vague statements. That discredited vague statement/quote of DGP must not be used in the lead because it that makes readers believe as if highest police authorities are claiming there is no evidence of love jihad and that claim went unchallenged. In reality that claim was demolished, court found evidence of forced conversion. Moreover court was alarmed enough to "specifically" order the Kerala government to frame the rules to prevent the "love jihad" (source2).

(vii) The articel does not follow the rules of synthesis as per Manual of Style for the Lead section, which states the following: "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. Like in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources. Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." Article Lead is NOT same as the Lead paragraph of a newspaper.

Changes proposed-C1: Delete the following first statement, due to the reasons mentioned above. Also make the corresponding changes in the "In November 2009, DGP Jacob Punnoose stated there was no organisation whose members lured girls by feigning love with the intention of converting."

Changes proposed-C2: Rephrase To: Rephrase the statements in the lead to the following (eliminate excessivedetails, retain in the main body after rephrasing those to include all facts): After finding the indications of forceful conversions, Justice K.T. Sankaran of Kerala High Court stated in his December 2009 verdict that from police reports it was clear there was a "concerted effort" to convert women with "blessings of some outfits". He also reprimanded the DGP Jacob Punnoose for making vague statements earlier that no organisation whose members lured girls by feigning love with the intention of converting. Kerala High Court also asked govt to frame laws to stop "love jihad".(based on source1, source2 and INSERT-THIS-NEW-SOURCE3 also).

222.165.9.81 (talk) 12:26, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Point-by-point rebuttal of 222.165.9.81
The article has been negatively effected by the above editor's disruptive edits has been continuously engaging in OR and probable bias. While his concerns have been constantly accomodated, he only wants to word the article as he see fits. He is even removing information from reliable secondary sources baselessly calling them as fabricated misquotes falsely attributed to authorities. In another removal, he calls information from reliable sources as dubious and police making no such claims. In another, he even uses a false reason like "no names of reliablity" mentioned, calling a quote of the Kerala DGP Jacob Punnoose as misquoted and he never said it "there was no organisation whose members lured girls by feigning love with the intention of converting" even though the very first para said it. However he removes them by making up his own reasons. Not just OR, it is bordering to WP:CHERRYPICKING and his claims meet no standards of WP:RS. 59.96.134.21 (talk) 17:12, 17 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I can harp on similar rebuttal of reverts. But it will not take the discussion forward, hence I will not do it. Lets us please just stop this. Can we please instead focus on the resolution instead of "he said this and I said this". Please suggest your solution (and/or rephrasing) for the issues as they stand, so we can proceed further by agreeing or making additional collaborative suggestions. Thanks. 222.165.9.81 (talk) 14:37, 18 August 2017 (UTC)


 * To take it forward, my suggested agreement for other issues:I am also happy to go with some of the other suggestions you made earlier. For example, about the use of the term "allowed" (court allowed NIA to investigate love jihad) and I had changed it to "ordered", based on your clarification (those sources were not sufficient, I had to do additional research, I found a new source that clarifies the point, please see and feel free to use it court "allowed NIA), I am clear that you were correct that court "allowed" NIA to investigate love jihad, court did not order so on its own, court ordered only after NIA (based on their then-current evidence) asked court to investigate love jihad further under the guidance of court appointed retired justice as the representative of the court. Please feel free to rephrase and include the additional source. please condense in the lead and keep the details only in the main body. Thanks. 222.165.9.81 (talk) 15:02, 18 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Please say whatever you want to about any rebut, if you want to. No one is stopping you The "resolution" is already there if you follow the rules. About your other statement, you talked about misleading summaries, but yourself misquoted sources in your edit. Also your source court seems dead. Keeps redirecting to the main site. Please give one that works. 117.225.31.174 (talk) 18:32, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

"Love Jihad" definition
First of all the NIA is still investigating into reports of love jihad whether women are being targeted as well as the marriage which had been worried the Kerala High Court and has been called a "love jihad",. The article doesn't refer to it as "alleged" anyway. The term "said to reportedly" doesn't mean an allegation, it's how others define and report it regardless of it being false or true. This isn't our definition. Regardless, it isn't important. While removing allegedly it was you who made it look not as definition of others. So I won't mind the rewriting by removing "said to reportedly". 59.96.134.21 (talk) 17:41, 17 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the agreement: Yes, thanks. Please proceed to remove. The definition should be succinct, minus the unnecessary words. We can close this issue. Thanks. 222.165.9.81 (talk) 15:19, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Unsourced claims
If you are changing what you say are unsourced claims, then it is still an unsourced edit. All facts must be verified. You cannot change contentious information that too based on only what you think about the statement being only about how love jihad activity is based on emotional appeal. And if you have a source which calls it alleged, you should not change it as it amounts to WP:OR, and cherrpicking of what source said. But first of all, use a source.

Your proposed change is unsourced contentious change of "Arising in a background of national religious tension, the activity is based on the power of emotional appeal in religious conversion." Use a source first. 59.96.134.21 (talk) 17:55, 17 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I get your point, I am saying the whole thing is unsourced, and I suggested to either delete it or retain some of it after deleting some words. Your point is if the whole thing is unsourced then why delete some words and in your words it is akin to OR. In a way you are saying I am proposing to retain the unsourced OR after rephrasing. I had suggested to either delete it or rephrase it (with source). I still say the same, best is either delete it or source it, but I agree no point rephrasing unsourced text to retain it. My personal preference is to not delete this edit by someone else. I feel it adds value but is not well sourced and hence likely to be challenged again. To take it forward, my suggested agreement: If you have created that edit, i agree with you to retain the words "alleged" if it says so in the source. delete it if it can not be appropriately sourced. Please insert the sources in the lead also per wiki guidelines since this has been challenged, it may happen again by others in future, because the whole topic is emotive. Notice how today's newspaper took material from this article in their report, it put extra onus on all of us to make sure edits robust and accurate. Thanks. 222.165.9.81 (talk) 15:16, 18 August 2017 (UTC)


 * What I am saying is your proposed change is unsourced. Give a source. If the source says "alleged", then we cannot remove it. That will be morphing the original text to say what the source didn't. Any reasoning to delete it is OR and "not in source" statement. Sorry but unless, your rephrase is accurately sourced.

Calling statements "half-truth"
The statement of DGP Jacob Punnoose is not about what's right or wrong. It's about police observations and investigations. The DGP made his statement.Source 1 There is no avoiding it. In fact the real problem is as follows:

(i) Baselessly claiming self-contradiction Pleae tell me exactly which thing you are talking about. If you are referring to the article lead, there is no contradiction. Only what others say. If you are talking about Source 1, the first para is there being no organisation whose members are luring women to convert. The second is about cases whom some doubts had been expressed. No contradiction.

(ii) 'No news highlight, it is a quote: The paragraph itself says so it is statement of DGP: There is no organisation in Kerala whose members lure girls by feigning love with the intention of converting them into Islam, according to Director-General of Police Jacob Punnoose.

(iii) WP:SAID itself states about according: Said, stated, described, wrote, commented, and according to are almost always neutral and accurate. There is no connection with Weasel Words. The source is clearly saying who said it and what he said and I showed it the same. WP:OR allowed, please present proof before accusing source. Your claim of "bias in source" from WP:BIAS is actually about when to use biased sources. Please quote the rule accurately.

WP:VAGUE is about use of expressions of words on Wikipedia, ''There are no forbidden words or expressions on Wikipedia, but certain expressions should be used with caution, because they may introduce bias. Strive to eliminate expressions that are flattering, disparaging, vague, clichéd, or endorsing of a particular viewpoint.''

(iv) The article is not saying no evidence was found in all cases. I changed this long ago. The article is no longer about it, please do not make non-existent claims.

(v) Your source used for DGP being reprimanded by the Kerala High Court is from October 2009, many days before he made his statements on November 11. The reprimand of the report it is referring to iso of October 22 about there being reasons to suspect persuasions to convert by boys, but no organisation called "Love Jihad existed: "The DGP, in a statement on October 22, had told the Court that there were reasons to suspect attempts to persuade non-Muslim girls to convert to Islam after they fell in love with Muslim boys, but that no organisation called ‘Love Jihad’ had been identified so far in Kerala."

(vi) The source you used Source 2 never calls the DGP's statements incorrect. It is the judge's observation, while the case aginst two youths was still ongoing. A bench under Justice M. Sasidharan Nabmiar stayed the investigations against them and quashed the FIR though it criticised police investigations, see DNA The Kerala high court under Nambiar had dismissed love jihad case following Jacob's statements, see Gulf Today.

(vii) All of the statements I added follow all criteria of WP:LEAD. It is properly summarising important info, neutral, establishing context, no doubt.

Your proposed change is self-interpretation of an older source: One of source you are using Source 2 never calls the DGP's statements incorrect. It is the judge KT Sanakaran's observation, while the case aginst two youths was still ongoing. A bench under Justice M. Sasidharan Nabmiar stayed the investigations against them and quashed the FIR though it criticised police investigations, see DNA The Kerala high court under Nambiar had dismissed love jihad case following Jacob's statements, see Gulf Today. No OR allowed. 59.96.134.21 (talk) 19:13, 17 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Regarding our point-(i), We are in disagreement because we both have different understanding of where the article begins in the source-1 (inserted earlier by you or other editor). Once we agree on where the article begins, rest is easy to sort out. Your understanding is the article begins from the bold paragraph (that para is the first para and hence its a quote atttibuted to DGP, "There is no organisation in Kerala whose members lure girls by feigning love with the intention of converting them into Islam, according to Director-General of Police Jacob Punnoose."). I get your point, but my understanding is that the bold para is news article subheading (not the main body of the article, article begins after the bold para, the first para is "The DGP told the high court on Wednesday that only three of the 18 reports he received on the matter from superintendents of police from different parts of the state expressed some doubts about such a tendency." and the bold para is news subhead or news lead, it is reporters summary, rephrsased by the reporter as a suheading, hence can not be taken as quote of the DGP). Please review this point again, see what you think. Let us look at some additional sources on this for the better clarity. I am happy with the progress we are making on previous two points. The source you mentioned that "judge stayed the love jihad investigation", DNA to include the complete truth please include the other key point in your synthesis that "justice KT Shankaran noted that there were indications of forced religious conversion in the name of love. He even said there had been 3,000-4,000 cases of ‘love jihad’ in Kerala in the past four years. Shankaran had refused to accept DGP Jacob Punnoose’s report, which ruled out an organised conversion movement in Kerala." You please have a first attempt at phrasing it, I can review it, if is makes you feel more comfortable. Thanks. 222.165.9.81 (talk) 15:53, 18 August 2017 (UTC)


 * It is a statement. There is no disputing that. Do you have any proof that it isn't? Assuming this limg para as a title is your own thinking. Also please read what I actually said While talking about complete truth, don't forget you said "Court found DGP statements not valid" in point (vi) of Half-truth in the lead. The only source there in Economic Times.
 * DNA states the investigations were criticised. You seem somewhat right about it containing Justice Shankaran's statements (not a verdict though), even if you didn't use it in your earlier point-by-point statements and didn't mention the earlier statement A bench of the high court had earlier taken another view and recommended that the government enact a law to counter such “deceptive” acts. Regardless, I cannot include such a long statement, but yes I can include a shortened statement properly summarising it. I have an idea but you can suggest one. 117.225.31.174 (talk) 19:06, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Also there's a problem with one reliable source saying something else and another something else. Also while DNA says "3,000-4,000 cases of love jihad in four years", Economic Times says "Quoting statistics, the court said during the last four years, 3,000-4,000 religious conversions had taken place after love affairs." This isn't exactly the same thing. I don't want to be giving anyone precdence over the other, so it needs to be figured out how to be resolved. 117.225.31.174 (talk) 19:09, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Advice
Just an advise to you both. Please stop creating so many different paragraphs and making such long comments. They are becoming too long to read comfortably. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 21:11, 17 August 2017 (UTC)


 * okay boss, your wish is our command. We are making progress. Breaking things down into smaller issues, makes it solvable and we are making progress towards consensus. Initially it needed proper explanation. You are throwing an additional challenge to keep ti short. It is a nice challenge to have. Will try, See how far we succeed. You can keep the auto-protection on until we resolve all. Thanks for pitching in with patience. In case we have a deadlock, might ask you for a second opinion. For now, let us two do it directly. Since we both are likely to keep working on it, this will also force us to learn to work with each other by understanding each others style, We are already getting there. Once we are both finally satisfied with all the changes, is there any forum where we can list this article to request a third party experienced editor to "rewrite, clean up, review, punch holes (me and the other guy can try to fix, he is keenly engaged as I am), etc". Cheers! 222.165.9.81 (talk) 16:01, 18 August 2017 (UTC)


 * There is no need. You can do it yourselves as long as it is within the compromise reached. No one minds. And if there is contention over something, it is better to discuss first in future. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 13:26, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

31st August 2017 Court Developments
Further developments, in addition to Akila's conversion to islam for the love jehad, NIA is also investigating at least 4 other cases (total 5, including akila's case) after supreme court gave go ahead to investigate more love jehad cases. Two of these five have reverted to Hinduism and they submitted their affidavit to NIA and supreme court that they were brainwashed to convert to Islam with tricks, hatred, etc with the view to wage love jehad. NDTV news report and full version of their court affidavits here. Please include these recent developments in the article/edits. Thanks. 222.165.9.81 (talk) 17:45, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Another Love Jehad case has been filed by a Hindu girl from Rewari in Haryana, alleging that she was taken to Kashmir where she was forcibly converted, the case is under investigation. Jagran hindi newspaper and its google translation to english. 222.165.9.81 (talk) 13:17, 2 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Agree, as you can see, I had tried my best to engage in discussion first by creating the discussion points on the talk page but other guy initially refused to discuss here and kept stalking my talk page, i repeatedly had to warn him for stalking to force himt o dicuss here. he also attempted to bamboozle me out of wikipdia by bombarding me with warning and getting others such as yourself to warn me, I refrained from issuing any formal warnings first,. my approach has been "discuss first" (constructive approach), his approach has been "game the system" and "bombard the other party with warnings and get others to issue warnings to me" (a negative trick) while insisting on stalking my talk page but not discussing here with the wider set of editors. I had hard time to steer him here and to get him to drop negative tricks. 222.165.9.81 (talk) 13:24, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Removal of sentences from the introduction
you moved some sentences from the lead. Now, it doesn't seem to be NPOV, so please do something about it. I don't know how to do it unless those sentences you removed are restored. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:5788:a42f:454e:39e2:d83e:b833 (talk) 14:38, 4 December 2017‎ (UTC)
 * The lead is too long and likely should be rewritten (all parts which are not a summary of the article should be moved in the body). An ideal lead doesn't even need references as it just summarizes the article body (which already should be sourced).  Still, for NPOV, it seems that the consensus is that although cases exist it's not generalized and that love jihad would be a type of moral panic...  Your ping did not work because they don't work without a signature in the same edit (using four tildes), but fortunately I still had the page on my watchlist.  There probably are other interested editors who will also comment here.  Thanks, — Paleo  Neonate  – 15:07, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with all that you have mentioned, so can you shorten the lead by say, removing all the rebuttals? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:5394:5483:17F8:E65C:885B:E6B8 (talk) 19:26, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Various editors have over time made a mess of the lead, editing it more than they edit the body of text. It's too long and the order makes little sense. But it would be against policy to remove all of the rebuttals or at least any mention that there have been rebuttals as it would violate NPOV and anyone doing that would risk being blocked if they edit warred. I'm also not sure what you mean by rebuttals, rebuttals of the charges that such a jihad exists, or rebuttals of the rebuttals? Doug Weller  talk 19:36, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * rebuttals that are trying to deny that love jihad exists (at least they can be moved out of the lead) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:5394:5483:47BA:DD17:2F5E:1B2F (talk) 19:47, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I believe removing those sentences from the lead was the correct call. The lede needs work, but using it to spotlight an ongoing investigation does not make a rebuttal nor even evidence that the act occurred. It's undue balance. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:23, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * it looks like this article has dismissed Love Jihad as something imaginary - the lead especially seems to be one sided. Can you make it more NPOV? Thanks!-2405:204:578D:FF6B:92D:3D44:EC86:BB23 (talk) 11:25, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Modification to material posted July 2018
Hi. Since this change was reverted on the grounds of notability, I feel the need to point out that my modification did not remove material. As I noted in my edit summary, the main issue is that the material violates our copyright policy as it takes directly from the source. While we can quote from sources, we have to mark quotes appropriately and need good reason to quote when a proper summary of information in our own words is possible. SeeWP:Copypaste and WP:NFC for more information. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:40, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I support your change. Thanks, — Paleo  Neonate  – 23:49, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks from me also. Doug Weller  talk 14:37, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Recent edits adding breaking news not mentioning Love Jihad
There may be a BLP violation with the first link, see WP:BLPN where I've asked. We don't normally add breaking news or investigations unless they've received considerable publicity. Doug Weller talk 19:35, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I concur that the removal is appropriate. Furthermore, I don't see either source mentioning "Love Jihad" anywhere, though I'm constrained by a translation on the second. Vanamonde (talk) 05:11, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for noticing, — Paleo Neonate  – 10:50, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

White washed
It looks like this article has been white washed to seem like as if Love Jihad does not exist. However, it does exist. There are many news articles we can find online, with this being the latest. Can we have someone change this article to incorporate all or at least some incidents that are happening and that Love Jihad is really happening?-Karumari (talk) 15:47, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * OpIndia.com is not a reliable source. You will have to provide such a source supporting your statement if you want the material to be included, and you will have to show that the preponderance of reliable sources support your view if you want the narrative to be changed. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:56, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I found this edit, this edit and this edit have been removed. What was wrong with them? How are we going to show that it is true if these incidents are not allowed a mention here?-Karumari (talk) 16:01, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The first diff doesn't even mention Love Jihad or forced conversion; including it here is original research. The source in the second diff doesn't say, in its own voice, that "Love Jihad" had taken place. The third is the same as the first. You will have to do better, I'm afraid. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:07, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * A list of citable references can be seen here!-Karumari (talk) 16:49, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That is an aggregation of news stories. All it shows that there are news stories about the supposed phenomenon. You need to find a reliable source that explicitly says that Love Jihad took place, not that it allegedly took place, or that individuals were accused of it, or that investigations found no evidence of it. Until you do so, I see no purpose in continuing this conversation. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:12, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * it's discouraging to see how much advice (and some warnings) this editor has been given on their talk page yet they still don't seem to have learned enough from them. Doug Weller  talk 19:37, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed. They asked for and received some more on my talk page, where the conversation sounded very much like previous ones they have been involved with. I'm worried we may have a competence problem on our hands. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:57, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Incorrect link
Help me The triple talaq link in the last sentence of the lead (introduction) leads to the Divorce in Islam article. Please link it to the Triple talaq in India article and include the, "in India" within the link. This article is locked. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:8100:281c:def7::1 (talk • contribs) 04:16, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That paragraph was sourced to a blog, which is not reliable, and I have removed it. Thanks for pointing out the problem with the link in any case. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:25, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That was not a blog, it was a Bennett, Coleman and Co. (Times of India owners) news publication! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:8100:2819:908E:0:0:0:1 (talk)
 * previous ping by anon failed. — usernamekiran (talk)  09:48, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Read the url. Most news sources have a "blogs.etc" version where their journalists and editors (and others) can write stuff without editorial overview; this is one such. That it's the same publishing house doesn't matter. I guess I could have been a little more specific in my edit summary, but it isn't a reliable source, nonetheless. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:52, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * lol, no. I am not involved. It was the IP editor's comment above me. They messed the ping. special:diff/911203064. I added the sign, in this edit to avoid the confusion. See you around — usernamekiran (talk)   15:05, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * My apologies, misread that. How did you come across this mess, in that case? Vanamonde (Talk) 16:39, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The command base base sent me here You should see it :) — usernamekiran (talk)   18:39, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

'Love Jihad' not defined by law, no central agency reported any case
'Love Jihad' not defined by law, no central agency reported any case: government-- D Big X ray ᗙ  17:44, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * A list of citable references can be seen here.&mdash;Spasiba5 (talk) 16:55, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Request for Comments
This article needs to be re-written to show that Love Jihad is happening (right now it says the opposite). I don't think I can do it in a way that Wikipedians will find acceptable, so I request someone more experienced to do it! A list of citable references can be seen here.&mdash;Spasiba5 (talk) 00:28, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The RfC template is for soliciting outside opinion on a specific question, usually with specific possible outcomes. A general request for assistance isn't what it's meant for; I have therefore removed it. Also, a search result is not a useful list of references. Please provide actual reliable sources saying what you want the article to say. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:32, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

India and Radical Hinduism
Hi Doug_Weller & Foxhound03. The following edit I made is not WP:SYNTHESIS, it's from the book "Hindu Nationalism in India and the Politics of Fear" by Dibyesh Anand, Published by the academic publisher Palgrave (https://www.palgrave.com/gp/book/9780230603851), and it's specifically from Chapter 3, which you can access the online version of here : https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057%2F9780230339545_3, and it mentions love jihad 7 times, (i've screenshotted the pages, if you are unable to access them) here one Page 66 (https://i.imgur.com/p3UUyl8.png) and 67 (https://i.imgur.com/lmqRWvD.png)

And all the other sources are just the direct references from Anand's references section starting on page 175. Swagmaster11139248 (talk) 11:32, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello Swagmaster11139248, there is a clear and obvious problem with not only the un-encyclopedic tone you had used but by the baseless assertions you had made. I do not believe it was an edit in good faith. You included phrases such as "Chad Muslim alpha male", "there is a big conspiracy by these Muslim Chads" and "Radical hindu men also have detailed sexual fantasies about the Chad Muslim men.". There are also grammatical mistakes littered all over your addition. Your sources may support some of what you had added, but there is a major reworking of your languages needed.

Foxhound03 (talk) 12:22, 26 July 2020 (UTC)


 * That's correct, it's badly written. You can use those pages by Anand, but not his sources. Doug Weller  talk 12:33, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Fringe theories noticeboard discussion
A discussion about this article is taking place on the fringe theories noticeboard. If you are interested, please participate at. —  Newslinger  talk   23:16, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Lead
Do you think editors here were all sleeping throughout these years that they didn't know better than this edit you have made?

All your sources are passing mentions and mostly outdated news reports. But I will mainly talk about addressing your book sources. Your one book source talks a lot about Love Jihad, but does not introduce it as a "conspiracy theory". Other source makes a single mention of the word "conspiracy theory". This is not enough to label the subject as a 'conspiracy theory'. Most academics see no 'conspiracy theory', nor the quality news sources.

Even if you think this is a conspiracy theory, it is technically incorrect because most of the cases saw the reporter of Love Jihad incident to be the victim or victim's parents. How they can have any political motive behind it? They are reporting because what they claim to have experienced than doing anything to orchestrate conspiracy.

Since divorces have taken place in India after the complaint to the court about love jihad, that means there is authenticity in this concept and it cannot be rejected as 'conspiracy theory'. Central Bureau of Investigation and the judge Ajay Kumar Gudia, too agreed with the existence of "Love Jihad". Now whether the concept is being exaggerated or not is another thing, but it is not a conspiracy theory. Rustam Fan (talk) 00:21, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The academic sources do indeed describe Love Jihad as a conspiracy theory or fabricated claim. See the following quotes (emphasis added):


 * All of the following reliable news sources also describe Love Jihad as a conspiracy theory, and almost all of them offer significant coverage of the Love Jihad conspiracy theory and its consequences. See the following quotes (emphasis added):


 * Your examples of incidents, as a whole, consist of a batch of allegations with no confirmed cases of "Love Jihad". None of the divorce cases you have cited involved courts that commented on the existence of "Love Jihad" as a phenomenon. The books you have linked do not show that "Love Jihad" is not a conspiracy theory, and are not an adequate rebuttal for the numerous high-quality reliable sources I have provided above that show that "Love Jihad" is a conspiracy theory. By removing the conspiracy theory descriptor from the first sentence in Special:Diff/979473860, you have violated the (WP:PROFRINGE) guideline.


 * MOS:FIRST states "The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what, or who, the subject is." "Love Jihad" is a conspiracy theory, so the first sentence should label "Love Jihad" with the conspiracy theory descriptor. —  Newslinger  talk   03:57, 21 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree with . Including "conspiracy theory" in the first sentence is in accord with Wikipedia style guidelines and good common sense. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:20, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree too; furthermore, the rest of the lead needs to be heavily pruned to give an overview of the subject, not a blow-by-blow account of specific cases. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:59, 21 September 2020 (UTC)


 * You appear to be looking for the sources that somehow fits your narrative. Profoundly unreliable sources like The Wire, Scroll and other unreliable sources don't even come close to consideration.
 * WP:NPOV is important. The lead should not be non-neutral, nor it should be providing weight to slant point of views. Like I said, most reliable sources don't call it a conspiracy theory and if you are going to quote farm the sources then you can see these much better reliable sources:-


 * Now unless your sources are capable to address the incidents where convicted cases of 'love jihad' are addressed or they do tell how all of the reported victims, not just in India but also in Myanmar, United Kingdom, etc. are also a part of this 'conspiracy', it would totally make no sense. The lead is fine without that problematic term. Rustam Fan (talk) 00:42, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing any "convicted cases" that show that "Love Jihad" is a real phenomenon. Farokhi (first academic source from my initial comment above) makes it very clear that "Love Jihad" is a "conspiracy theory" and a "campaign started by right-wing Hindu nationalists in 2009". Farokhi's analysis was published by Routledge earlier this month, and her analysis is more reliable, more comprehensive, and more recent than anything you've presented. Your two excerpts show that "Love Jihad" is part of "anti-Muslim discourses", and that people have made allegations of "Love Jihad". That is not mutually exclusive with "Love Jihad" being a conspiracy theory; conspiracy theories are a subset of claimed conspiracies. The Kerala case ended in 2012, when Kerala police concluded after a two-year investigation that "Love Jihad" was "A campaign with no substance", and then charged a website which propagated the "Love Jihad" conspiracy theory for "spreading religious hatred and false propaganda". The neutral point of view policy includes WP:FALSEBALANCE, which states that "Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity." Although some people have made unconfirmed allegations of "Love Jihad" (an extraordinary claim), the mainstream scholarship and most recent reliable sources overwhelmingly consider "Love Jihad" to be a conspiracy theory or fabricated claim created by "right-wing Hindu nationalists".  To show that "Love Jihad" is not a conspiracy theory, you would need to find a majority of high-quality academic sources which state that "Love Jihad" is not a conspiracy theory, and not merely that it is a "claimed conspiracy" or that people have made allegations of "Love Jihad". At the present time, the mainstream scholarship supports describing "Love Jihad" as a "conspiracy theory" in the lead section. —  Newslinger   talk   01:37, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Additionally, both The Wire and Scroll.in are reliable sources on the basis of their accolades, which include multiple Ramnath Goenka Excellence in Journalism Awards. The nine reliable news sources I have listed above include a variety of reputable publications from a number of countries. Regardless, the scholarship by itself is sufficient to establish that "Love Jihad" is a conspiracy theory. —  Newslinger  talk   03:52, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The Wire and Scroll are not reliable sources per WP:RSN. The Wire cannot be used without attribution but we have better sources to talk about this subject than The Wire.
 * You are apparently cherrypicking sources instead of accepting the mainstream view.


 * Do you think you can find a better critical source than Thomas Blom Hansen, Christophe Jaffrelot for this subject?
 * And here is a 20 page journal by Univeristy of Chicago Press Journal which does not say it is a conspiracy theory or anything similar.


 * You have said that it is a "A campaign with no substance", how that is any different than "alleged" act? No one is saying here to call it a proven act. Rustam Fan (talk) 04:18, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Conspiracy theories are a subset of alleged conspiracies. A source stating that "Love Jihad" is an alleged conspiracy or "alleged camapign" does not refute the fact that "Love Jihad" is a conspiracy theory. The phrase "A campaign with no substance" refers to the campaign to popularize the "Love Jihad" conspiracy theory. The article states, "A renewed campaign about love jihad was noticed recently following which Intelligence wing chief A. Hemachandran ordered a probe. Police said they found fake posters on the website [www.hindujagruti.org, which was charged by the Kerala police] purportedly published by a Muslim outfit offering Rs350,000 to Rs800,000 to Muslim youths for trapping girls and converting them into Islam. The cyber police have traced the brain behind the website to north India and zeroed in on its chief promoter." I have listed nine reliable news sources above, your criticism of two of them does not refute the other seven. —  Newslinger  talk   04:36, 22 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment, I would agree that we should avoid calling this a 'conspiracy theory' since the subject has been taken seriously by enough academics as described above by Rustam Fan. Here is another recent source, which shows the existence of this phenomenon has been confirmed by an official. The article appears to have always said that it is "alleged" to be happening, it is not confirming the existence, but I am fine with that. Zakaria1978 ښه راغلاست (talk) 01:43, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The source you have provided only shows claims a request from Yogi Adityanath, a politician affiliated with the right-wing, Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Being a politician does not make one an expert in sociology, and politicians are not substitutes for or adequate rebuttals against actual scholarship. The majority of academics note that people (like Yogi Adityanath) have alleged that "Love Jihad" is a conspiracy, but these academics also describe "Love Jihad" as a conspiracy theory created by "right-wing Hindu nationalists". —  Newslinger  talk   01:49, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It notes statements by an official, not Yogi Adityanath who only allowed setting up an inquiry after receiving enough reports. You are misunderstanding the source entirely. Majority of academics treat it as a plausible act or an alleged activity. "Conspiracy theory" is a very different thing. Azuredivay (talk) 02:58, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The source states, "Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath has asked officials to formulate a strategy and 'bring an ordinance if required to prevent religious conversions in the name of love', an official said on Friday." The officials were acting under the direction of politician Adityanath. Further, this is a news report, and news reports rank below scholarship in terms of reliability. For the scholarship, see the excerpts from Farokhi, George, and Nair/Vollhardt above, as well as this excerpt from Economic and Political Weekly below (emphasis added):


 * How a source from 2009 is capable to address later investigations and court decisions confirming existence of love jihad?
 * So you admit that you misrepresented the source by mislabeling claim of an official as one by Yogi Adityanath? You are claiming now that "The officials were acting under the direction of politician Adityanath", to escape from the allegation of misrepresentation but remember that editors are not here to hear your own conspiracy theories.
 * You claim to have formed 'consensus' by posting logically flawed argument on talk page? Rustam Fan (talk) 04:22, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I have provided four academic sources so far, Farokhi (September 2020), George (2016), Nair/Vollhardt (2019), and Gupta (2009), which explain that "Love Jihad" is a conspiracy theory or fabricated claim. These publications agree that "Love Jihad" is an alleged conspiracy, and they also state that "Love Jihad" is a conspiracy theory. Conspiracy theories are subsets of alleged conspiracies; they are not mutually exclusive. I've changed "claims" to "a request" above for precision. —  Newslinger  talk   04:43, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Can we agree to change the lead to something different? We can cover both point of views. Maybe by writing: "Love Jihad or Romeo Jihad is a scheme or a conspiracy theory, according to which Muslim men target women belonging to non-Muslim communities for conversion to Islam by feigning love."
 * What do you think? Rustam Fan (talk) 04:51, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * No. It's not "a scheme or a conspiracy theory". It's a conspiracy theory. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:28, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * But that fails to address a huge number of reliable sources which does not agree that it is a conspiracy theory. Rustam Fan (talk) 05:33, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * This has been explained to you several times. To show that "Love Jihad" is not a conspiracy theory after you have n=been shown high-quality academic sources which say it is, you would need to find high-quality academic sources which state that "Love Jihad" is not a conspiracy theory. I wrote an essay that may help you to deal with this situation. It is at WP:1AM. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:48, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * That's nonsense. From the beginning I talked about the recent cases and I was provided with the sources with most of them coming before 2014. Your essay which is otherwise nicely written does not apply on me because enough editors have agreed that description as "conspiracy theory" is inappropriate. Rustam Fan (talk) 05:52, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Let me use "Person X" as an analogy. Let's assume that there exist high-quality sources describing Person X as an actress, and there also exist sources describing Person X as a woman. The sources that describe Person X as a woman do not refute the sources that describe Person X as an actress, because actresses are a subset of women. Likewise, there exist high-quality sources describing "Love Jihad" as a conspiracy theory, and there also exist sources describing "Love Jihad" as an alleged conspiracy. The sources that describe "Love Jihad" as an alleged conspiracy do not refute the sources that describe "Love Jihad" as a conspiracy theory, because conspiracy theories are a subset of alleged conspiracies. It does not make sense to use "scheme or conspiracy theory", just as it would not make sense to use "woman or actress". —  Newslinger  talk   06:17, 22 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I am not seeing if the any of these sources referred the subject as a conspiracy theory after analysing the Tara Sahadev case. Unless we are going to label everybody involved in this subject as a conspiracy theorist which amounts to WP:RGW, I think the term "conspiracy theory" for first sentence is clearly WP:UNDUE since the theory isn't widely termed as a conspiracy theory. I do agree that modification is needed for maintaining WP:NPOV. It is fine as allegation for now. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 05:51, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The linked article is dated July 2019. Farokhi (September 2020) describes "Love Jihad" as a "conspiracy theory" and a "campaign started by right-wing Hindu nationalists". Nair and Vollhardt (October 2019) also describe "Love Jihad" as "conspiracy theory". The 13 sources so far that I have posted excerpts from certainly constitute due weight, as they include some of the most reliable and most recent scholarship. Peer-reviewed scholarship takes priority over news reports for reliability, and the news reports also do not refute the academic sources because they do not state that "Love Jihad" is not a conspiracy theory. —  Newslinger  talk   06:37, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

--Guy Macon (talk) 05:59, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Badgering combined with copy-pasta won't address the concerns that have been raised above. It has been already read and responded. You are just bludgeoning at this moment by being repetitive.
 * The subject has been vastly covered. 9 sources (or even 19 sources) are not enough to label a subject as a 'conspiracy theory' especially when it has been defined differently by vast majority of reliable sources. Rustam Fan (talk) 06:10, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The majority of the news sources in the article only state that "Love Jihad" is an alleged conspiracy. The highest-quality academic sources, however, firmly state that "Love Jihad" is not a real phenomenon, but is instead a conspiracy theory (which is a type of alleged conspiracy) or falsehood. Compare to the QAnon conspiracy theory: there are many news articles describing the actions of the numerous people who believe that QAnon is real, but these news reports do not negate sources describing QAnon as a conspiracy theory, because most reliable sources do not directly state that QAnon is real. —  Newslinger  talk   06:25, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * That's a good analogy. The case for calling "Love Jihad" a conspiracy theory is overwhelmingly well-supported; calling it anything else would do a disservice to our readers. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 19:04, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Academic sources
The following academic sources were mentioned in Articles for deletion/Love Jihad (3rd nomination): These sources are able to give a high-level overview of the "Love Jihad" conspiracy theory that appropriately balances the day-to-day reporting that fills most of the "History" section. Reliable news sources that publish retrospective analyses of the topic are more reliable than the daily news reports, but less reliable than the academic sources. —  Newslinger  talk   04:31, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Removal of instances in Pakistan
Kindly provide justification for removing edits and the good faith reversal of my edits. The sources are neutral about the issue and reports from those same news agencies have been cited elsewhere in the article. This article suffers from neutrality issues. It heavily presents news and academic sources that lend support to one narrative and the admins seem to remove content that supports the opposite view. Liberalvedantin (talk) 19:11, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You've provided a bunch of sources about forced conversion, which is a very different issue. If you want to include content about Love Jihad in Pakistan, please provide sources discussing Love Jihad in Pakistan. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:16, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Earlier you said that the sources were unreliable. You have changed your reasoning now, I assume because sources from the same news agencies have been cited elsewhere in the article.

Your point brings up the precise issue that I brought up under the conspiracy page for this article. Separating love jihad from forced conversion does not make any sense. Forced conversion into marriage is the whole basis behind the accusation of Love Jihad! I believe you are mixing definitions. This is precisely why I think any discussion about love jihad also requires a discussion on forced conversion. The two are inseparable. Liberalvedantin (talk) 19:29, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

If the contention is that Love Jihad is not about forced conversion but rather 'feigning love', then the sources I included discuss how the line between the married woman's will and the influence of the man is a disputed one. Liberalvedantin (talk) 19:53, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Regardless, conversion against the woman's will before, or after marriage relates closely to love jihad. This article and the talk pages around it seem to miss that point. Liberalvedantin (talk) 19:58, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Feel free to discuss here. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:01, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

It seems like content that doesn't fit with the article's current bias is being relegated to the talk page. We can keep discussing for a month of Sundays, but there is a serious depth that is missing from the article particularly with regard to what exactly constitutes love jihad, and to what extent conversion against one's will plays a role in it. So what exactly is required for the deleted content and sources to get back into the article. I don't think there can be any discussion of the issue without talking about the elephant in the room, which is conversion due to marriage. Liberalvedantin (talk) 20:11, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If you want to change the scope of the page, please initiate a move request or RfC. Currently, all of your assertions (which you have not provided sources for) are completely off topic. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:51, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Why would there need to be a change in scope? There are 10 mentions of forced or forceful conversion within this article itself! Look through them please. These are related topics. What need is there to back up my point with sources? Even academic sources listed on this page mention forceful conversion together with Love Jihad. If you are so concerned about the distinction between the two then please remove all sources and content in this article that relate to forceful conversion. I think that is fair. Liberalvedantin (talk) 22:22, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That there is already unrelated material in the article isn't reason to add more. Moreover, based on a brief glance, all the instances seem to be those where love jihad and forced conversions were both mentioned; your sources don't do that. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:39, 6 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Responding to the earlier statement by Vanamonde that a move request or RfC is required...
 * Item 1: I dispute that including this content requires a move request or RfC. ... as well as the implication that every statement made on a talk page is to be ignored if it doesn't include a supporting citation.
 * Item 2: I have posted a 3rr warning to Emir of Wikipedia, who has chosen to delete that from his talk page, demanding that I post it here. So consider the 3rr warning to Emir of Wikipedia as being posted here.
 * Item 3: I noticed that in some cases (e.g. Huma Younus), the bulk of reports are in religiously-affiliated publications or publications that might otherwise be expected to have a particular agenda. Here's a report from a publication that would not fall into that category:
 * http://www.indiandefencereview.com/spotlights/pm-imran-khan-charity-begin-at-home/
 * Fabrickator (talk) 22:47, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Every talk page statement does not require a citation, but any content that anyone wishes to add to an article needs to be supported by sources, and needs to have its relevance established by sources. Love Jihad is not mentioned anywhere in the source you cite. This page is about Love Jihad, or the supposed practice wherein Muslim men feign love as a means of achieving religious conversion. If you want to add material that doesn't fit this definition, you need to initiate a discussion to change the scope of the page. I'm getting a little tired of repeating this, so I'm going to disengage now. Please remember that even if your content was relevant (it isn't) and adequately supported by sources (it isn't) you would still need to obtain consensus to add it (which you don't currently have). Vanamonde (Talk) 22:58, 6 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Replying to Vanamonde
 * Your warning is noted. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:31, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

1. "that there is unrelated material...isn't reason to add more", which is why I stated that unrelated material (as per your interpretation) should be deleted. 2. "based on a brief glance, all the instances seem to be those where love jihad and forced conversions were both mentioned" that is because love jihad comes under a specific type of forced conversion. Since there is apparently a requirement to provide citations for every stance, I direct you here to two sources, one academic and one press, that both state in clear terms that love jihad is "a moral panic against...forced conversion" and "alleged efforts by Muslim men to convert unsuspecting women to Islam by force or guile". With that, I request that the deletions of my content be overturned. Liberalvedantin (talk) 23:19, 6 October 2020 (UTC)Liberalvedantin

Other academic sources that define love jihad with forced conversion. Liberalvedantin (talk) 23:42, 6 October 2020 (UTC)Liberalvedantin
 * Your inability to understand my point is seriously concerning. The supposed love jihad is a form of forced conversion. That does not mean every instance of forced conversion is relevant to love jihad. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:18, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I never said every instance of forced conversion is related to love jihad. You are falsely attributing statements, and I think what is even more concerning is that you keep changing your mind about what is required for inclusion into the article. You said first that the sources are unreliable, which is false. You then said that love jihad is not related to forced conversion and wanted reliable sources for, which I provided. And now you have shifted the goal post again.

This is a worrisome instance of heavy-handed behavior and seriously puts into question your neutrality on this subject and your qualification to be an administrator. Liberalvedantin (talk) 03:57, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

If a separate section on academic viewpoints of love jihad as a form of forced conversion is required in the article, I would be happy to initiate that. There are scholars, as I have pointed, that attribute perceptions of love jihad to forcible conversion. This in no way validates or refutes the existence of love jihad, especially in the Indian context. Please advise. Liberalvedantin (talk) 04:12, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * This article is about "Love Jihad", a conspiracy theory "alleging that Muslim men feign love to lure non-Muslim women to marry them in order to convert them to Islam" (Farokhi, quoting Rao). The "Love Jihad" conspiracy theory focuses on the intent of the interreligious relationship, and does not necessarily involve forced conversions. Forced conversions that do not result from voluntary interreligious relationships are not part of "Love Jihad". None of the sources cited in Special:Diff/982186792 mention "Love Jihad" at all, and labeling the incidents described in those articles as "Love Jihad" would be a form of improper synthesis. If you want to write about forced conversions in general, there is an article on that subject at: Forced conversion. —  Newslinger  talk   15:12, 7 October 2020 (UTC)


 * By referring to "Love Jihad" as a conspiracy theory, it seems that you are dismissing it as false, or at least, highly improbable. OTOH, I would consider "love jihad" as anything that encourages Muslim males (especially at a younger age) to have a "legitimate" child with a non-Muslim woman, such that the child will be raised in Islam.  Whether the encouragement comes in the form of cash, or it's mere verbal encouragement by peers or parents, or a local Imam explaining how they will be advancing the cause of Islam and that they shall be rewarded in Heaven, doesn't matter to me.  Anything less is an arbitrarily narrowed definition of the term. Fabrickator (talk) 17:43, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * As I have stated at another article, we do not engage in WP:OR as to whether something is a conspiracy theory but rather follow the WP:RSs. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:53, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Precisely. High-quality academic sources overwhelmingly agree that "Love Jihad" is a conspiracy theory or fabrication, so the Wikipedia article on "Love Jihad" should as well. It is not the role of Wikipedia editors to prove whether "Love Jihad" is real or not, since original research is prohibited on Wikipedia. If this is something an editor would like to do, that editor would be better served by publishing to an alternative outlet. —  Newslinger  talk   10:42, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I think Fabrickator is not denying Love Jihad per se, but rather thinks that it should not be called a conspiracy theory as they believe this is "journalistic license". Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:28, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Replying to Newslinger - For the one reference you cite restricting Love Jihad to 'feigning love', I have cited 4 references that include forced conversion in the definition. And here are two news articles that uses the terms in the same vein . The problem is how can you be sure that the love is voluntary and not forced? As [this] article points out "Like in most conversions cases, the family produced a school certificate to verify age, but a ‘free-will affidavit’ from the kidnapper-husband set the minor’s age at 18. Thus, showing that the girl is an adult and can make her own decisions." and "Questions arise on why only minor Hindu and Christian girls ‘fall in love to get converted’ for men thrice their age? Why don’t Sindhi Hindu boys fall in such love?" Note that this article does not mention the term love jihad, but the case fits under the definition if voluntary love is the only basis for the definition. Either way, based on the definition of Love Jihad, instances of forced conversion or forced "free-will affidavits" would also come under love jihad, regardless of whether that terminology is used or not. And BTW, this point also puts into serious question whether love jihad is truly a conspiracy theory. At the very least, a distilled version of the discussion in this talk page needs mention in the article under the heading of "definitions of love jihad" if indeed a clarification is needed. I don't see how this can be swept under the rug. But frankly, I am growing quite tired of this abuse of privilege and clandestine veiling of information. Seems like Wikipedia admins consider themselves judge, jury, and executioner on the definition of Love Jihad. Carry on.

@Fabrickator, I do see that a very narrow definition is used for love jihad, that is contrary to what many experts use, and then Wikipedia decides it is a conspiracy theory and pats itself on the back. Unbelievable. There are [several] love jihad cases in court now and more reported almost on a weekly basis, based on the narrow definition used by Wiki admins, so we will know in the coming months if this is really a "conspiracy" or not Liberalvedantin (talk) 17:55, 7 October 2020 (UTC)Liberalvedantin


 * Discussion on talk pages is how controversial points about subject matter are decided. There are 122 pages of talk page archives for Donald Trump and some articles have even more. This is how we reconcile opposing points of view and if you feel that a major change of direction for this article is called-for, you need to start an RfC that will typically be a discussion that runs for at least a month. And there are cases where a second RfC on the same topic will be run a few years later and have a different outcome. Democracy and decision by consensus is a slow process and you usually win over opinion by your knowledge of Wikipedia policies and having abundant reliable sources to support your point of view. Liz Read! Talk! 05:09, 8 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Liberalvedantin, your quote from the Tyagi/Sen article, "a moral panic against...forced conversion", is misleading because it omits the words "alleged" and "seduction" from the article's description. The full sentence is (emphasis added): "This article explores one such strain of Hindu nationalist discursive politics called ‘Love Jihad’, a moral panic against the alleged seduction, marriage, forced conversion and trafficking of young Hindu girls by Muslim men." Seduction is a form of enticement, which is only successful if the target person cooperates. Claiming that a news report describes "Love Jihad" when the words "Love Jihad" (or "Romeo Jihad") do not even appear in the report is a form of improper synthesis and constitutes original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. A Wikipedia article that violates this rule repeatedly is known as a coatrack article. Additionally, the Tyagi/Sen article very clearly describes "Love Jihad" as a Hindu nationalist trope that has been used to restrict women's rights. Here are some quotes (emphasis added):
 * From the abstract: "The phenomenal rise of Hindu nationalism in India has fostered a number of anti-Muslim campaigns, ranging from random enforcement of vegetarianism on beef-eating communities, to highly organised communal riots. This article explores one such strain of Hindu nationalist discursive politics called ‘Love Jihad’, a moral panic against the alleged seduction, marriage, forced conversion and trafficking of young Hindu girls by Muslim men."
 * On the Hadiya case, which highlights some of the issues with the lower courts that were later addressed with the Supreme Court decision:
 * "Hadiya’s father, the NIA, and even the judicial bodies in India, questioned her choice of religion and marriage, stressing that she was mentally unhinged and couldn’t rationally accept her indoctrination into Islam."
 * "Even though journalistic accounts were sympathetic to Hadiya, her father questioned her mental health, the intrusive details about her introduction to Islam was usurped by Hindu nationalist propagandists, the NIA claimed her ‘case’ was part of a terrorist network, and the judiciary blatantly infantilised her."
 * "By conflating the personal matter of religious conversion and marriage with ‘Love Jihad’ and terrorism, politico-legal opinions surrounding the Hadiya case was used to stifle the basic constitutional rights of a young Indian woman. After a 15-month battle, the Supreme Court of India passed a judgement in favour of Hadiya, overturning the lower court’s annulment of the marriage."
 * On "Love Jihad" as a trope used to disempower women: "We suggest that nationalist leaders and cadres regenerated these tropes efficiently in multiple urban contexts in order to create a passive feminine subject who was at the center of competing discourses of ‘Love Jihad’. This subject’s access to both the urban and the nation was hinged on her positioning on the ‘correct’ side of the debate. The debate was also successful in creating an illusion of feminine choice that prodded women towards loyalty towards the community, and was designed to restrict her mobility in the city."
 * On the role of "Love Jihad" in Hindutva ideology: "In fact, discourses like ‘Love Jihad’ are some of the ways in which a desired Hindutva imagination of history can be invoked- the history of a ‘constant struggle between the Hindu community, construed as ancient and indigenous, and the Muslim community, representing the alien ‘other’ (Flåten 2012, 627)."
 * The Tyagi/Sen article shows that the "Love Jihad" conspiracy theory is a Bogeyman used by Hindu nationalist organizations for "Othering" Muslims and for promoting the limited role of a "good Hindu girl", whose conduct should "invisibilise her in public". The article provides no support for the claim that "Love Jihad" is plausible. —  Newslinger  talk   10:42, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * When I used the Tyagi/Sen reference, which you have cherry picked among all others, it was to show that forcible conversion is *also* within the purview of Love Jihad. "The Tyagi/Sen article shows that..." - this is irrelevant to whether forcible conversion has been considered a criterion of Love Jihad. I am not trying to advance the idea that Love Jihad exists, but rather to show that definitions of what it constitutes are itself varied. Liberalvedantin (talk) 03:49, 9 October 2020 (UTC)Liberalvedantin
 * This also raises the problem of when you say that in seduction "is only successful if the target person cooperates" - I have clearly mentioned that there are instances when the target person is under duress to cooperate. See the instances of free-will affidavits for example. That there is cooperation is disputed. I don't know how many times this point needs to be spelled out. Now if your interpretation of Wikipedia policy is that this constitutes improper synthesis, I disagree with given that the news sources I have mentioned (which you clearly have not looked up) have defined Love Jihad with forced conversion. As I have said before, I have no wish to further this debate since the arguments fall on deaf ears and neither myself nor you will be convinced of the other. Since you have administrative powers and have majority, my views on the relationship between love jihad-forced conversion (which reflect those of concerned individuals in real-life, such as the government in Uttar Pradesh, and not on wikipedia page policies) unfortunately have little say. Liberalvedantin (talk) 04:04, 9 October 2020 (UTC)Liberalvedantin
 * Also instances of love jihad, especially outside of India, are not termed that because the term itself is an Indian one. Consider for example the Sikh women-luring and exploitation cases in the UK - no where was the term love jihad used in the British [reporting] of this incident, which ended with conviction of one person, but as the Pioneer article points out, this was essentially love jihad. This is why your improper synthesis argument falls flat - just because it is not called that does not mean it didn't happen. Liberalvedantin (talk) 06:12, 9 October 2020 (UTC)Liberalvedantin
 * Your example does not meet Wikipedia's reliability standards. The British article was published in The Sun, a red top tabloid that was deprecated in for its unreliability. The article from The Pioneer is an opinion column (see the "Home > Columnists > Opinion" breadcrumbs at the top) authored by former BJP politician Balbir Punj, rather than a piece of news reporting. Per the Bharatiya Janata Party article, the BJP "expresses a commitment to Hindutva, and its policy has historically reflected Hindu nationalist positions". As I mentioned in the previous discussion, being a politician (of any party) does not make one an expert in sociology, and politicians are neither substitutes for nor adequate rebuttals against actual scholarship. You've made the point that proponents of the "Love Jihad" conspiracy theory sometimes allege that forced conversions take place. Based on the available sources, I agree. However, I disagree that the existence of a forced conversion necessarily implies that "Love Jihad" occurred, for two reasons:
 * A forced conversion can take place even if the man in the relationship did not feign love with the intention of converting the woman.
 * Isolated incidents of forced conversions are insufficient to show that there is an organized movement to seduce and subsequently convert women.
 * Forced conversions are a very real phenomenon, and Wikipedia does cover this subject in the Forced conversion article. But, the subject of this article is "Love Jihad" and not forced conversions in general. Stating that a forced conversion is "Love Jihad" without a cited reliable source doing the same would be a case of improper synthesis, because it would "combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". Finally, I am participating in this discussion in my capacity as an editor, not as an administrator. In discussions regarding article content, all editors (including administrators) are considered equals for the purpose of assessing consensus. —  Newslinger  talk   11:37, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but this has also been reported [here] [/here] and [and here] and quotes a Labour Party MP involved in the cases. I am not implying that the BJP or any other politician is an expert, but aren’t refutations to the claim made based in part on statements made by politicians or groups affiliated with a political party? Then shouldn’t their full perception of the phenomenon, which includes forcible conversions among other things, be considered to provide a comprehensive refutation? Also, I did not imply that all forced conversions constitute love jihad. You are the second person to misattribute that to me, so I don’t understand whether this is an issue with my articulation, your comprehension, or both. But I am glad you at least acknowledge that proponents of love jihad do make the accusation of forced conversion. I am not against true love based conversion based on consent. Finally, this is a relatively new phenomenon that is perhaps associated with the rise of radicalism, (ISIS, for example has spread through Asia as per a Foreign Policy report )(PFI in India was caught on tape in a ‘sting operation’ admitting to converting women into the fold through marriage) and many cases are still under investigation. A clearer picture in the future will emerge to ascertain whether or not this is real, and if so, whether it is organized. I suspect people will become more aware of the phenomenon and able to relate love jihad to forced conversion in the real world, which will make the connection more apparent, regardless of Wikipedia policy is! Liberalvedantin (talk) 16:15, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:DAILYMAIL. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:55, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. However other sources also report this. Liberalvedantin (talk) 17:49, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No, criticism from politicians, even multiple politicians, does not hold up against scholarship. There's a big difference between directly citing a politician's opinion and citing an academic publication that has analyzed multiple data sources (including the opinions of politicians). Journalists and academics can make use of less reliable sources by treating them as primary sources that inform the secondary sources they publish. However, Wikipedia's prohibition on original research prevents editors from using less reliable sources in the same way. For example, a journalist can interview people on the street, quote from a non-expert's self-published website, and assemble evidence from multiple sources to form a conclusion not directly supported by each of those sources on its own. A Wikipedia editor cannot do any of these things, but can only paraphrase what has already been written in reliable sources.
 * Also, none of the articles in this comment – The Tribune, Daily Mail (also deprecated, as Emir of Wikipedia mentioned), and Hindustan Times – mention "Love Jihad". The relevant Wikipedia articles for the UK report are: Child grooming and Sex trafficking. —  Newslinger  talk   04:33, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 November 2020
1) Remove the word 'Islamophobic' and 'conspiracy theory' from the article since the problem of love jihad is very real and numerous girls all throughout India have been a victim to it. Adding the aforementioned words to an article about the criminal activity is inhumane and dismisses the reason behind their tragic murders. Thakur1307 (talk) 14:05, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ❌ Stating that Love Jihad is real needs citations from reliable published sources that can counter the multiple reliable sources that call it a conspiracy theory. This has been discussed at length on this talk page and its archives. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Love jihad is true and not a conspiracy
Love jihad is true cause Islam believe in religious conversion. They approach girls of other religion changing their names and identity. Girls follow the person and love that person but it is fraud which they realise after marriage then they force girl to convert to Islam and girls sccumb to pressure cause they don't have any other option as they rely on the husband who is a fraud. If the situation don't go as planned they murder them. Saurabh reddewar (talk) 07:18, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * These claims are contradicted by reliable academic sources. Do you have high-quality academic sources that support these claims? —  Newslinger  talk   07:49, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2020
There are unfounded claims cited from sources not trustworthy (non-research sites). I would like to edit a few such parts. Theneutralwriter (talk) 11:40, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * - you'll need to give specific claims/sources that are flawed, why they are, and a suggestion on what to change them to.
 * I'm also not quite sure what specifically is meant by a "non-research site" here, so you'd want to expand on that when you submit a more-detailed request. Cheers, Nosebagbear (talk) 13:10, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 November 2020 (2)
information contains in this article about the conspiracy against Muslims is false, Muslim men forcefully converts the non-muslim women into Islam by bewitching them. This term called "love jihad is confirmed by various courts of India as well as some state governments in India (i.e Uttarpradesh, Madhyapradesh, Uttarakhand) passed the law against the term called "Love jihad" since they have reported many cases of Muslim men converting Non-muslim women by seducing them. Jayp2125 (talk) 19:53, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

SOURCE:
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template.   -ink&amp;fables     «talk»   03:45, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Justification for ‘islamophobic’ citation
The first citation talks about Buddhist violence against Muslims and it is not clear whether that citation can be applied to cases surrounding real or perceived islamophobia involved with love jihad. Liberalvedantin (talk) 16:03, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The first citation adequately verifies the word "Islamophobic" as a descriptor of the "Love Jihad" conspiracy theory. See the excerpt below (emphasis added):


 * —  Newslinger  talk   14:29, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * While there might be certain individuals that make allegations about love jihad who are islamophobic, saying that the entire topic is islamophobia, as you have now classified it, is abrasive, and quite frankly, insulting to victims of sexual exploitation and conversions based on feigned love/and or luring. See the Sun article I note in the sections below. Liberalvedantin (talk) 06:52, 9 October 2020 (UTC)Liberalvedantin


 * Quoting from above:
 * another aspect of global Islamophobic discourses, namely that there is a plot to spread Islam around the world through population growth, or so-called Demographic Jihad ...
 * Pew Research states:
 * Muslims will grow more than twice as fast as the overall world population
 * So the "demographic jihad" is not actually a "plot", it can reasonably be attributed directly to an expectation that Muslims will tend to abide by Islamic doctrine, which calls for a high rate of reproductivity and for immersing the offspring in an Islamic environment. Is it still a phobia if the fear has a reasonable basis? Fabrickator (talk) 07:15, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That "expectation" is original research, which incorporates improper synthesis of multiple sources. Frydenlund's text states that the alleged "plot" is an "aspect of global Islamophobic discourses", which includes "Love Jihad" as one of its three subfields. —  Newslinger  talk   11:06, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It's rather premature to object that this is original research or improper synthesis ... this is just a talk page. I will suggest that  my statement is a "general impression" that a fair-minded person may find plausible, based on information that would not be too difficult to identify.  For instance, Pew Research confirms that the expected increase in Muslims as a percentage of the populations of certain geographic areas is attributable to a high rate of fertility.  Somehow we might be able to connect that to certain practices by which Muslim men are encouraged to marry early (whether to a Muslim or non-Muslim, given that Islamic doctrine mandates that the offspring are raised in Islam either way).  No, I'm not providing sources.  Just because I haven't bothered to identify a suitable source that makes this connection doesn't mean that such a source doesn't exist. Fabrickator (talk) 04:01, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * "Somehow we might be able to connect..." – this is the part of your argument that makes the suggested changes original research. According to WP:BURDEN, "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." Improper synthesis is not "direct support". It's fine to discuss your theory on a talk page, but it's not okay to include it into an article without adequate sourcing. —  Newslinger  talk   04:12, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

I do not see the discussion on "removal of instances on Pakistan" in the talk page. Why was this removed? You can't censor everything you find contentious. I still find this whole "improper synthesis" and "Islamophobia" argument pretty vacuous. There is evidence that gender based targeting by feigning love is a form of radical Islamic terror with the government of Sweden recognizing it as such.

http://www.swemfa.se/2017/11/30/sexual-and-gender-based-violence-is-used-as-a-tactic-of-terrorism/

Again, just because it is not called love jihad doesn't mean that it is not real.

https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/what-do-we-know-about-the-ethnicity-of-sexual-abuse-gangs

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/rotherham-grooming-gang-sexual-abuse-muslim-islamist-racism-white-girls-religious-extremism-terrorism-a8261831.html

Liberalvedantin (talk) 20:37, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 November 2020
Please add this sentence, "The Government of Uttar Pradesh in India has enacted a love jihad law which cancels a marriage if it is for conversion." This can be used as a reference (there are many more references that can be found online, but I will leave it to someone more experienced to find other sources).&mdash;Kafir2 (talk) 11:14, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ❌ The official ordinance doesn't coin the term 'Love jihad', though has been used by major media outlets. You may reopen the request if you think I am wrong by changing the |answered= parameter to no.  -ink&amp;fables     «talk»   12:18, 25 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done  -ink&amp;fables     «talk»   12:00, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , No, it is not done. There is some information about some states planning to enact laws against it, but this is a new law which has been enacted now.-Kafir2 (talk) 14:47, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , can you add the above mentioned information with the reference I mentioned? You can, perhaps, change the sentence if it doesn't seem right, but the law and why it was enacted should be mentioned.-Kafir2 (talk) 14:47, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I did add the reference you mentioned, but this was not the actual law. It simply means the UP cabinet cleared a draft ordinance and is moving forward with it. C1MM (talk) 17:43, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 November 2020
Love jihad is a conspiracy theory created by extremist to increase the population of muslim in India It's can be done by changing psychology the senerio of real religion of person by hatred theory and provide the bad effect of their real religion. Only it's act for islamic religion not for others. On love jihad many girls and only few gens are attracted because they can easily psychological manipulate. Constitution is amendat according to need. So need to amendment in the law of religious beliefs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4063:4D8D:A328:0:0:3189:1F10 (talk) 08:00, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ❌ A request needs to specify changing X to Y in the article. The talk page is not a forum to discuss the subject. • Gene93k (talk) 09:58, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 November 2020
Laws have been or are going to be enacted soon, so this article needs to be re-written to show that Love jihad exists or is happening. Please do so.-Kafir2 (talk) 16:33, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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.  Seagull123  Φ  19:17, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 November 2020
Please change the term Islamophobia as this is not Islamophobia but a bill against forceful conversion by the Government of several states in India. 18:31, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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. Mz7 (talk) 19:43, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

YouTube fact-checking
Note to editors watching this page: This Wikipedia article is receiving a surge of attention because YouTube is using the article to fact-check the "Love Jihad" conspiracy theory. See the YouTube search results for an example. Since 2018, YouTube has been using Wikipedia articles to provide context to users who watch videos related to conspiracy theories. —  Newslinger  talk   07:58, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello,, recent laws/ordinance regarding the this subject may have also boosted searches. Is this new ordinanace updated in the article? If not, please do. Nizil (talk) 04:46, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2021
Love jihad is not a "conspiracy" by Hindutva and please stop spreading communal hatred and instigate violent feelings in heart of muslim people against the hindus. You are a regarded source of knowledge and please remain the same. 223.235.89.239 (talk) 05:21, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:33, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2021
In the section with the title, "Laws against Love Jihad" you people have written that "The law in Madhya Pradesh was approved on December". Please change it to ".....in December 2020" and add this as a reference. This, this and this can also be used as references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4071:E97:D191:0:0:4B48:8A09 (talk) 19:23, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done. Thank you for submitting this edit request. —  Newslinger  talk   20:09, 13 February 2021 (UTC)