Talk:Love jihad conspiracy theory/Archive 3

Love Jihad is not a "conspiracy theory"
There is a long history of respected Islamic scholars claiming that Islam was spread not through the sword but via intermarriage (and related one-way conversion, i.e. non-Muslims converted to Islam, Muslims never left Islam). This article (by S. Gurumurthy) provides documentation of these claims: https://www.newindianexpress.com/opinions/2020/nov/26/love-jihad-loving-for-religion-2228125.html

Also, respected author Nassim Taleb describes in his book Skin in The Game (Book 3, Chapter 2: The Most Intolerant Wins: The Dominance of the Stubborn Minority) how Egypt became Muslim (it used to be "Coptic Christian"). Islam prohibits converting out of Islam. So, when non-Muslims married Muslims, it was more convenient for the non-Muslim to convert, than for the Muslim to convert. A version of that chapter is freely available in this artcile: https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dictatorship-of-the-small-minority-3f1f83ce4e15 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.159.196.139 (talk) 19:31, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * An opinion piece by Swaminathan Gurumurthy, a Hindu nationalist affiliated with the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, is not a reliable source for factual claims. Your Medium link does not mention "Love Jihad" at all. —  Newslinger  talk   14:28, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Cherry-picking an author (also a journalist) you do not like out of the multiple that have been cited only shows your bias. Not to mention, you commit ad hominem and association fallacy. Your opinion of the author has no bearing on facts. The article provides sources and clearly points out that there are legitimate claims. Our job here is to provide information on the topic, stating the viewpoints, not favor any specific side and call others as invalid. Also, while the phrase has origin in India, the book chapter describes the same phenomenon across time and geography, as cross referenced in other articles on the topic. Wikihc (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:08, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. is right. An opinion piece by a religious extremist who is not an expert on the subject would violate WP:RS. It doesn't matter if he's a journalist, anyone can be one. It's the same reason we don't allow creationists to edit articles on evolution. Either prove the conspiracy to be true or move along. NarSakSasLee (talk) 20:38, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You start with a presumption of it being a conspiracy theory. Which is a biased view. Like in other articles on such terminology, we have to be balanced. And the comparison with evolution is such a non-sequitur. This is an article on a social phenomenon, not a scientific concept. Different social groups but obviously view it differently. Like in other article we just need to state the views, and that critics of the term label it as a conspiracy and propaganda (take the case of the article on sexual jihad). Not to mention, your contention with the author again is based on an ad hominem you ascribe to him. Specifically being a religion related phenomenon, different views will be present. It must be noted that the use of the term is not limited to a single organization like RSS, nor by a single religion (buddhists, christians etc), nor by a linguistic group. Not to mention the term has been used in context of ISIS too. Even the National Commission of Minorities has acknowledged the phenomenon. Labelling it as a conspiracy in the first sentence violates WP:NPOV Wikihc (talk) 01:48, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * There are currently 13 cited reliable sources, including multiple high-quality academic sources, that describe "Love Jihad" as a conspiracy theory. On the other hand, Swaminathan Gurumurthy is not a subject-matter expert, and his opinion has no bearing on a factual claim (i.e. the conspiracy theory descriptor), especially when contradicted by reliable sources. —  Newslinger  talk   02:39, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Currently, as we know, the article is not neutral. And several of the 13 sources are also articles written by journalists (which you stated earlier - "anyone can be"), and are not experts. Meanwhile other high quality academic sources describe the phenomenon to be present, thus contradicting the claim of it being a "conspiracy". WK:NPOV necessitates that we present this difference in viewpoint of experts, and label the "conspiracy" tag as a critical view of the term. In any case, "NPOV policy means presenting all significant points of view. This means providing not only the points of view of different groups today, but also different groups in the past, and not only points of view you share, but also points of view with which you disagree." Wikihc (talk) 03:35, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The article is not neutral because it does not provide sufficient weight to academic sources, which are the highest-quality sources available. I never said that "anyone can be" a journalist. As WP:NPOV states, "Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship." The article cites multiple high-quality academic sources that describe "Love Jihad" as a conspiracy theory. Without high-quality academic sources stating the opposite, the academic consensus supports the conspiracy theory descriptor in this article. —  Newslinger   talk   03:45, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I should probably clarify. My comment that "anyone can be a journalist" was in reference to people self-publishing, not those with editorial oversight. Furthermore Wikihc, I would advise you to stop misapplying wikipolicy. The source you're trying to push violates both WP:FRINGE and WP:SYNTH. Furthermore the other sources you've provided make no mention of "love jihad". NarSakSasLee (talk) 11:17, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * My response addressed both of the sources mentioned in the original comment: an opinion piece by the non-expert Hindu nationalist Swaminathan Gurumurthy is not a reliable source for factual claims, and the linked Medium website does not mention "Love Jihad". —  Newslinger  talk   21:26, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The book chapter (reproduced on medium) argues that "a small rate of asymmetric inter-faith marriages" ("Love Jihad" is a term describing this) can lead to "a small Islamic group" becoming the majority, and therefore is relevant. It states - "The two asymmetric rules are as follows. First, under Islamic law, if a non-Muslim marries a Muslim woman, he needs to convert to Islam – and if either parent of the child happens to be Muslim, the child will be Muslim. Second, becoming Muslim is irreversible, as apostasy is the heaviest crime in the religion, sanctioned by the death penalty..." and gives a historical example from Egypt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikihc (talk • contribs) 02:25, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That contains no mention of "Love Jihad". —  Newslinger  talk   02:39, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm in agreement. This contains no mention of "love jihad". Furthermore it sounds like a tinfoil hat theory the more we read it. The source is talking about religious conversion through marriage and claims Muslims cannot leave Islam? It's a religion. Of course people can leave it. I'm not sure if you know this Wikihc, but there are plenty of people who have left Islam. NarSakSasLee (talk) 11:17, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Your opinion of whether it is a "tinfoil hat theory", is irrelevant. It is a book chapter by a distinguished professor. Nonetheless, the author is talking about the asymmetry in the islamic law according to which one must convert to marry a muslim, and it is not allowed to forgo the religion. Moreover, there is countless literature that shows how such punishments have made it nigh impossible for an average follower to leave, despite the exceptions who made it out. Wikihc (talk) 02:13, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The book needs to actually refer to "Love Jihad" to even be considered for a claim about "Love Jihad". If the book does not mention "Love Jihad", then it cannot be used for a claim about "Love Jihad" because such usage would constitute original research. —  Newslinger  talk   02:30, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikihc you're synthisizing two different things to form an original opinion. The author does not even mention love jihad in the book. Furthermore it's talking about voluntary religious conversion through marriage, which is not unique to Islam (see Catholicism or Judaism for instance where the spouses are expected to convert). Furthermore Love Jihad is about faking love. The author of your source does not mention faking love to convert people. NarSakSasLee (talk) 03:58, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No problem! Furthermore should add Medium has no editorial oversight. It's a self published source, much like Google Blogs. NarSakSasLee (talk) 22:41, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The chapter of the book has been reproduced on medium. Is a book chapter similar to a google blog? Wikihc (talk) 01:48, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter if it's been copied and pasted elsewhere. It's still by a WP:FRINGE author who is both a Hindu extremist and a person with an obvious political agenda. He is not neutral and furthermore not an expert in the area. Additionally, his claims are very tinfoil. NarSakSasLee (talk) 11:25, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * So Nassim Nicholas Taleb, the author of the book, "is both a Hindu extremist and a person with an obvious political agenda"? He is not even a Hindu, at least publicly, just so you know. Just because you opine he is a WP:FRINGE author, doesn't make him one. No wonder this article is not neutral and violates WP:NPOV. Seems irredeemable. Wikihc (talk) 02:13, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, WP:FRINGE has nothing to do with politics or opinions. Wikihc (talk) 02:36, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , are you accidentally mixing up Nassim Nicholas Taleb (the author of Skin in the Game, a chapter of which was republished in the Medium link) and Swaminathan Gurumurthy (the author of the opinion piece) by any chance? I don't see any problems with Skin in the Game or Taleb in general. However, the book is not an appropriate source on whether "Love Jihad" is a conspiracy theory, because a search on Google Books reveals that it does not mention "Love Jihad" at all. Additionally, sociology and religion are both outside Taleb's area of expertise (mathematics), so even if the book did mention "Love Jihad", it would be an inferior source on this topic compared to the high-quality academic publications currently cited in the article. —  Newslinger  talk   02:48, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * @ I thought we were talking about including Swaminathan Gurumurthy? He's the Hindu extremist I was talking about that shouldn't even be in the article. Wikihc's responses have been a little confusing so I may have gotten confused as to who he was referring to. Anyway, I'm in agreement with you Newslinger. It's not his area of expertise. It would be nonsensical to include him as any sort of authority on the subject (a subject which you have noted he doesn't even mention). NarSakSasLee (talk) 03:58, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , just to clarify, is "No problem" referring to the thanks I gave for your previous comment? I'm asking this because it might be misinterpreted as support for the comment by 209.159.196.139. —  Newslinger  talk   22:54, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It was addressing you, not the IP, Newslinger. NarSakSasLee (talk) 01:09, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

, & .  So, I was reading this discussion and have attempted to address issues being raised here. There are still a lot of problems with the body of the article but I went ahead and revamped the lead while primarily using academic sources and a more diverse variety of them to hopefully represent a better understanding of the topic. Tayi Arajakate Talk 00:54, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It certainly reads much better than before. I'm impressed. Well done. NarSakSasLee (talk) 01:30, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This new lead section is very well-written, and incorporates 8 of the 9 academic sources from . Excellent work. —  Newslinger  talk   01:48, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Minor style concern: "...feigning love, seduction, deception, kidnapping, and marriage, ..." can be misread as a list of things that the verb feigning applies to. Is there a way to make this less ambiguous without disrupting the flow of the sentence? —  Newslinger  talk   02:20, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , I see that, could "pretending to be in love" work as a replacement for "feigning love" that clears the ambiguity? Tayi Arajakate  Talk 14:21, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Just going to add my opinion here too, most definitely that would work I think. It's more precise and representative. NarSakSasLee (talk) 14:33, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and made the change. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 14:41, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I've made a few grammar changes so that the change you made makes the led flow well. NarSakSasLee (talk) 15:02, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , changing it to "by pretending to be in love through seduction, deception, kiddnapping..." from "by pretending to be in love, seduction, deception, kiddnapping..." causes a different problem. It gives the impression that the latter list of things is a means of "pretending to be in love", which isn't a necessary condition even though the term Love Jihad derives its name from it. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 15:19, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Change it to however you so wish. I was just worried about the grammar. NarSakSasLee (talk) 19:58, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The current phrasing "by means such as seduction, feigning love, deception, kidnapping, and marriage" is great. I don't think there's any way to read it incorrectly. —  Newslinger  talk   09:43, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I too think that it isn't just a conspiracy theory but a harsh reality. Iam adityarajput (talk) 01:47, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you have reliable academic sourcing to support that position? —  Newslinger  talk   09:06, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised by the amount of people here claiming it to be true by saying "I think". No one cares what "you" think. We care about what reliable sources think. That's the harsh reality. is right. What sources do you have to prove your claims? NarSakSasLee (talk) 18:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * There's always the possibility that we've encountered the case where Wikipedia's methodology for determining the "truth' is just broken. And fundamentally, the truth is what we actually care about. The "methodology" is just a means to arbitrate what is accepted as truth on Wikipedia.  Fundamental principles matter.  Fabrickator (talk) 14:17, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Please see Verifiability, not truth. —  Newslinger  talk   15:49, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Verifiability is the criteria, not the goal. Truth is the goal (notwithstanding WP:!TRUTHFINDERS). Fabrickator (talk) 17:14, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Whose truth? Eg, all religions claim the truth is theirs. Good link, and there's no "not withstanding".  Doug Weller  talk 20:00, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * There is "no notwithstanding"? How about "notwithstanding" the fact that WP:!TRUTHFINDERS is 'not' a "policy or guideline", regardless of the number of times said page may be cited as though it were policy? But setting that aside, the apparent implication in WP:!TRUTHFINDERS that "truth doesn't matter" is belied by other statements, such that editors are "encouraged to add material that is verifiable and true", and why have a section of said page on the meaning of "truth" in different subject areas if truth doesn't matter?  It would be more appropriate to say that you can't select one version of the truth and just ignore the reliable sources that disagree with your purported truth.  As to your question about "religious truths", religious scriptures have been deemed to be "not reliable" according to WP:Perennial sources. Fabrickator (talk) 00:54, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * There are currently over 20 high-quality academic sources cited in the lead section alone, making the lead section of this article one of the most well-sourced among all Wikipedia articles. This constitutes a strong academic consensus that Love Jihad is a conspiracy theory. If you have high-quality academic sources suggesting the contrary, feel free to share them. Otherwise, it looks like the lead section reflects the "truth" quite accurately. —  Newslinger  talk   07:31, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I was responding to the observation that many people have said "I think" (that the truth is different from what the article states), and I have simply made the point (to reiterate) that while verifiability is the criteria for determining what can be posted, the real goal is to have true content.  Furthermore, I did not suggest that we should toss that rule, notwithstanding the possibility that the rule has actually failed in this instance.  It is sort of like the world view being (once upon a time) that the earth was the center of the universe, and somebody making an observation to the contrary.  That doesn't make this observation false, it just makes such an observation as "not accepted".
 * If that's the case in this situation, then our "verifiability" criteria has failed us. I don't expect that criteria to change, I expect that good people (e.g. experienced WP editors) can recognize this possibility, and that if they have some insight, they will understand that we can accept the possibility that the rule of verifiability might have failed us in this instance.
 * Now maybe it has failed us and maybe it hasn't. A declaration of what one thinks is true is not expected to convince anybody who equates verifiability with actual truth of this possibility, but these "good people" should recognize that the rule is no guarantee of truth. Assuming you recognize that, then you would also recognize that your response was not on point. Fabrickator (talk) 15:29, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * If your opinion differs from the academic consensus, you are welcome to conduct research and submit your findings to a reputable academic publisher. If your submission gets accepted, peer-reviewed, and published, it may be eligible to be cited into this article. This is the standard that all 20+ of the high-quality academic sources cited in the lead section meet. If you are unwilling or unable to do this, the article will remain as is. —  Newslinger  talk   06:57, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You seem to feel compelled to argue against something I'm not suggesting, i.e. that we should ignore the verifiability requirement without adequate consensus that the verifiability requirement ought to be modified or otherwise adjusted in some way. I shall repeat the point that truth is the goal and verifiability is merely the criteria for determining what may be published.  You seem to feel that re-stating the verifiability requirement is a proper response to any claim that, notwithstanding the verifiability requirement, truth is nevertheless the underlying goal.
 * If you feel that it's necessary to dispute my assertion that truth is the goal, that's an opinion you're free to hold, though I would suggest it's not a very sensible one, and I would infer that your understanding of the principles underlying Wikipedia's verifiability requirement is flawed. Fabrickator (talk) 09:22, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * If you want to weaken the verifiability policy to accommodate the promotion of conspiracy theories like "Love Jihad", feel free to make a proposal at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability. Such a proposal is highly unlikely to gain acceptance from the Wikipedia community. —  Newslinger  talk   09:46, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Ha ha! So you can't admit to the possibility of there being any improvement to (your interpretation of) the existing verifiability policy that would provide a better way of establishing the truth of a claim. It's definitely comforting to know about the certainty with which you are able to determine the facts.  Fabrickator (talk) 14:26, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * When 20+ high-quality academic sources agree with the lead section of the article, and you disagree without citing evidence, the article is going to remain as is. If you want to publish conspiracy theories without proper evidence, you are free to do so on a personal website or blog. If you want to propose a change to the policy, you can do so at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability. But unless you are able to present high-quality academic sources to support your position on "Love Jihad", you are simply wasting your time on this talk page. —  Newslinger  talk   14:51, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I am merely asserting that "truth" is the underlying goal that is the basis of the verifiability policy. An implication of this is that the verifiability policy is not set in stone, it is but a method that is designed to help attain that goal. I am not attempting to address whether your interpretation is correct or incorrect in this instance. However, you keep failing to address my statement about "truth" being the underlying goal, while just reiterating your point that there are a lot of academic citations supporting the claim that "love jihad" is a conspiracy theory, and when you do that, you can expect that if you merely repeat your claim about all the highly-regarded citations, I will be likely to reiterate my point that you have not addressed my claim about the relationship between "verifiability" and "truth" with regard to WP policy. Fabrickator (talk) 19:53, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Article talk pages are for discussing changes to articles, and not the epistemology of Wikipedia. —  Newslinger  talk   21:33, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Newslinger clearly has very biased views and obvious hatred towards a particular religion, please wikipedia, you are better than this, don't foster an environment for these separatists to come in and spew hatred and political propaganda towards other religions and communities, spreading false information and political propaganda. Like this wikipedia might start losing credibility and will be a breeding hroinf for such people to radicalize readers and spread hatred and propaganda. Uhhibi (talk) 17:51, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Personal attacks are prohibited on Wikipedia, and your allegations are incorrect. See Special:Diff/1007351944. —  Newslinger  talk   18:10, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

1. What about communal and religious attacks and defamation that you are clearly ensuing on a particular community and religion? 2. I was not personally attacking, I'm sorry you misinterpreted it that way.

3.You cannot just state my allegations are incorrect, since you are not an authority on what is write or wrong here. Because I can say your allegation on my allegation being incorrect is false and that your allegations are incorrect.

4. Also Wikipedia does not allow threatening of editors on this platform as you do so here.

Uhhibi (talk) 18:21, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Please click on the footnotes in the article and review the cited sources. All of the content in this article is based on the content in the cited sources, and the lead section of this article is supported by 20+ high-quality academic sources. If you disagree with any of the sources, feel free to contact the respective authors for clarification. —  Newslinger  talk   18:24, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I do not understand why you're deflecting my question, not once did I question the authenticity of the information cited, my question again: Yes, I want to know why the tone of the article is so ANTI - HINDU and EXTREMELY biased? Uhhibi (talk) 18:32, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The tone of this article is not "ANTI - HINDU and EXTREMELY biased". Neutrality on Wikipedia entails "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". High-quality academic sources agree that "Love Jihad" is a conspiracy theory, and this article neutrally and accurately reflects the academic consensus. —  Newslinger  talk   18:32, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Biased views, targeting a community and hurting religious sentiments.
Newslinger clearly has very biased views and obvious hatred towards a particular religion, please wikipedia, you are better than this, don't foster an environment for these separatists to come in and spew hatred and political propaganda towards other religions and communities, spreading false information and political propaganda. Like this wikipedia might start losing credibility and will be a breeding hroinf for such people to radicalize readers and spread hatred and propaganda. Uhhibi (talk) 17:53, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I mean just look at newlinger's history and previous talks/discussions and its very clear that he/she has extremist, racist and discriminatory views! Uhhibi (talk) 17:55, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Personal attacks are prohibited on Wikipedia, and your allegations are incorrect. The content in the lead section of this article is reliably sourced to 20+ high-quality academic sources. Wikipedia is not censored and will not remove reliably sourced information because it offends a reader. —  Newslinger  talk   18:06, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

1. What about communal and religious attacks and defamation that you are clearly ensuing on a particular community and religion? 2. I was not personally attacking, I'm sorry you misinterpreted it that way.

3.You cannot just state my allegations are incorrect, since you are not an authority on what is write or wrong here. Because I can say your allegation on my allegation being incorrect is false and that your allegations are incorrect.

4. Also Wikipedia does not allow threatening of editors on this platform as you do so here.

5. It does not offend a reader, it HURTS religious sentiments of a certain religion and community.

6. Your edits also encourages violence, hatred and discrimination against a religion. Which is a violent threat to the wellbeing of UP citizens. Uhhibi (talk) 18:24, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, Wikipedia is not censored. The content of this article reflects the content in reliable sources, including high-quality academic sources. If you have any questions about the content in the cited sources, you are free to contact the relevant authors or publishers. —  Newslinger  talk   18:27, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I want to know why the tone of the article is so ANTI - HINDU and EXTREMELY biased? Uhhibi (talk) 18:30, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The tone of this article is not "ANTI - HINDU and EXTREMELY biased". Neutrality on Wikipedia entails "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". High-quality academic sources agree that "Love Jihad" is a conspiracy theory, and this article neutrally and accurately reflects the academic consensus. —  Newslinger  talk   18:32, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

You talk about neutrality and censorship, WHY DID YOU DELETE MY DISCUSSION AS SOON AS YOU'RE PROPAGANDA WAS BEING REVEALED?

I wrote a lengthy answer citing academic sources and links to provide proof for my arguement, which you conveniently deleted, this is CYBERBULLYING! Uhhibi (talk) 18:43, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I did not delete any of your comments. Check the page history. —  Newslinger  talk   18:44, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

The fact that you had to delete my discussion takes away my right to free speech! And that you were guilty conscious! Uhhibi (talk) 18:45, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * All of your edits on Wikipedia are listed at Special:Contributions/Uhhibi, and not a single one contains any academic sources. I have not deleted any of your comments. —  Newslinger  talk   18:46, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Oh my god, are you serious, where is my discussion, '‎Biased views, targeting a community and hurting religious sentiments', then? Uhhibi (talk) 18:56, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The title of this subsection is called "Biased views, targeting a community and hurting religious sentiments." All of your comments are still on this page. If you are having difficulty with the mobile web version of Wikipedia, you can switch to the desktop version by tapping "Desktop" at the bottom of the page. —  Newslinger  talk   18:58, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

What you have done is clearly visible in my history, unless there is a second 'NEWSLINGER' on here that I'm unaware of? Uhhibi (talk) 18:57, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * In Special:Diff/1007356104, I merged the "Biased views, targeting a community and hurting religious sentiments" discussion into a subsection of the "Love Jihad is not a 'conspiracy theory'" discussion, because you were duplicating your comments in both discussions. No comments were removed in the merge, and your duplicate comments are still there. In any case, you have yet to submit any edits containing any links or academic sources. —  Newslinger  talk   19:01, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Again you're lying, I have screenshots of the fact that you had my discussion deleted. It is nowhere to be seen here, and also who gave you the authority to merge that discussion with this one? This is CYBERBULLYING! Uhhibi (talk) 19:07, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * According to WP:SECTIONHEADINGOWN, threads are shared by multiple editors and it is permissible to merge redundant sections. I did not delete any of your comments, as the page history shows. —  Newslinger  talk   19:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I listed numerous arguements, citations and links to show how you're sweing hatred and propaganda to hurt religious sentiments of a religion while spreading misinformation and a biased opinion, while i gave many examples for the same! Which obviously you deleted so you wouldn't have to face the consequences! Uhhibi (talk) 19:10, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

A rather cheap tactic indeed! If someone questions you, just take away their freedom of speech right? Uhhibi (talk) 19:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * According to WP:SECTIONHEADINGOWN, threads are shared by multiple editors and it is permissible to merge redundant sections. I did not delete any of your comments, as the page history shows. —  Newslinger  talk   19:12, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * And finally, if you do have any academic sources to support your view of the "Love Jihad" conspiracy theory, feel free to share them. —  Newslinger  talk   19:35, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Hey look, you're clearly not one person, an organization or bot of some kind, so I'm gonna stop arguing now since you're obviously paid to spread false propaganda and hatred, so please go ahead, but just for the record to any human who reads this, I had an entire another discussion that NEWSLINGER had removed. In which, i cited academic proofs, links, examples and arguments. Honestly such cyberbullies really bring down authentic journalism and freedom of speech, only having their malice intentions at heart! I felt really disheartened when i wrote an extremely lengthy answer detailing and supporting my arguements as to why the article is Hinduphobic and hurts religious and communal sentiments while being largely based on biased opinions and misinformation to try and incite violence in Indian states; but of course newslinger silenced me when it couldn't counterargue... Anyways I've said what i had to say, you can go on say wjat you want, bot or group of people or who ever is being paid for this sad job of spreading hatred!! Uhhibi (talk) 20:06, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * In response to "I felt really disheartened when i wrote an extremely lengthy answer detailing and supporting my arguements": no, you did not. Among all of the edits you have made so far, which are listed in Special:Contributions/Uhhibi, your longest comment is the one you just made at 20:06, 17 February 2021. To date, you have never supported any of your baseless allegations with any links, academic sources, or valid arguments. Most of your comments are loaded with personal attacks and unsubstantiated claims, and none of your comments are supported by any kind of evidence whatsoever. —  Newslinger  talk   21:32, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 January 2021
France is also trying to control Love Jihad according to this. Please form a sentence and add it to this article. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.7.143.205 (talk) 09:35, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Not supported by the provided source. The source is an opinion piece that only briefly mentions "Love Jihad" in a sentence:


 * , I saw that you are an admin and will know better, so can you add a sentence using that source mentioning France (even if you use "apriori criminalisation")? I am trying to find reliable sources for what the UK and Russia say also and will ask you to add the same soon.
 * This, this and this are about love jihad in the UK.
 * This and this are about Russia (and France)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.99.247.42 (talk) 02:41, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * This "fear" is everywhere — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.99.247.42 (talk) 02:55, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * What about this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.99.247.42 (talk) 08:00, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * High-quality academic sources, including the ones cited in, confirm that Love Jihad is a conspiracy theory, and not a real phenomenon. Again, the sentence from the article in the first comment of this discussion is phrased so ambiguously that it cannot be used to claim a relationship between "Love Jihad" and France; it is also an opinion piece written by a non-expert, which is not an appropriate source for this type of claim. All of the articles you have linked are off-topic (i.e. does not mention "Love Jihad"), undue weight (i.e. written by non-expert opinion columnists), or superseded by the high-quality academic sources. Unless you have high-quality academic sources that describe "Love Jihad" as something other than a conspiracy theory or fabricated claim, the currently cited academic sources take precedence. —  Newslinger   talk   13:59, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: I've taken a brief look and concur with Newslinger. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:25, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Once again you assume you are the athourity on what is and what isn't, as stated by NUMEROUS editors above, it is clearly biased and just by saying 'no its not' doesn't make it so. As the other editors will agree with the propaganda spewed in the article by you. The article is not the least bit neutral. I request you to portray the other side of love jihad as well where girls are brutally raped amd murdered on a regular basis in the name of LOVE JIHAD. Also talk about the fatwas ensued when a Muslim girl marries a non-muslims (kafir as muslims call it) but when its a non-muslim girl marrying a muslim boy nothing happen? Infact, it's more than encouraged! Where the husband, his brother and his father partake in raping her! Please talk about these things then we can talk about neutrality. Uhhibi (talk) 18:40, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * All content on Wikipedia must be verifiable to reliable sources. Do any high-quality academic sources support your allegations? —  Newslinger  talk   18:42, 17 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I see you have your hands full with these conspiracy theorists. I just wanted to chime in and say that the same arguments are propping up time and time again so would it not be better to introduce a special warning on this talk page about this continuous disruptive editing? It's getting rather strange seeing people repeatedly mob this talk page with half-baked news articles and lazy journalism. It seems like these people aren't understanding that they can't replace reliable peer reviewed sources with their own spurious sources of information. Otherwise I think some temporary blocks are necessary. NarSakSasLee (talk) 12:27, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I've added an FAQ at Talk:Love Jihad/FAQ, which is now displayed at the top of the page. Unfortunately, due to the way the template for talk page boxes are set up, editors who are using the mobile website for Wikipedia cannot see the FAQ. Desktop and laptop users will see the notice when they load this page. —  Newslinger  talk   12:34, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah. Excellent. I actually didn't see the FAQ myself and I'm currently using desktop. Would it be possible to make it look more distinct? Perhaps colour the box around it red? NarSakSasLee (talk) 12:38, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Possibly, but not with the default FAQ template. I'm not sure how effective this would be, since many of the edits are tagged with Mobile edit, Mobile web edit. Talk:One America News Network does use a red template, but the proportion of smartphone web users in America is lower than in India, and I'm not sure if it's directly comparable. —  Newslinger  talk   13:15, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * In India, mobile service providers give everyone Mobile data services of 1 to 2 GB per day at cheap rates but please don't block us, we do contribute positively — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4071:2009:2EE:0:0:BA6:E8A1 (talk) 22:46, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * These templates do not block anyone. They just display messages that are only visible to editors who are using the Desktop view of Wikipedia. Smartphone and some tablet users are on the Mobile view by default, which does not show these templates. —  Newslinger  talk   03:55, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

It is very much biased.
The article regarding love jihad that wikipedia is portraying is very much biased & bigoted towards a particular community. It looks like some people belonging from a particular ideology is maintaining this page to promote their biased views & they are also blocking people who tried to correct the things. Hellobunny001 (talk) 06:43, 16 March 2021 (UTC)


 * When did you finally figure this out? Fabrickator (talk) 07:37, 16 March 2021 (UTC)


 * , please refer to WP:V and WP:TRUTHMATTERS. Wikipedia is based on real occurances not our ideology. Please also refer to WP:5P for future reference. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 07:39, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

You need to revisit what the word "biased" means. Looking at your edits you appear to be a believer in this conspiracy theory. Wikipedia is not a place to spread such nonsense. It has repeatedly been stated only academic sources can be used as they are the most objective but it seems that this piece of information is incapable of getting through to you types. Once again, if you don't have peer reviewed sources supporting that the conspiracy is real, then your edits will be removed. NarSakSasLee (talk) 22:25, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It really amazes me to no end what drives this kind of post. The peer-reviewers would have directly reviewed the concerned hadith, if only there were enough protection for the death threats they would get. Hadith straightaway makes love jihad and population jihad a sacred duty and it is for thousands of years. Just the word "love jihad" is new term. Anyway. Enjoy your freedom. Dagana4 (talk) 18:32, 17 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Nonsense. Wikipedia does not concern itself with religious debates, religious interpretation, conspiracy theories or original research. You can continue to believe in it by all means (just like you can continue to believe in creationism), but there's no evidence for it because the strongest sources (peer review) say it doesn't exist so it doesn't exist. If you'd like to convince them otherwise then by all means take it up with them. So once again, for the umpteenth time, where is your evidence that it exists? If you can't provide any, it's not going in the article. NarSakSasLee (talk) 20:32, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The lead section of this article is representative of the academic consensus. If you have located high-quality academic sources that support your claims, feel free to share them. Original research is prohibited in Wikipedia articles. —  Newslinger  talk   04:12, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 February 2021
Hi, I'm a wikipedia reader as well as a writer I write professionally in Wordpress and in Quora and many other such websites. Please help me improve this page by making the content more crisp and in clarity.

}} Mb 9702 (talk) 07:28, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Multiple requests given. Answered below. • Gene93k (talk) 10:20, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

This article is a totally biased personal viewpoint and all of the info is collected via professional. The current Author is definitely paid for writing only a one-sided views. I request Wikipedia to allow other and stop these users to monopolizing the wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raj dudhla (talk • contribs) 04:32, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The consensus of high-quality academic sources is that Love Jihad is a conspiracy theory or fabricated claim. Please see for the list. Wikipedia articles are based on reliable sources, and not original research. The unwarranted promotion of fringe theories is not allowed on Wikipedia. —  Newslinger   talk   04:48, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Like for instance, the section Official investigations is citing only one private economist article but NIA has actually presented evidence about Love Jihad. 1. NIA Says 'Love Jihad' is for Real, Supreme Court Orders Probe Into Kerala Case

Love-Jihad case: NIA to probe 'few' jailed in connection with IS Read more at: https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/love-jihad-case-nia-to-probe-few-jailed-in-connection-with-is/articleshow/62385532.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst

I see opinida is banned why wiki is also hijacked by only people having specific view point? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raj dudhla (talk • contribs) 04:54, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The Hadiya case, which your links describe, is already covered in . OpIndia is not considered a reliable source on Wikipedia, as it has a reputation for publishing false and fabricated information; see  for details. —  Newslinger   talk   05:19, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 February 2021 (2)
Hi, I'm new to Wikipedia and a part time writer I feel that the top line should be changed as it appears misconstrued. Mb 9702 (talk) 07:31, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * X mark.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 reliable sources that support the new content. • Gene93k (talk) 10:20, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Request for Edit
Biased view against a religion that is Hinduism being presented in this page and the wrong information cant be edited. Please help to edit this page. Mb 9702 (talk) 07:33, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * duplicate request answered above. • Gene93k (talk) 10:20, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Edit request
Hello,please help me edit this page as it has published misconstrued information. Mb 9702 (talk) 07:40, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * duplicate request answered above. • Gene93k (talk) 10:20, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2021
Please help edit this page as it is publishing derogatory comments about Hinduism and the religion. Mb 9702 (talk) 08:32, 23 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Mind saying what these "derogatory comments about Hinduism and the religion" are? You've made several sections on this talk page and to date it's not even clear what you want changed. Wikipedia also doesn't exist to protect Hinduism, so even if the comments were derogatory to Hinduism (or whatever religion you may belong to) as long as they are verifiable by third party peer reviewed sources they will stay. NarSakSasLee (talk) 11:21, 23 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Per the edit request instructions: This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". The new content also must be supported by reliable sources. Previous requests have been declined for both lack of specific changes and lack of reliable references. • Gene93k (talk) 11:31, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2021
This is very wrong information published in this page against a community and humanity. Please help us edit this page for the sake of improvement. Mb 9702 (talk) 09:31, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —  Newslinger  talk   09:52, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * This is the 8th time this user has requested the same thing. I removed his two previous requests because he refuses to engage in good faith discussion. At some point a block will be necessary. NarSakSasLee (talk) 12:37, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Love Jihad
Love Jihad is not a Islamophobic Theory please change these notions. It's wrong. Mb 9702 (talk) 14:18, 25 February 2021 (UTC)


 * , this user is repeatedly posting the same thing again and again. I think its safe to say he is deliberately engaging in disruptive editing on this talk page. This is the 9th time the user has posted the same thing without clarifying exactly what he wants changed. He has been warned repeatedly not to do this but keeps doing it anyway. Could you guys do something about this? I think a block is necessary here. NarSakSasLee (talk) 15:39, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I have posted one last request on the editor's talk page to engage constructively or stop. It they persist, discretionary sanctions apply. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 25 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that. NarSakSasLee (talk) 18:29, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I have filed an arbitration enforcement request at . —  Newslinger  talk   11:19, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Mb is continuing to vandalise the page and is once again refusing to engage in good faith. At this point a ban is necessary. This getting ridiculous. He has been warned many times now. NarSakSasLee (talk) 07:01, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Administrators are not supposed to take administrative actions (e.g. blocking and protection) related to disputes they are involved in, so I can't do anything here. There is a pending arbitration enforcement request, vandalism report, and page protection request, but these noticeboards are all backlogged. I'll help clear out some of the other cases to reduce the backlog. —  Newslinger  talk   13:31, 28 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Also should have you know he is now taking this to WP:ANI and is reporting us individually for "edit warring" on this page. His trolling is getting rather tiresome. NarSakSasLee (talk) 13:36, 28 February 2021 (UTC)


 * He's finally been blocked. Thank you for also familiarising me with this procedure. NarSakSasLee (talk) 14:02, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No problem. Next is the pending page protection request at . —  Newslinger  talk   14:03, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * My guess is he'll be back under a sock account soon and we'll have to open an investigation on that. NarSakSasLee (talk) 14:07, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * This was probably User:Souniel Yadav, whose socks have been frequenting this article. I suspect Souniel is actually related to an older sockmaster, User:Hometech, who often played "bumbling new user," as you saw here. Buddytula (talk) 07:54, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * There's another editor on this Wiki with a similar history. I'm keeping an eye on him. He has a habit of removing reliably sourced references with poor excuses. I don't know if I should name him yet. NarSakSasLee (talk) 21:18, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm also keeping an eye out for one user based on this article's history. We're probably referring to the same account. I suggest waiting until the account's edits demonstrate more similarities with Souniel Yadav, Hometech, or their sockpuppets. Buddytula (talk) 11:14, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Well the one I'm currently following is using a Western name instead of an Indian name, but all he ever does is edit Indian related articles; he removes reliably sourced material to present a particular point of view but leaves disingenuous edit summaries in order to fool other editors into thinking they are legitimate edits. NarSakSasLee (talk) 20:22, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 March 2021
"Love jihad is an act that a Muslim boy performs as a trick to convince a hindu girl for his sexual desire, love affair, marriage or friendship by hiding his muslim identity in the name of Love. This type of Jihad is not a creation of few Hindu religious people but an act of muslim youngsters to target only Hindu girl in the name of Feelings of Love. Biologically, they wanted to use it as a weapon to supersede the majority population in India.They consider this act as an revenge to Hindu culture or to Kafirs (as per Muslim) in order to find the way to Jannat. This practice is not new to India, it happened during Mughal period by forcing a Hindu girl to convert into Islam or rape them. Now, India is a free country and have its own Constitution so they use feeling of Love by hiding Muslim identity as a weapon to convert them into Islam. They wanted to hide muslim identity unless they think feeling of a Hindu girl not in his fully control. " Skmishra8285 (talk) 17:22, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Any addition along those lines would need very strong sourcing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:24, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Please see the FAQ. Since you are using a mobile device, you can access the FAQ by tapping the gray "About this page" link under "Talk:Love Jihad" at the top of the page. —  Newslinger  talk   23:10, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * This is the funniest thing I've ever read. No offence, but you'd have to be an absolute moron to believe this. NarSakSasLee (talk) 23:59, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * This one is better. (Click "Show this thread" at the bottom to see the entire thread.) Both the initial comment in this discussion and the Twitter thread are examples of the Love Jihad conspiracy theory. The article's lead section, which is based on high-quality academic sources, is accurately describing this conspiracy theory. —  Newslinger  talk   03:16, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Islamophobic or anti-Muslim
In regard to Special:Diff/1015035694, I do think it is necessary to specify that the Love Jihad conspiracy theory is either Islamophobic or anti-Muslim in the first sentence, since this is the most defining attribute of the conspiracy theory. Compare to the first sentences in Judeo-Masonic conspiracy theory ("The Judeo-Masonic conspiracy is an antisemitic and antimasonic conspiracy theory...") and White genocide conspiracy theory ("The white genocide, white extinction, or white replacement conspiracy theory is a white supremacist belief...").

The term Islamophobia is currently only mentioned twice in the entire article (one mention in the lead section and one mention in ), so I don't see any issue with including it in the first sentence. I am aware of the Islamophobia navigation box, but that box is not visible to mobile web users and is not considered part of the article text.

There are plenty of high-quality academic sources for this descriptor, which can be cited separately if needed. Here are five to start (emphasis added), and many more are available:

—  Newslinger  talk   10:36, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , I know there is academic consensus on its anti-Muslim character. I was more concerned about citation integrity since when I added the citations for the descriptor of conspiracy theory, I did not solely cite the ones which use these specific terms. They explain the phenomenon in a variety of ways, some of them are more descriptive of the contents of the theory for instance. So I'd propose the following variation of the first line, "... is a conspiracy theory, that was developed by proponents of Hindutva, and is used to invoke prejudice against Muslims. The conspiracy theory purports that ..."  Tayi Arajakate  Talk 11:54, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You're absolutely right about citation integrity, and I support your suggested phrasing. —  Newslinger  talk   11:59, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ in Special:Diff/1015064665. —  Newslinger  talk   13:15, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 April 2021
Love jihad is not a conspiracy theory. There have been many cases throughout India where Hindu women were tricked into marrying Muslim men who kept Hindu names. After marriage, their faith was exposed. After bearing children many women are forced into adopting Islam as per Islamic culture. In other cases Muslim men eloped with the gold and money of Hindu women while killing them or betraying them in the name of marriage. 68.129.39.155 (talk) 15:44, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Any changes you want made require reliable sources. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:55, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * X mark.svg Not done: The most reliable evidence says otherwise. NarSakSasLee (talk) 01:16, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

About the neutrality
This article is not neutral, the phrase "Islamophobic conspiracy theory developed by proponents of Hindutva " proves that. A Wikipedia article must be on a neutral side. This article seems to be manipulated by some 'editors' who are of the other side. I am not asserting that Love jihad is true, probably it is a propaganda, But the way the article presents it should be neutral. It should be either stated as an allegation, how can it be Islamophobic, As not all muslims are blamed there.I hope what I meant to convey is understood. AARYA SAJAYAN (talk) 04:49, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Neutrality on Wikipedia entails "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". The consensus of high-quality academic sources is that Love Jihad is a conspiracy theory or fabricated claim. Please see for the list. If you have located high-quality academic sources that state that Love Jihad is not a conspiracy theory or false claim, feel free to share them. —  Newslinger   talk   05:05, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Hindu Nationalist Subreddits Brigading This Article & Issuing Death Threats
I'm noticing a lot of users coming onto this page with the same arguments time and time again. I've also noticed websites like Reddit are being used to try to organise a brigading campaign against the article. A cursory look at Reddit has shown that this has been happening for over a month. The subreddits trying to organise campaigns against this article are inherently Hindu nationalist subreddits. A lot of these users/threads directly even mention you or threaten you directly. It appears a lot of them have accounts on Wikipedia with the sole aim of promoting Hindu nationalism. Just thought I'd raise this with you. NarSakSasLee (talk) 11:40, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. I'm aware of these off-wiki discussions, which are connected to the nonsense from this archived discussion. This kind of off-wiki canvassing is precisely the type of situation that discretionary sanctions are intended to address. While this is a high-maintenance article, I think Wikipedia's policies, guidelines, and procedures are managing the disruption quite well. —  Newslinger  talk   07:05, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I can't imagine what the QAnon page has to deal with. I'm glad you're aware of this problem off site. Stay safe. NarSakSasLee (talk) 01:18, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 April 2021
Change first paragraph to: Love Jihad (also known as Romeo Jihad) is a term which is used when person of some religion fakes his identity and targets another person to convert him into his religion. It has gathered recent attraction in several parts of India where Muslim men target Hindu women for conversion to Islam by means such as seduction,[28] feigning love,[30] deception,[31] kidnapping,[34] and marriage,[37] as part of a broader "war" by Muslims against India,[39] and an organised international conspiracy,[42] for domination through demographic growth and replacement.[46] Randomindian1234 (talk) 12:47, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * ❌ See FAQ#1 at the top of the page. FDW777 (talk) 12:52, 9 April 2021 (UTC)


 * According to some reliable sources Love Jihad is referred as an allegation the opening statement could have mentioned it as an allegation instead of directly stating it as a conspiracy theory. AARYA SAJAYAN (talk) 09:23, 9 April 2021 (UTC) AARYA SAJAYAN (talk) 13:44, 9 April 2021 (UTC)


 * The above has been answered in the previous section. It is not an allegation according to the most reliable sources, but a literal conspiracy theory. NarSakSasLee (talk) 23:02, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

An enquiry
As Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopaedia I feel that the tone of the article is not neutral. It seems to be slightly biased (Most probably the users unknowingly collected information and cited slightly biased sources). To make it clear I'm not telling that it was purposefully done so, but actually it is happening, even though less in number of cases it has been reported all over the state from where I am. The opening sentence, "Love Jihad (also known as Romeo Jihad) is a conspiracy theory,developed by proponents of Hindutva, that is used to invoke prejudice against Muslims" is not accurately written. It could have been written as an "allegation" instead of being directly stating it as a hoax. It may have been basically influenced by the media which is majorly slightly leftist.

A humble request to rectify the neutrality issue if any. I am not being Islamophobic/racist/casteist but I really look forward to being neutral in my view point. The main issue is the lack of proper reliable sources on the topic.

The majority of the articles written on Love jihad does not seem to be written in a neutral tone, including the mainstream media most of them are slightly biased. But from what I know several Hindu and some Christian girls have been missing for a very long time after a relationship with muslim men. But it never means that all muslims are the same in every community there would be atleast some of the extremist. I have alleged it earlier on the talk page. I had received a Controversial topic area alert with a discretionary sanctions alert. In the talk page it was stated that "The consensus of high-quality academic sources is that Love Jihad is a conspiracy theory or fabricated claim". I was able to find some sources alleging Love Jihad's existence
 * https://theprint.in/india/kerala-catholic-church-says-love-jihad-a-reality-alleges-women-being-lured-into-is-trap/349951/
 * https://www.deccanherald.com/national/kerala-police-intensify-love-jihad-investigation-29746.html
 * https://www.mynation.com/views/love-jihad-the-dangerous-undercurrent-that-is-destroying-our-social-fabric-pzir7g
 * I'm not sure whether these are sufficient

I suggest changing the opening sentence to "Love Jihad (also known as Romeo Jihad) is an allegation, developed by proponents of Hindutva, which claims that Muslim men target Hindu women for conversion to Islam by means such as seduction, feigning love,deception,kidnapping, and marriage, as part of a broader "war" by Muslims against India,and an organised international conspiracy, for domination through demographic growth and replacement" instead of the current version which completely debunks the theory. There has been many such allegations on many a persons and many communities. AARYA SAJAYAN (talk) 09:23, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , neutral point of view on Wikipedia is described as "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." The references cited to for the descriptor can be found in . Note that this is only a small set of sources which describe it as a "conspiracy theory" or "fabrication". You are free to be agnostic about its existence but do note that unwarranted promotion of fringe theories is not allowed on Wikipedia.
 * Out of the three sources you have provided, two of them report on "love jihad" allegations being made by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad and the Catholic Church, the third one is an opinion piece on My Nation. None of these, either the VHP, the Church or the opinion piece can be used as reliable sources let alone over high quality academic sources. Please carefully go through the section on false balance 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."
 * The lead of the articles uses 20+ academic sources and contradicts your assertion that there is a lack of proper reliable sources on the topic. I would suggest going through them, every single one in some form or the other describe it as a hoax. Many of them document the role and methods through which the media has contributed in its growth in popularity, which also contradicts your assertion that the current state of the article is so because of bias in mainstream media or because of them being "majorly slightly leftist". The largest news outlet in Kerala, Asianet News for instance, is directly owned by a Bharatiya Janata Party politician. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 14:25, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The lead of the articles uses 20+ academic sources and contradicts your assertion that there is a lack of proper reliable sources on the topic. I would suggest going through them, every single one in some form or the other describe it as a hoax. Many of them document the role and methods through which the media has contributed in its growth in popularity, which also contradicts your assertion that the current state of the article is so because of bias in mainstream media or because of them being "majorly slightly leftist". The largest news outlet in Kerala, Asianet News for instance, is directly owned by a Bharatiya Janata Party politician. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 14:25, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The lead of the articles uses 20+ academic sources and contradicts your assertion that there is a lack of proper reliable sources on the topic. I would suggest going through them, every single one in some form or the other describe it as a hoax. Many of them document the role and methods through which the media has contributed in its growth in popularity, which also contradicts your assertion that the current state of the article is so because of bias in mainstream media or because of them being "majorly slightly leftist". The largest news outlet in Kerala, Asianet News for instance, is directly owned by a Bharatiya Janata Party politician. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 14:25, 9 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree with Tayi Arajakate. NarSakSasLee (talk) 23:05, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 May 2021
Love Jihad is not a conspiracy theory. In fact this term was first used by the Honorable High Court of the State of Kerela, India. The court had made this remark after observing a strong trend of coerced Islamic conversion of girls belonging to Hindu and Christian faith. So, the openings lines of this article itself derail the entire by calling it a conspiracy. This article needs a serious change and at least you can publish the views from both sides. 2601:401:4381:95A0:5956:79CB:9407:3DBB (talk) 18:41, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:05, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 May 2021
Please review this topic before calling it a conspiracy theory. There are young Islamic boys being used for the sake of this purpose. For converting people groups into Islam, thereby, breaking the code of secularism in India. I am a witness to how illegal drugs like cocaine is being injected into the society using Islamic youth by many so called rich NRI influencers. PLEASE DO NOT OVERLOOK THIS HUMBLE REQUEST. 2A00:1851:8004:4730:1:2:6065:B64A (talk) 16:23, 12 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. I'll also add it is a conspiracy. You just have to read the peer reviewed citations to know that. There are plenty of people who believe the moon is made out of cheese and that the earth is flat, but it doesn't make it true. I'm also just going to add, no one really cares if you are personally witness to something. You yourself are not a reliable source. We don't even know who you are, so your claims can't be taken seriously unless someone reliable has academically assessed your claims. NarSakSasLee (talk) 16:29, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 May 2021
Child grooming is another way of Love Jihad happening in the UK. This can be used as a reference. Please add a sentence with a link to child grooming. The Rotherham sex grooming case has been the most infamous in the UK
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Run n Fly (talk) 18:21, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , how to establish a consensus?
 * Since the UK grooming gangs aren't trying to convert anyone, and the reference you provided doesn't mention Love Jihad, it's difficult to imagine why it should be included. FDW777 (talk) 18:58, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , Sexual grooming for which this can be used as a reference is just like Love jihad - it says, "In many cases the men deceive the girls into believing that they are Sikh to gain their trust." For your information, the Supreme Court of India has ruled that Sikhism is a  sect of Hinduism.
 * , This gives some details
 * For the Sikh issue, the following passage contradicts your claims;
 * "In 2013, BBC Inside Out London investigated allegations made by members of the Sikh community that British Sikh girls living inside Britain were being targeted by men who pretend(ed) to be Sikhs. However an investigation the Sikh scholar Katy Sian of the University of York found no truth to the allegations and instead found it was an allegation being pushed by extremist Sikh groups. Further reports compiled by the British government and child sex exploitation scholars also confirmed there was no evidence to this."
 * As for the "grooming gang" cases, their impact was politicised and vastly exaggerated. They were not representative of any trend from a particular group according to the UK government's finalised report on the issue.
 * ""Based on the existing evidence, and our understanding of the flaws in the existing data, it seems most likely that the ethnicity of group-based CSE offenders is in line with CSA [child sexual abuse] more generally and with the general population, with the majority of offenders being White"."
 * In other words you're evidence is pretty weak and conspiratorial. NarSakSasLee (talk) 01:10, 16 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: You would need to find reliable sources referring to child grooming as related to love jihad. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:51, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Written only from one community's Perspective; biased article
Why I'm this article it is shown that this a some conspiracy against muslims by Hindu's? The fact is this is a prejudice agains Hindu's by Muslims. And it's proven, many cases have been filed by Hindu Girls and their Family for this. Please correct the tone of the article! Sunny.s.Singh (talk) 06:18, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Per the FAQ at the top of the page. The consensus of high-quality academic sources is that Love Jihad is a conspiracy theory or fabricated claim. Please see for the list. Wikipedia articles are based on reliable sources, and not original research. The unwarranted promotion of fringe theories is not allowed on Wikipedia. FDW777 (talk) 07:10, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2021
love jihad is a love trap where a muslim person cheat someone from another religion in a love trap and forcefully convert them into Islam .it's not a consiperancy theory it's a CRIME Krad nomed (talk) 11:54, 12 June 2021 (UTC) whatever written on the page is a lie
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. – NJD-DE (talk) 11:56, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2021
Love Jihad, also called Romeo Jihad, is 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 by feigning love. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2401:4900:5850:b6ef:5c94:dfb8:a76b:6d9f (talk) 05:04, 12 June 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. – NJD-DE (talk) 12:00, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2021 (2)
Love jihad is real, it's not only practiced in india but also in UK , CANADA , and it's just not against Hindu girls but also sikh , budhist girls are lured in fake trap of love then they ask them to convert into Islam , not every thing is Islamophobia , people of that religion are bad , as whole Germany was not bad but still a small section of Nazis killed nearly 16 billion people 2409:4055:2E1B:626:664D:474F:6708:305B (talk) 12:16, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Additionally: you can't make a claim that every Muslim is bad and then use the reasoning that only a small part of Germany was bad, that's self-contradictory, and ironic, considering that this theory is itself thought to be similar to Nazi Germany's views of Jewish people. Please refrain from making general derogatory claims about religions - Wikipedia has many Muslim editors who will be offended by such things and Wikipedia is a community effort. A S U K I T E  12:44, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

How to tackle such false content?
Here the totally wrong explanation given for Love jihad. So is there any way to talk through this to find out the glitches. BBBoec (talk) 14:02, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * @BBBoec, all controversial statements in this article are backed up by reliable sources, as said in the FAQ. Long-standing consensus is that the content of this article is correct. If you want to change it, you will need reliable sources as well as achieving consensus. — Berrely  • Talk∕Contribs 15:43, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions?
Would it be possible for a sanction to be applied authorising the immediate removal of "Love Jihad is real" posts, unless supported by high-quality academic sources? The FAQ doesn't seem to deter anyone from the same, tired arguments. Pinging the five most recent admins listed at Arbitration enforcement log,, , , ,. FDW777 (talk) 10:39, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , wow, yes. This has really spiraled down today, might be social media traffic being directed here. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 14:42, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I found the reason. This reddit sub links to an article that calls us "Islamist Wikipedia editors and moderators" and all but instructs people to come to the talk page. The article itself is from a blacklisted source. Notfrompedro (talk) 22:22, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the information, but my post was made before the majority of the current complaints. See for example Talk:Love Jihad/Archive 3 where the majority of threads are people complaining it's not a conspiracy theory. This is a long-standing problem with this talk page, not just something that occurred yesterday.


 * As for the blacklisted article's complaint that the article says Love Jihad is a conspiracy theory while reverse Love Jihad is not, well that's perfectly acceptable in my opinion. Love Jihad is a conspiracy theory, according to a consensus of high-quality academic sources. Despite that, some in India believe it is real, and have organised a campaign of reverse Love Jihad. That Muslims are organising Love Jihad is a conspiracy theory (who, for example, is supposed to be doing the organising? Is it not simply more likely that two people from different backgrounds fall in love, and that Muslims keep their religion secret due to Islamaphobia?), that the Hindu Jagran Manch are organising reverse Love Jihad is a fact. FDW777 (talk) 07:32, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It's almost like if you react to an imaginary thing, your reaction exists but the imagination still does not become real. It's best just to ignore OpIndia, this is part of their MO to pull people into a conspiracy theory rabbit hole. Anyways, I do agree that this page needs a moratorium on "not conspiracy theory" requests. I was just commenting on the sudden spike. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 08:22, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I have changed that section a bit, the wording certainly needed improvement. It was missing another reference to the term as well. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 08:58, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

OpIndia
Just published an article about this article, so, have fun I guess. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:11, 13 June 2021 (UTC)


 * If an uninvolved administrator is needed for something that is not a content dispute, you can leave a message on my talk page. I am glad to help. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 11:20, 13 June 2021 (UTC)


 * and this is discussed at  above. The talk page semi-protection seems to have worked, and the article protection was upgraded as well. Things seem relatively calm, for now at least. FDW777 (talk) 11:36, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I could have bothered to ctrl-f OpIndia on this page. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:43, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello! Gråbergs Gråa Sång No one cares about that fake news portal OpIndia! Also OpIndia is currently in the List of fake news websites. So have fun! Tamjeed Ahmed (talk) 11:38, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 June 2021
It should be mentioned here that this information is thinking of only thousands of people on earth but the fact is that there is real jahaad on earth and jihaadis are targeting non Muslim girls for their physical needs only. 2401:4900:51CA:31A5:D02:3EFD:5FAC:8909 (talk) 10:12, 16 June 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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:15, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 June 2021
[copyright violation redacted] 103.3.204.22 (talk) 14:12, 17 June 2021 (UTC)


 * ❌ Consensus, which would be extremely unlikely to be obtained, would be needed for that change, even though it's unclear exactly what change is being requested. FDW777 (talk) 14:15, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I've removed the original post as it was a copyright violation. firefly  ( t · c ) 14:16, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 June 2021
Love Jihad means when one causes the other to convert to Islam through a false hope of love and marriage. This practice is commonly seen as Muslim man pretending to be in love with Hindu woman with an intention of converting them. 2401:4900:1FE1:C203:1:1:DC45:DDF3 (talk) 01:38, 18 June 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. Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:01, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

This Article provides a narrow minded idea of the issue.
This article follows what is the left's overcompensating secularist values, demeaning the Hindu community. I would assure that this issue is legitimate and therefore would argue for an edit of this. This issue is not at all Islamophobic. In fact, the Courts in India have accepted this and have accepted that the conversions done solely for marriage can be null and void. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhenomenalBIRTHDAY (talk • contribs) 11:39, 18 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Please have a read at what a reliable source is. This article uses neutral sources. Furthermore exactly who are you to personally "assure" this conspiracy theory is real? NarSakSasLee (talk) 22:57, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 June 2021
Love jihad is not the propagation of Islamophobia more over it shows the wrong happening in the name of islam. Love jihad is not a conspiracy theory but a fact happening in real time and I will give u proof to show the following and I request u to act upon it and show that it's not a conspiracy. As Wikipedia is a platform which is accessed by millions of youngsters this will be keeping them away from the real information. Love Jihad happens in real time. I am attaching various news articles to prove my point below. So I request u to remove the part where it says that it's a conspiracy and please remove the comparison with Zionism.

https://www.timesnownews.com/india/article/up-love-jihad-25-year-old-tutor-kidnaps-teenage-student-tries-to-forcibly-convert-her/716252

https://theprint.in/india/theyre-taking-our-girls-to-isis-how-church-is-now-driving-love-jihad-narrative-in-kerala/632324/

MP woman gets husband arrested under 'love jihad' law Vishnu Sooraj (talk) 21:06, 21 June 2021 (UTC)


 * ❌ One day people might understand that isolated cases are not proof of an organised conspiracy to convert non-Muslims. FDW777 (talk) 21:29, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 June 2021
This is exist in real.Not only in Indian subcontinent but also in all over world. Zarin tariq (talk) 09:55, 22 June 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. firefly  ( t · c ) 10:07, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

This Article reads like a piece of political propaganda.
This article has an overly political tone, and reads like a propaganda piece. It does not represent a neutral or academic point of view, nor is it up to the standards of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.226.182.46 (talk • contribs) 23:37, 22 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Your assertions are ridiculous. It uses the highest quality sources available. The consensus of high-quality academic sources is that Love Jihad is a conspiracy theory or fabricated claim. Please see for the list. Wikipedia articles are based on reliable sources, and not original research. The unwarranted promotion of fringe theories is not allowed on Wikipedia. NarSakSasLee (talk) 02:03, 23 June 2021 (UTC)


 * There is no reason for it to have so many political references, obsessions about political parties, and political rantings. Please see the 'islamophobia' and 'criticism of islam' pages for examples of articles that are up to wikipedia standards. Again, this article reads like political propaganda. Take your agenda elsewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.226.182.46 (talk • contribs) 02:28, 23 June 2021 (UTC)


 * No one here cares if you think it reads like political propaganda. We know it it doesn't. There are no political references. Please stop being disingenuous and insulting the intelligence of the Wikipedia community. The lead stays as it is because it contains the best and most reliable neutral sources available. NarSakSasLee (talk) 10:05, 23 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Ah yes, here comes the personal attacks! 'We' just means you and another editor. 'There are no political references' is another blatant falsehood. The article is chalk-full of them, and inexplicably consumes the majority of the content. Again, see other articles on Islam for examples of writing from neutral non-politicized POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.226.182.46 (talk) 15:52, 23 June 2021 (UTC)


 * The consensus of high-quality academic sources is that Love Jihad is a conspiracy theory or fabricated claim. Please see for the list. Wikipedia articles are based on reliable sources, and not original research. The unwarranted promotion of fringe theories is not allowed on Wikipedia.. This discussion is closed. NarSakSasLee (talk) 17:02, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Love Jihad
Love Jihad is not just a conspiracy theory, this term was coined by Kerala Highcourt in 2009 after proper hearing, so wikipedia page as of now is misleading is not it?? Adhrits (talk) 03:49, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The article notes what the Kerala High Court has ruled. It also notes the 2009 ruling is disputed and the 2017 ruling was overturned.  What is missing is reliably-sourced evidence that Love Jihad is real. • Gene93k (talk) 04:51, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

But this case needed mention in a page dedicated for love jihad together with any other such incidents. Adhrits (talk) 11:13, 24 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Gene93k has already answered this. Didn't you read what he wrote? NarSakSasLee (talk) 11:25, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Love Jihad means when one causes the other to convert to Islam through a false hope of love and marriage. This practice is commonly seen as Muslim men pretending to be in love with hindu, Christian,sikhs, Buddhist,Jews women with an intention of converting them.. and making Islam more wider religion in the world.. that's the motive behind love jihad Mohmdhabibi (talk) 09:42, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Love jihad is real. Either publish the facts taking opinion from victimised women or remove this page. Publishing something to appease a religion is shameful. Shivaistamilan (talk) 12:11, 12 June 2021 (UTC)


 * No, it's not. Please see the facts stated in the lead. NarSakSasLee (talk) 17:04, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Neutral point of view and gaming the system
When some Hindu right wing talks about Love Jihad it can't be included, but when the same people will speak about Reverse love jihad, it will be included. Wikipedia policies can be used by some experienced editors to insert or remove contents according to their whim. Clever editors know when to use same policies to game the system. I know some will cite some policies to justify this. Whatever is written on top, I am not questioning that but when elected government, Member of parliament, cops, police, are saying about it, it should not be removed, but added according to POV attribute.

FYI the term was first used by Kerala communist's, not by Hindus right wing.

I- CPM chief minister in 2010- https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/kerala-cm-criticised-for-speaking-out-against-love-jihad/articleshow/6221406.cms - Congress on Monday described the chief minister’s statement that fundamentalist outfits like Popular Front of India were using “money and marriages to make Kerala a Muslim majority state” as part of the Left’s plans to appease the majority community.

II- December 2009- Kerala HC asks govt to frame laws to stop ‘love jihad’ - https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/kerala-hc-asks-govt-to-frame-laws-to-stop-love-jihad/articleshow/5320856.cms

III- October 2009- HC tells Centre, State to probe ‘Love Jihad’- https://www.newindianexpress.com/states/kerala/2009/oct/01/hc-tells-centre-state-to-probe-love-jihad-92609.html

IV- Kerala high court finds signs of 'Love Jihad', suggests law checks it- https://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-kerala-high-court-finds-signs-of-love-jihad-suggests-law-checks-it-1321955 (The same DNAindia sources were used to write about the reverse love jihad section)

Even churches use the same term.

2- Christian girls targeted and killed in name of love jihad: Kerala's Syro-Malabar church- https://www.theweek.in/news/india/2020/01/15/christian-girls-targeted-and-killed-in-name-of-love-jihad-kerala-syro-malabar-church.html

3- The Syro-Malabar Church, the largest Christian denomination in Kerala, on Wednesday said Christian girls are being targeted and killed after being forced into marriages and blamed the police for not taking effective measures to curb the menace. - https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/christian-girls-are-targeted-by-love-jihad-says-kerala-church/story-FX0OwjtSwoowz5pG5ltsdO.html

4- Issues like conversion of the ancient Hagia Sophia church in Turkey to a mosque, incidents of 'Love Jihad' and 'harassment' of nuns in a moving train in Uttar Pradesh, will be reflected in the April 6 assembly polls, say voters in Christian dominated Central Kerala constituencies. - https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/elections/assembly-elections/kerala/conversion-of-hagia-sophia-love-jihad-to-be-a-factor-in-central-kerala-constituencies/articleshow/81895488.cms

5- The Syro-Malabar Church's statement pointed out that out of the 21 people from Kerala recruited to IS a couple of years back, almost half were converted from the Christian community. "It is a reality that 'Love Jihad' is happening in Kerala in a plan...

Read more at: https://www.deccanherald.com/national/south/kerala-church-says-love-jihad-is-real-claims-christian-women-being-lured-into-is-trap-794814.html -

Now lots of policies will be cited, why this can't be included in the article, but as mentioned above, if the same people given in links above, would have spoken about "reverse love jihad", then some other policies would have been used, to include the articles, in reverse love jihad section.

Once, Rotherham sexual exploitation was kept hidden, and whoever spoke against it was called Islamophobic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:3A80:1122:D399:C5A2:6627:C726:E8F5 (talk) 02:35, 23 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Boring. It is a straightforward fact that Reverse Love Jihad exists, since "The Hindu Jagran Manch, an affiliate of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, has announced that from next week it will marry 2,100 Muslim women to Hindu men". What is not a straightforward fact is that Love Jihad exists as part of a broader "war" by Muslims against India, and an organised international conspiracy.


 * The neutral point of view among hish quality academic references is that Love Jihad remains a conspiracy theory. FDW777 (talk) 07:54, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * As mentioned in links above. Kerala high court found evidence of love jihad, and even communists and churches mentioned love jihad. But the full lead section puts entire blame on Hindus. While the church, high court is mentioned in article. The lead section should be summary of entire article. Most readers read and give importance to first few lines. That is the agenda here. If you people won't mention Kerala court judge's views and church's accusation in the first paragraphs, in spite of reliable sources, means all editors editing here are biased.


 * Example- Media will say Taliban destroyed Bamiyan Buddha, some academics sitting in their apartments in New York, Washington DC will write academic books "Hindu Barjrang Dal destroyed Bamiyan statues in Afghanistan".


 * DNA links, News18 links are used to write about reverse love jihad, but if I give similar links about love jihad, you people will not accept. 2402:3A80:1102:8F92:850D:E005:9AD5:68D7 (talk) 09:18, 23 June 2021 (UTC)


 * You seem unaware of how conspiracy theories work. Here it goes...


 * Someone publishes an article claiming the World Trade Centre collapsing on 9/11 was as a result of controlled demolition. Some people read that article, and start talking about it. Some of those people decide to publish their own articles. So more people see those articles, and start talking about then, and some of them decided to write their own articles. And it continues spreading exponentially, until it reaches the reasonable limit of people who are inclines to believe the theory in the first place. It doesn't matter how many people write articles, read them, talk about them and campaign about the issue, it doesn't change the fact that the original theory was never true.


 * Love Jihad is a conspiracy theory, according to the consensus of high quality academic references. Quote mining some church spokesperson does not change that. FDW777 (talk) 09:24, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Explain why the entire lead section has no mention of Church, CPM Chief Minister VS Achuthanandan, Kerala High Court. So even though those cases are real, just because academics blamed only Hindius, so Wikipedians will blame only Hindus. I have given sources above, so not repeating. '''Now Sikhs groups have also accepted Love Jihad.

''' https://www.hindustantimes.com/punjab/love-jihad-uk-sikh-girls-exploitation-worries-takht/story-6awkCCoAHZDu627o9FIfrN.html

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/love-jihad-appears-on-uk-sikh-manifesto-raises-murmurs-of-protest/articleshow/46581376.cms

I understand, why you people call it a conspiracy theory. As there are sources.

2402:3A80:111B:960A:D0F2:4114:C639:D676 (talk) 09:40, 23 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Accusations are the not same as something being real. There are plenty of accusations that the earth is flat. It doesn't make it so. And they do not all need to be mentioned in order to get this across to readers. Love Jihad is not real because there is no tangible evidence regarding its existence by neutral sources. Furthermore the Indian media is not a reliable source given its poor reputation of promoting government sponsored content, fake news and the fact that it's press freedom index is so poor. This is why academic sources are used. They are subject to peer review and are hence far more reliable. Academic consensus is that love jihad simply does not exist, no matter how much you want to believe its real. Also in response to the accusations being made by the Sikhs in the UK - this has already been covered in the UK section of this article and has also proven false. There is zero evidence of it being real. It is also curious you mention Rotherham - that again in not love jihad (let alone the fact that it was exposed by a Pakistani Muslim himself and had nothing to do with Islamophobia). Furthermore a UK government report has already proven it was a minority of Pakistani Muslims involved in such activities and was not as widespread as some were making it out to be. Finally reverse love jihad is mentioned because one of the largest Hindu political groups has declared their intention of promoting it numerous times; and crucially there is evidence behind that. No Muslim group has done the same for love jihad. Therefore one of these is actually real, and other is not. NarSakSasLee (talk) 10:18, 23 June 2021 (UTC)


 * You wrote - "No Muslim group has done the same for love jihad." What people says and what people does. Which is more important. Hindu group says that they will convert, but Christian, Hindu girls are already converted.


 * Operation Conversion Mafia: Kerala's conversion factories unmasked - https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/love-jihad-kerala-conversion-factory-islamic-state-1078518-2017-10-31


 * Kerala women who joined Islamic State now want to return home.Nimisha and Sonia had converted to Islam from Hindu and Christian faiths during their college days.  - www.newindianexpress.com/states/kerala/2020/mar/16/kerala-women-who-joined-islamic-state-now-want-to-return-home-2117159.html. Love jihad is mostly done by these type of people Lone wolf (terrorism).


 * If reverse love jihad is real, then create a different short article, not push it here. You have your sources to show that love jihad is  a conspiracy theory. But you don't have much strong reason to include reverse love jihad in this page about love jihad.


 * You wrote- Furthermore the Indian media is not a reliable source given its poor reputation of promoting government sponsored content, fake news and the fact that it's press freedom index is so poor. This is why academic sources are used., but, you have used same Indian media to show reverse love jihad. That is what is gaming the system, according to the personal bias and propaganda. Many experienced editors did this before, that's why Wikipedia has this page. 2402:3A80:113F:CD2:4893:8C45:6DFB:69B (talk) 10:55, 23 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry but your points are nonsensical. When it comes down to it, you want the Wikipedia community to disregard peer review sources in favour of highly questionable media reports filled with emotive and near-hysterical accusations than substantive facts. That's not going to happen. As for the inclusion of reverse love jihad, if you look closer there is a peer reviewed article used to cite whether or not the accusation is true, followed by articles from the Indian media. This is an acceptable way of citing sources because they are of secondary use in relation to the peer review work. NarSakSasLee (talk) 11:57, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

The peer reviewed article, that you said about reverse love jihad is written by Dr. Shahnawaz Ahmed Malik of Aligarh Muslim University; Everyone can understand why he will accept reverse love jihad and say love jihad is a myth. But mentioning it will be termed as Islamophobic. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3576061

You are hatting this discussion, as your Islamist agenda is exposed. You people will support a Hinduphobic article written by a Muslim professor from a Muslim university. If Wikipedia follows WP:NPOV, then this article by someone who spends his time inside a Muslim university can't be a neutral source. 2402:3A80:110B:346:9E:851E:CD89:81E1 (talk) 13:11, 23 June 2021 (UTC)


 * User:NarSakSasLee stated above: ''As for the inclusion of reverse love jihad, if you look closer there is a peer reviewed article used to cite whether or not the accusation is true, followed by articles from the Indian media. This is an acceptable way of citing sources because they are of secondary use in relation to the peer review work.

''
 * So, i checked the sources from the Reverse love jihad section and found that it has only one peer reveiwed article by a professor from a Muslim university from Aligarh. I found another peer reviewed article from a similar peer reviewed source.


 * Source that Wikipedians will support-  https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3576061


 * Source that Wikipedians won't support- https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3810443


 * You will find that both are from same area. 2402:3A80:112B:3D47:7D9F:A329:CE38:30ED (talk) 14:42, 23 June 2021 (UTC)


 * If you think "Love Jihad Dataset from 2015 to 2019" is a remotely credible reference, I can only assume you have not read it. FDW777 (talk) 14:51, 23 June 2021 (UTC)


 * It's clearly not credible due the frequent misspellings, inclduing the repeated failure to even capitalise words. Secondly, everything he says is wrong. For example the above data sjows the victim of love jihad religionwise from september 2015 to december 2019. in this 4 years many people are killed in love jihad. Except the data "sjows" (sic) no such thing. There is the original statista report. It says A total of 902 crimes were reported to because of alleged hate - varying from caste, religion to honor killing and love jihad. So while the data does include an unspecificed number of victims, there is no evidence about how many people it involved and no evidence of any deaths. Your garbage non-reference goes on to state If they are secure how come 619 hindu dalit girls fall victim of love jihad ? This means 155 girls per year !!. Ignoring that serious, peer-reviwed academic works don't use punctuation such as "!!." (sic), the original statistics do not support the claim 619 "hindu dalit" (sic) girls were victims of Love Jihad. The author appears in complete denial about the well known discrimination directed at the Dalit minority by Indian fascists. FDW777 (talk) 15:08, 23 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I have read the per reviewed article by Aligarh Muslim University. One one hand media sources are considered less reliable, while in the same peer reviewed article, that Wikipedians trust so much, he has accepted that he learned from India media sources, not through independent scholarly research. It has 10 pages in PDF. The reverse love jihad section written by Dr. Shahnawaz Ahmed Malik is:

Reverse Love Jihad Various fundamentalist organizations or groups are announcing that they will help marry Muslim women to Hindu men and that they would provide both financial and social security to the newly-weds. Cases of reverse Love Jihad were reported from various parts of Uttar Pradesh where members of one fundamentalist organisation were found involved in rape and abduction of Muslims women. The number of abducted women is growing and according to report published by DNA news- paper online edition written by Shweta Desai with the title, „Reverse Love Jihad surfaces in U.P, and between 2014 and October 2016‟, 389 cases of underage girls missing or kidnapped were registered by the district police.

Now he accepted that he read the newspaper report from DNA and wrote this. --42.110.223.232 (talk) 15:28, 23 June 2021 (UTC)


 * It looks like this discussion is closed but I will add something. OP, I just find it ridiculous you seem to think a person's research aren't valid because the university they come from has the word "Muslim" in it. Yale University, an Ivy League institution, has Hebrew in their official motto, yet it doesn't suddenly make them unreliable when it comes to matters outside of Judaism or even concerning Judaism. The same can be said of Oxford and Cambridge, both of which started out as religious institutions. You are pretty discriminative and this isn't something Wikipedia takes lightly. We don't dismiss peer review on the basis of an assumption they are a from a religion or people we don't like. Also it doesn't matter its just from one peer review source - it's still been peer reviewed (in other words it has been fact checked). Furthermore, the peer review source was good enough that it was published by a reputable academic publisher based in the West (Elsevier). No matter what you claim, or will claims, the source is solid. This discussion is closed. Either provide sources that are equivalent in strength to those provided or like other users have said go away. NarSakSasLee (talk) 16:51, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

These two editors first said that peer reviewed articles are best, then when I found similar peer reviewed article, they said it is garbage article. They don't know that Aligarh Muslim university is religious Sir Syed Mosque. The peer reviewed article they support has mentioned DNA media as main sources, while they say it is the main source, whole DNA reports are secondary. Two weird editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:3a80:110a:f425:39bb:1619:9eb:bfe4 (talk • contribs) 17:27, 23 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Please do not insult our intelligence. You cited this paper which isn't even peer reviewed. It is only a page long once you remove the graphic included in it. Additionally the paper itself doesn't even cite any sources to back up it's claims, apart from "statista" which doesn't even refer to love jihad. Furthermore it doesn't even have a DOI, and the creditionals of the person making the accusation is highly questionable; he simply calls himself an "advocate". How Elsevier ended up allowing this travesty to be published on their platform is completely beyond me. Anyone involved in the academic world can see how much of a joke the source you're claiming is. NarSakSasLee (talk) 18:25, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Recommendation

 * This message is in response to the request at ANI: Administrators%27 noticeboard/Incidents where there is a complaint that this talk page is being disrupted by constant requests for matters that have already been resolved by consensus. I am responding in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator, and not taking as side in the content dispute.


 * Since the page is under discretionary sanctions I suggest that you come to a consensus on this talk page that perennial requests that have already been resolved be moved to a subpage. This has been done with great success at Talk:Muhammad/images where users are constantly asking for the images to be removed. The consensus should clearly describe specifically what topics should be moved there. Once there is such a consensus an uninvolved administrator, such as myself, can put a discretionary sanction to that effect on this talk page.


 * This will allow the primary talk page to be used for improving the article. Requests moved to the subpage should still be responded to and user's whose message is moved should be notified on their talk page.


 * In addition I recommend making an FAQ subpage(again see Talk:Muhammad/FAQ) to this talk page that answers frequent queries and links to existing consensus on the matter so that such requests can be answered easily.


 * Again for this to be done there needs to be a clear consensus that the current situation is disruptive and that this should be done. If consensus for this is reached drop me a message on my talk page. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 23:07, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggest. After looking at Talk:Muhammad, I think a banner at the top saying Discussion of whether Love Jihad is a conspiracy theory, MUST be posted to the conspiracy theory subpage would be a good addition. FDW777 (talk) 08:13, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Archive links to citations
I was unfortunately as surprised as you might be checking my diff where I ran the IABot to add archival urls. Didn't expect it would be somewhat disruptive, but since this is from an approved bot, please ignore the diff. If something is really wrong, please revert that part, and possibly report to IABot. Thanks! -- DaxServer (talk) 15:04, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 June 2021
Love jihad means when one causes the other to convert to islam through a false hope of love and marriage. This practice is commonly seen as muslim men pretending to be in love with hindu women or innocent girls with an intention of converting them into islam. 2409:4055:D:3C03:0:0:2962:8A0 (talk) 13:27, 27 June 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. firefly  ( t · c ) 13:35, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 June 2021 (2)
2405:204:A681:9B1A:8529:7C84:49FC:FDC (talk) 18:23, 27 June 2021 (UTC)this post is very disrespectful for religious sentiments of Hinduism and it is not right
 * Please only use the template for requesting changes. If you would like to request a change, feel free to do so. Giraffer (talk·contribs) 18:26, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 June 2021 (3)
Sakshammutra (talk) 18:26, 27 June 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.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 July 2021
Change --- Love Jihad (also known as Romeo Jihad) is an Islamophobic conspiracy theory developed by proponents of the Hindutva ideology. -

To Love Jihad (also known as Romeo Jihad) is an Islamophobic conspiracy theory developed by proponents of the Hindutva ideology. The conspiracy theory is supported by few Sikh groups, Kerala churches, communists, Ladakh Buddhists in India. The term Love Jihad is assumed to have originated in coastal Karnataka and Kerala. 2402:3A80:112A:C814:D1BC:941A:6FC6:928A (talk) 13:38, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Concur A slightly modified version of this text would do perfect, It provides more information on the topic and might be necessary to provide proper context. -- KindCowboy69 ☮ 14:23, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * ❌ Per WP:ER, consensus is required for controversial changes. I see no reason why the academic references should be tossed aside in this way. FDW777 (talk) 15:14, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed, even assuming that the IP meant "a few" rather than "few" (a crucial difference!) it would be misleading, and inappropriate both in terms of poor sourcing and because it would add POV wording to what is a neutral and well-balanced text. --bonadea contributions talk 15:42, 2 July 2021 (UTC)


 * What these people here suggests is that, entire media from newspapers, journalists, TV channels, of whole world are bunch of liars, compared to some academics sitting in their university offices, and never doing investigative journalism, and on-field reporting. Academic sources are good for history, science, study related subjects, but not for current events, wars, conflicts. I am not sure about neutral consensus, as due to covid most neutral volunteers have passed away, or facing personal problems, and Wikipedia has become playground for paid editors. Every media report, all videos, pictures, news, all are wrong. No wait, media coverage will be reliable if they report what these editors like to hear. If their media will say Hindus are evil community, then media sources are good, if same media will say Hindus are victims, lets drag some academic sources say, no Hindus are evil. 2402:3A80:110B:3915:71DD:BB9A:9BFE:354B (talk) 16:12, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You appear to be a believer in multiple conspiracy theories, including that of love jihad. An individual like you cannot be taken seriously here, especially one who is trying to play victim here. I suggest you take a break from the circus that is the Indian media. NarSakSasLee (talk) 13:54, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Nobody has suggested that all (or most, or any) media are liars, so this is just a straw man argument. --bonadea contributions talk 16:37, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't ask anyone to remove academic sources. I wanted to add extra info, which you people will not add. I hope more American school shootings, European bomb blasts by Islamists are written as conspiracy theories by academics siting in Pakistani, Somalian universities, then I will add all as conspiracy theories. You said poor sourcing, Chinese academics will say Tibet, Uighur cases as conspiracy theories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:3a80:1102:861f:8140:c253:71c7:530a (talk)
 * Well, instead of adding dark sarcasm, when you don't get what you asked for, seek consensus and discuss about each source. It is a very long process but WP:BURDEN is on you as you are the one who asked for the changes. Start a discussion! -- DaxServer (talk) 17:15, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Discussion will be pointless. I alone can't do anything here. Most editors making edit requests don't know anything. These people like Bonadea, very well knows that none was poor sourcing. I know you all are White people. I will wait for some Pakistani academic to write scholarly article that Rotherham Sexual exploitation case is an Islamophobic conspiracy theory created by racist, white British, 2005 London blast was an Islamophobic conspiracy theory as Tony Blair bombed London. Those scholarly articles should be in English, not Urdu. I will hope Iranian, Libyan academics will write academic journals, how Madrid bombings, Belgian airport attacks, France truck attack, Charlie Hebdo attacks are Islamophobic conspiracy theory created by Ku Klax Klan. Then you white Wikipedians will get confused. As victims belong to your own race, you will be forced to support academic sources. Many Muslims said World Trade Centre attack was inside job, but you didn't add that in main article. Like USA bombing Muslim countries, but asking India to forgive Pakistan, you are doing same thing here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:3a80:110b:5721:91e4:157d:7ea0:ec71 (talk • contribs) 17:28, 2 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I am in agreement with . The section does not need changing, especially with sources as poor as those, offered by the OP. The OP also seems to have a thing against academics, despite them knowing the topic (they are experts in their field after all) far better than journalists ever will (the latter are more often than not partisan rather than neutral, which is especially true in a place like India where false information is widely spread all the time). The OP also seems to not be acting in good faith with his bizarre off-topic diatribes where he clearly believes Islamophobia isn't real and is trying to conflate love jihad with terrorist attacks for some reason? This is not a forum. This is an open and shut case. Peer reviewed academic sources can never be superseded by what some random Indian journalist says or believes. NarSakSasLee (talk) 13:46, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Too much reliance on opinion pieces?
Wikipedia clearly is against opinion pieces being used as references, Let it be from anywhere in the political spectrum, However, This article takes a heavily subjective, and controversially topic and completely makes it a one sided political argument, It is extremely damaging to wiki's credibility and disrespecting of the millions of editors who spend countless hours to keep wiki neutral, Only to see someone quote nameless opinion pieces from unknown sites and damage its reputation without trouble

The notion of a love jihad is not essentially true, There is no communal conspiracy to target women of other faiths looking at the statistics, However, The phenomenon of this happening here and there is true, And that cannot be censored under the umbrella of islamophobia.

What is the difference between this article and some nationalist arguing his country has no crime and quoting opindia while at it? This is article needs work, A lot of work, Complete disregard for WP:NPOV, Clear bias and ignoring a contributor's WP:COI has lead to this. This article needs fixing, And with all the political partisans coming in to 'fix it' themselves, Anyone trying to actually fix it and make it neutral would be called out and suppressed, This is a failure of neutrality, And someone needs to fix it. -- KindCowboy69 ☮ 07:46, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * See FAQ. I note there are no specific objections to any specific part of the article, thus your rant can be safely ignored. FDW777 (talk) 07:59, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You call this a rant? Ahh you thought i am some troll, I did read the FAQ, And if you'd read my whole 'rant', You'd understand my point, But offcourse not. Well nevertheless, I am not going to chicken out, This is a bad article that cites biased works as references, It sounds like a half literate partisan wrote it, And if there was list of bad article, This'd rank top, This does not belong in the islamophobia section. You can continue with your political prejudice, Kudos! And I am certain many others would agree, You do not happen to own wiki or this page do you now. -- KindCowboy69 ☮ 08:08, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * @KindCowboy69 If you see any NPOV issues, please raise them specifically and discuss about it. I have no clue which sections or statements, or might be the article itself, you are trying to refer to! -- DaxServer (talk) 08:45, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * if you'd read my whole 'rant', You'd understand my point Sorry, it is not actually possible to understand your point – I read your original post several times and your actual argument is very obscure. You mention "nameless opinion pieces from unknown sites" without giving any specifics or examples; you clearly can't refer to the references that support the terms "islamophobic" or "conspiracy theory", since those are neither opinion pieces nor nameless, and are not "from unknown sites". As you yourself say, there is no such thing as "love jihad" and no conspiracy, which means that the claim that such a conspiracy exists is a conspiracy theory. --bonadea contributions talk 08:51, 2 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I am in agreement with, and . I have no idea what on earth you're talking about or even referring to. You're statement is therefore indeed a rant. I will say however, I strongly suspect you just have an issue with academic referencing, which is ridiculous and will not be entertained. Peer review academic referencing is the best form of evidence as academics are experts in their field. The conspiracy theory is also inherently Islamophobic and I don't get the contradictory assertion that it isn't. NarSakSasLee (talk) 14:06, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Section on "International media attention"
had added the below text, which I have since reverted due to it giving WP:UNDUE weight to certain aspects, resulting in WP:NPOV violations.

Ideally the information above should be merged into the rest of the article. KyloRen3 (talk) 06:33, 4 July 2021 (UTC)


 * . I am a little confused over this section being removed and then said it should be inserted elsewhere in the article. What parts are considered NPOV by you? This sections deals with how the international media have reacted to the conspiracy theory which deserves a section of it's own. International reception is a standard part and parcel of issues gaining traction outside of their respective countries. As such this section requires representation. NarSakSasLee (talk) 10:08, 4 July 2021 (UTC)


 * ..Interest in the conspiracy theory has recently begun to gain traction outside of India, capturing the interest of several prominent international news organisations, including that of Al Jazeera and BBC News and research institutions such as the US based Pew Research Center (the latter of which found 65% of Hindus oppose interfaith marriage).

The Pew research also says this as quoted by BBC [https://twitter.com/BBCIndia/status/1410083528444764161 A survey from Pew Research Center found that 80% of the Muslims who were interviewed felt it was important to stop people from their community from marrying into another religion. Around 65% of Hindus felt the same] sic. This is cherry-picking content. 2402:3A80:1102:E15C:A867:8C24:49C6:AA9E (talk) 14:30, 4 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Glad you finally learned how to stick to a topic in order to discuss an issue rather engaging in bad faith, such as name calling and insults IP. However back to the issue at hand. Mentioning what Muslims think is irrelevant here since the conspiracy theory concerns and largely involves Hindu opposition to Hindu women marrying Muslim men, so it is important to gauge how many are for and how many are against interfaith marriages. It simply violates WP:UNDUE. NarSakSasLee (talk) 16:11, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , maybe we could shift this into the section on "BJP Party era (2014–present)", since it is more relevant there? I have significantly cleaned up the entire section. KyloRen3 (talk) 05:33, 6 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I think that would be sensible, or perhaps a section solely dealing how it has affected Hindu women? NarSakSasLee (talk) 10:22, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , that would also be good, but you would need to expand a little bit more on the existing text. I don't think a couple of lines (as it currently is) on the plight of the women justifies a new section. KyloRen3 (talk) 14:54, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 July 2021
Love Jihad is a term used when a Muslim Man/Boy propose a Hindu/christian/Sikh/Other woman/girl WITHOUT disclosing their identity and using the camouflage of Hindu/Christian/Sikh/Other religions' names to do so and then merry the girl (after waiting for them to be of the legal age) and THEN FORCE them to convert to become Muslim. If the woman/girl denies to get converted and is adamant then they are raped (usually in gang) and then either Killed or sold to brothels. Most of the times they wait till the woman/girl gives birth to a child and it is good to have a boy as a kid as it becomes easier to pressurise women then. This is happening in wide daylight and Clerics provide guidelines on how to do it. This is happening world-wide. Love marriages are not bad, but lying Gauravashq (talk) 18:38, 10 July 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. Usedtobecool ☎️ 18:42, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Biased article and Twisted facts
There are several proven cases of Love Jihad where Muslim men lure non Muslim girls with fake identity. They marry the girl to later reveal the identity and convert he girl to Islam. In most of the cases if the girl refuses to follow Islamic practices the Girl is killed or abandoned. 23 Cases of Love Jihad in 23 days in MP, India

true, the wiki article is misleading false and hinduphobic 2409:4053:210D:9431:ADB5:5F7F:3D22:6887 (talk) 03:36, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes,that true and now even daughters of civil servants and officer are being lured by muslim men with fake hindu name and wikipedia needs to correct it but they are spreading propaganda like leftist. Divyanshu bhs (talk) 06:29, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 July 2021
'“Love – Jihad ” or “Romeo jihad” is a Practice of Hindu women being converted to Islam through expression of fake love and emotional pressure by some youthful Muslims which is also alleged to be funded internationally.' Uttar Pradesh has seen many communal clashes and it is of much relevance that how a women’s right is being used to shape further communal borderline. This Campaign is currently working in broad daylight space through daily paper, meeting, publications. There have been many cases on conversion and kidnapping and had been proved.

Some of the example cases are:

1. [unsourced allegations against a named person removed per WP:BLP]

2. [unsourced allegations against a named person removed per WP:BLP]

3. [unsourced allegations against a named person removed per WP:BLP] 203.189.249.140 (talk) 09:45, 30 July 2021 (UTC)


 * ❌. Providing examples of isolated examples of alleged Love Jihad does not disprove the academic consensus that there is no organised conspiracy to convert non-Muslims. FDW777 (talk) 10:10, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Subpage creation
Are there any objections to the creation of the subpage for conspiracy theory requests/discussion suggested at Talk:Love Jihad/Archive 3? FDW777 (talk) 18:41, 30 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I created a subpage at Talk:Love Jihad/Conspiracy theory based around the Talk:Muhammad/images one. I thought it best to get some additional input before making it fully live with a prominent link at the top of this talk page. FDW777 (talk) 21:07, 1 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I think this is a good move, there was already an opportunity for people to comment before and there was little response. I don't think it requires the use of discretionary sanctions or further consensus. If people start claiming it is unfair, or against policy then a DS sanction to support it may be required but let's cross that bridge if we come to it.


 * Unless there are objections here my opinion is that you can just go ahead with it. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 00:37, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree. Presumably the prominent link will come with a similar note as at Talk:Muhammad? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:55, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Added, no objection to any amendments deemed necesary. FDW777 (talk) 07:27, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Temporary semi-protection
Due to persistent disruption as a result of recent media mentioning this page this talk page is semi-protected to prevent new users from editing for the next 3 days. If you are a new user and have a legitimate edit you want made please go to Requests for page protection where you can request a change to be made. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 07:40, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 August 2021
Bxzyforever (talk) 13:30, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Source : https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/7/12/sulli-deals-a-virtual-auction-of-indian-muslim-women

Section where it could be added : Reverse Love Jihad

Context : Sulli Deals was an App made by RSS Affiliated extremist Ram Bhakt Gopal which circulated pictures of Real Indian Muslim Women and represented them in a derogatory manner. The App sent mails to its users with subject title as "Your Sulli Deal of the Day is". Sulli is a derogatory term used against Muslim women. The body of the e-mail contained picture of a Muslim woman along with her name. The database for this app was allegedly created from social media accounts of real Muslim women.
 * 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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:05, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Undue weight
@Tayi Arajakate has reverted the edit arguing that it is from a reliable source. Apparently, he or she didn't cite a single additional source to prove that this particular viewpoint is not a fringe or minority view. I tried to find additional sources in support of the disputed statement but I couldn't find any.

Here's the disputed statement: “the conspiracy theory was disseminated by Hindutva publications, such as the Sanatan Prabhat and Hindu Janajagruti Samiti, calling Hindus to protect their women from Muslim men who were simultaneously depicted as charming individuals and lecherous rapists.”

According to Wikipedia guidelines, the mere fact that something is from a reliable source doesn't guarantee its inclusion in the article. While adding content on Wikipedia, we consider its proper weight and significance in reliable sources. We cannot present personal opinions or views of a particular author that are not shared by others as general facts and that too in the introduction section. And if the said editor believes it is not a personal or minority view, he or she should feel free to cite additional reliable sources supporting the contention before reverting the changes without valid counter-arguments.

Stormbird  (talk)  13:46, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Which specific information in that sentence is, in your view, not fully sourced and/or unduly emphasised? I am at a loss to understand that, since all the info is reliably sourced, and most of it is discussed in multiple scholarly sources (which, in their turn, cite multiple other scholars...) Which part is a fringe viewpoint, and which particular fringe are we talking about? --bonadea contributions talk 14:50, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , you can refer to me as she and you'd need lot more than your claim that it's fringe considering it's a high quality academic source that directly addresses the topic and is fairly widely cited by other scholarly sources. Unless the information is contradicted by other equivalent sources, your objection to it is not a reason to remove it. You can also easily find additional sources (if you actually looked for it), some are already present in the article. The source goes fairly in-depth about the origins (other sources focus on other aspects of the conspiracy theory), which is why it is being used for that sentence. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 16:38, 23 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Stormbird doesn't appear to understand what reliable sources are or even how sourcing works. The section is one of the most well researched on Wikipedia with plenty of citations and reliable sources. I don't see anything wrong with it. NarSakSasLee (talk) 17:32, 23 August 2021 (UTC)


 * The only thing I can see wrong is that the Muslim men who were simultaneously depicted as charming individuals and lecherous rapists claim doesn't appear in the article body as well, the same applies to the Sanatan Prabhat and Hindu Janajagruti Samiti part, although the broader dissemination does appear just not those specific publications. I'm sure both would fit in somewhere around Love Jihad though? FDW777 (talk) 17:36, 23 August 2021 (UTC)


 * It aptly describes how the conspiracy theory works even if it's not in the body of the rest of this article. It can be included in the article body as well though which would be great. NarSakSasLee (talk) 17:43, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Alleged execssive citations
Adding Excessive citations inline creates a direct link to Citing sources. That specifically says that the way to reduce excessive citations is to bundle them into one footnote. Which, rather coincidentally, is exactly what this article does to start with. FDW777 (talk) 20:04, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Five sources, bundled, is a reasonable number for such a contentious claim. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:07, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Especially as reducing it to one or two would create a new line of attack for those who object to its status as an Islamophobic conspiracy theory promoted by right-wing Hindus. FDW777 (talk) 20:23, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd be totally fine if more high quality sources are cited, I think the subject demands are as such. — DaxServer (talk to me) 21:04, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Categorizing under Jihad
Do we categorize the article under Category:Jihad? ( &  ) — DaxServer (talk to me) 11:24, 20 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I'd say not. I really don't see how the sources in this article support Category:Jihad as a defining category. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:23, 20 September 2021 (UTC) (addendum: sorry DaxServer, didn't see you had started this discussion already: merging my section with yours.) Vanamonde (Talk) 14:27, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with Vanamonde. In addition to WP:CATDEF, this categorization would have WP:CATPOV issues. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 14:37, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with both of you. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:42, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree: no. The term "Jihad" was hijacked for this conspiracy theory, but whatever its proponents want to express with this term, it is unrelated to the Islamic Jihad in all its (peaceful and violent) facets. It's like categorizing Blood libel under Category:Infanticide. –Austronesier (talk) 21:47, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 October, 2021
Three states of India have enacted laws against it and 3 others are considering it but the lead says, "conspiracy theory". Should that word not be removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4071:2417:8551:CF1E:AC43:C739:1A29 (talk) 15:17, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * ❌. The "conspiracy theory" claim is sourced to multiple reliable sources, and there is a long section in the article explaining that it is not real. Voter fraud in the United States is also a conspiracy theory, as there is no proof of widespread voter fraud there, and yet some states have passed legislation to "prevent" it. Politicians do not always base legislation on facts and reality. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:33, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Question on cases
I have read the talk page history for the past few months. I am not going to ask the same old questions.

Some cases of Hindu girls getting married to Muslim men and converting to Islam were branded as love jihad by politicians, even when the girl denied it.

In some cases of Hindu girls murdered, attacked by a stalker, boyfriend, husband who were Muslims were branded as love jihad by Hindu groups, the family of girls, media, politicians.

I am asking whether, few cases which got coverage for a long time, be listed on this page under a section? I am not asking to add all cases, as that would be hundreds. I am asking, only those cases that got too much media attention. You can start the section as wrongly accused of love jihad and wrongly mentioned as love jihad, or cases of love jihad conspiracy theory. --ZebraaaLounge (talk) 10:50, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * NO. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:08, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * There are occasional cases mentioned in the article. If a case to be mentioned is in relation to a specific point that needs to be made, I could see a possibility for inclusion. But it's difficult to say anything without a proposed addition to judge. FDW777 (talk) 15:10, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Absurdly Self-contradictory article needs to be tagged with WP:POV issues
The articles starts with a premise that "Love Jihad" is "developed by proponents of Hindutva" yet cites examples across the world where different groups, Buddhists, Christians, Sikhs, have raised the exact same phenomenon. It provides no references of how all these groups, some of which are opposed to "Hindutva", have independently in different countries decided to protest something which doesn't exist except in the imagination of Hindutva proponents in India per the introduction. The article is also full of accusation, insinuation and non-neutral language, essentially smearing anyone who is raising this as a concern. Could become a textbook example of violating WP:NPOV. Puck42 (talk) 09:05, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * "Independently"? Seriously? It is aped by other communities (there is no copyright on absurdity), and we cite this very fact from reliable sources. –Austronesier (talk) 10:30, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * While I don't think the article violates NPOV; I do believe the line "developed by proponents of Hindutva" is misleading. As the article itself states (in the Love Jihad section), the creation of the conspiracy theory originates from a Catholic Christian group, not from a Hindu far right one. I suggest replacing the word "developed" to "propagated" for factual accuracy. — The 𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭 talk stalk 05:41, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia gives too much importance to academic sources. However, some academics can also have personal bias according to country, religion. All these academics never did any investigation on the ground. They just saw what was written in American newspapers. And then published their academic work. Journalists who met victims and accused are seen as biased media, while academics who never met any victim, accused, attended any court cases, interviewed any investigation cop, are seen as better sources. It's clear that this love jihad term was started in Kerala by Church and CPM, later on, used by Hindu groups, but as academics mention Hindutva, so Wikipedians will mention that. --Count Of The Baskervilles (talk) 11:15, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Which journalists? TrangaBellam (talk) 12:22, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * If you take the time to read the sources and check their authors' backgrounds and credentials you will find that few of them are American, almost nothing is based on what American newspapers report, Indian newspapers are also cited in the article and there are indeed academic sources reporting on investigations carried out "on the ground" in India. Academics can certainly have their own biases; that is why reputable academic publishers are peer reviewed. Journalists, in any country, don't get every texts scrutinised by a number of independent experts, but academics do. --bonadea contributions talk 13:15, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I suggest reading Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 91 for background on Count Of The Baskervilles. They appear to take the viewpoint that reverse Love Jihad is not real because of some perceived referencing by Aligarh Muslim University. This is despite the fact the RSS publicised their very real campaign in the media. If I upload a video on Youtube about having seen a bug-eyed alien in the street last night my video is very much a real thing that exists, but it doesn't mean the alien exists. The reality of Reverse Love Jihad does not affect the conspiracy theory status of Love Jihad, and vice versa. And I realise that strictly speaking this post might have needed to be on the sub-page, but it doesn't seem right to fork a discussion completely. FDW777 (talk) 18:46, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 December 2021
The Constitution of India guarantees the right to freedom of religion to not only individuals but also religious groups in India. This is enshrined in Articles 25 to 28. Love Jihad is the practice of lying on face about one's religion before marriage and later forcing the spouse for converting religion. It is against an individual's Right to Freedom of Religion and is a punishable offence.

103.69.39.55 (talk) 11:38, 5 December 2021 (UTC)


 * ❌. FDW777 (talk) 12:12, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Why is the word "Jihad" in the title capitalised?
Is there any reason? — The 𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭 talk stalk 14:13, 29 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Good point! Per MOS:CAPS, we shouldn't be capitalizing unless reliable sources also do so consistently. It's clear from a cursory review of sources that this isn't the case. I support a move to Love jihad and edits to the article for consistency. I'd recommend waiting a bit to hear from other editors. It's possible we'll need a requested move, as CAPS-based moves are sometimes controversial. Firefangledfeathers 14:20, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Consider me in support. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:56, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Extraordinary Writ, did you consult this thread? TrangaBellam (talk) 07:25, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I did: I just didn't feel it was the sort of "uncontroversial technical request" that WP:RM/TR is designed for. The article has used the capitalized form for over a decade – surely waiting another week to ensure that everything's procedurally up to snuff won't be too harmful? Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:43, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 13 December 2021

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Danski454 (talk) 00:32, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Love Jihad → Love jihad – per MOS:CAPS. Reliable sources have not capitalised the first letter in “Jihad”. — The 𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭 talk stalk 05:21, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This is a contested technical request (permalink). Megan B....   It’s all coming to me till the end of time  07:21, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Courtesy ping since they queried the move request -- Megan B....   It’s all coming to me till the end of time  07:25, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Support per nom. Colin M (talk) 20:13, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support, as a quick glance at sources shows that the term is not consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources as required by MOS:CAPS. Happy to link some sources if requested. Firefangledfeathers 20:17, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

This wiki page is full of lies and misrepresentation and hiding of facts.
This wiki page is full of lies and misrepresentation and hiding of facts. Make it free for public for editing. Why is anyone locking the edits on this page? Who is authorizing them and what basis? 2600:1700:4A30:12E0:405A:FB5A:26B1:D2C0 (talk) 08:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)


 * It was done under the authority of WP:ARBIPA due to persistent disruptive editing, most probably by the people who've gone down the conspiracy theory rabbit hole. FDW777 (talk) 09:17, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 January 2022
This says, "the Karnataka Right to Freedom of Religion Bill 2021, introduced in the state Legislative Assembly on Tuesday (December 22, 2021) aims to fulfil two demands of the core support base of the right-wing BJP government in the state – prevention of forced religious conversions and the so-called ‘love jihad’". This says, "Karnataka has now made ‘a promise of marriage’ a means of unlawful conversion". This says, "Karnataka state cabinet approves anti-conversion ‘love jihad’ bill". I therefore request someone to mention this new law of Karnataka in this article.-2409:4071:248B:C0E1:BE91:DED9:72F3:8151 (talk) 14:52, 17 January 2022 (UTC)


 * ❌, per WP:ER, Any edit request must be accompanied by a detailed and specific description of what changes need to be made. FDW777 (talk) 14:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * , That new law of Karnataka needs to be added to this article. I don't understand how. Please do what you can. Thanks!-2409:4071:248B:C0E1:BE91:DED9:72F3:8151 (talk) 14:58, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm asking you to add a sentence. In the, "2020 legislation and outcomes" sub-sub-section of the, "BJP Party era (2014–present)" sub-section of the, "Timeline" section, there are sentences like, "As of 25 November 2020, Haryana and Karnataka were still in discussion over similar ordinances.[51][58] In April 2021, the Gujarat Assembly amended the Freedom of Religion Act, 2003, bringing in stringent provisions against forcible conversion through marriage or allurement, with the intention of targeting "love jihad"." Please add this after that, "The Karnataka state cabinet also approved an anti-conversion ‘love jihad’ bill, making it a law in December 2021."


 * This says, "The Basavaraj Bommai led (Karnataka) government wants to prohibit conversion by “misrepresentation, force, allurement, fraudulent means, or marriage.”" - 2409:4071:D85:71EE:ECE9:74F8:2F39:7161 (talk) 19:02, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Is this what you wanted? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:58, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * , yes, thank you. Is it also possible to paraphrase and add this also, "which prohibits conversion by “misrepresentation, force, allurement, fraudulent means, or marriage." -2405:204:5097:B014:5B2C:8F60:2932:B3FD (talk) 10:26, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * .... to the same sentence (if I am right, if you use inverted commas, you don't even need to paraphrase what the Hindu newspaper has printed)?-2405:204:5097:B014:5B2C:8F60:2932:B3FD (talk) 10:29, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * , you just put up a map of States which have enacted laws against forced, inter-faith conversions (love jihad as this article calls it) here but you need to add Karnataka to that map. Is it also possible to paraphrase and add this also, "which prohibits conversion by “misrepresentation, force, allurement, fraudulent means, or marriage." to what added with this edit?-2409:4071:E87:8D87:E2D1:ED35:5949:874E (talk) 17:23, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

This Article is trying to set a narrative of of Islamophobia where its none
Love Jihad is term given when the whole purpose of the marriage is religion conversion and physical and/or emotional harrasment is done for the conversion.

It do not target all Muslims then law against Love jihad is simple : stop forceful conversions and it does not mention any specific religion. I request the Admins to look into it and please dont let Wikipedia become a propaganda tool

https://www.jurist.org/commentary/2021/01/avinash-kumar-yadav-love-jihad-uttar-pradesh-india/ Raheja88 (talk) 19:16, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * We reflect what reliable sources say about the topic.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 19:21, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The biggest role of cheap internet and social media has been in assuring clueless people worldwide that they are indeed in the majority. Did you even consult your own source? TrangaBellam (talk) 20:44, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Why is it right protected
Information on love jihad is wrong and biased. We have facts and cases in court to prove its existence. Shivaistamilan (talk) 07:50, 8 February 2022 (UTC)


 * The conspiracy theory exists, that is clearly shown. But there is not any shred of evidence that "love jihad" exists outside the minds of the conspiracy theorists. --bonadea contributions talk 07:58, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 February 2022
Please add this to the lead and also just before where the Special Marriage Act is mentioned (in the, "Marriage traditions and customs" subsection of the, "Background" section), "Muslim men are allowed to be polygamous and can also give a divorce easily by paying paltry sums." 2409:4071:D81:2289:3F47:9791:DDD1:1067 (talk) 03:27, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 03:32, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * ,, please do the needful, I don't think others will.-2409:4071:D81:2289:3F47:9791:DDD1:1067 (talk) 03:35, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That text has no relevance in this article, and will not be added. --bonadea contributions talk 07:54, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * How is this relevant? TrangaBellam (talk) 08:11, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 March 2022
Kindly ensure that no hate speech is used 103.113.97.102 (talk) 21:48, 20 March 2022 (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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:54, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 April 2022
Please add this short video in the external links section (about rates) BitaKarate1 (talk) 12:21, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Why? I've also removed the link to the youtube video.

ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:27, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I have seen that other articles contain such external links to YouTube videos - and this video is about love jihad.&mdash;BitaKarate1 (talk) 14:57, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * But not some random YouTubers. Please read WP:RS and WP:VERIFY before replying and explain how that video meets our criteria for sources. Doug Weller  talk 15:04, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * and - perhaps you people can help.&mdash;BitaKarate1 (talk) 15:03, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Which video? Please provide a WP:Full citation. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:32, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * it's just a video by someone named Rao called "Love Jihad rates in India". Not in English so I don't know what it says, but it's useless as a source. Doug Weller  talk 16:52, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * , User:ScottishFinnishRadish removed the link to that You Tube video which can be seen by viewing the history of this page but it is in Urdu (similar to Hindi).&mdash;BitaKarate1 (talk) 17:34, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * ❌. Youtube uploads are not acceptable external links.-- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:22, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * ...and Wikipedia is not a soapbox. This is an encyclopaedia — DaxServer (t · m · c) 09:04, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Not limited to Hindutvavadis
A number of influential Indian Christians have remarked that love jihad is a reality. This includes but is not limited to a Christian MP, former members of the Kerala state legislature, and the cardinal of the Syro-Malabar Church, Mar George Alencherry, who even issued a decree in his church on this matter. It should be added to the opening sentence that along with Hindutvavadis, some factions in the Christian community also propagate this 'conspiracy theory'.


 * https://www.business-standard.com/article/news-ani/alencherry-s-pastoral-letter-on-love-jihad-read-out-in-churches-in-kochi-120011900256_1.html


 * https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/kerala/pc-george-raises-love-jihad-issue/article34313679.ece


 * https://www.news18.com/news/politics/cpim-leader-sparks-love-jihad-row-after-interfaith-marriage-of-kerala-politician-retracts-remarks-4978429.html Indielov (talk) 15:33, 23 May 2022 (UTC)


 * https://www.thenewsminute.com/article/kerala-catholic-leaders-meet-pm-discuss-issues-including-love-jihad-141766

In fact, some of the earliest proponents of love jihad were Christian organisations.

From https://www.indiatoday.in/india/south/story/love-jihad-oommen-chandy-islam-kerala-muslim-marriage-115150-2012-09-04 ,

> "Love Jihad in Kerala is part of global Islamisation project" said Global Council of Indian Christians. In 2009 Kerala Catholic Bishops Council (KCBC) had stated that more than 2600 young Christian women were converted to Islam since 2006. KCBC's Vigilance Commission for Social Harmony had called Christians to be on guard against the phenomenon.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 July 2022 (2)
This page lacks basic grammar sense and is very biased on one side. I would provide unbiased edits. Goblinbarrel000 (talk) 05:22, 21 July 2022 (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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:18, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 May 2022
This information given by someone is fake, love jihad is not a controversy, it's real, it's 100 percent real, the statement given by them stating it's a controversy is fake, love jihad is a practice practiced by Muslim men in which they firstly fake love an hindu girl, then marry her, and then they either rape or kill her after doing her conversion, it's all real, they simply fake love a hindu girl, ask her to convert so they can marry, then they abandon her or either kill her, kindly change that false statement with this one Truebruhhhh (talk) 16:16, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes Truebruhhhh (talk) 16:18, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --   LuK3      (Talk)   16:19, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Prior discussions on conspiracy theory claim
Isn't this the page to address the specific issue as to whether or not love jihad is properly characterized as a conspiracy theory? Presumably this was a somewhat controversial issue, and there would have been some substantial discussion, but where is it? Did it all get wiped out when this subpage was created? Fabrickator (talk) 18:57, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Please refer conspiracy theory comments to discussion subpage
I noticed at least one recent case where somebody had made some comments pertinent to the issue of "love jihad" being a conspiracy, and those comments were subsequently deleted on the grounds that it was a rant. People who post such content should be referred to the conspiracy theory subpage. Thank you. Fabrickator (talk) 00:49, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I encountered a page like that at Talk:Maryland/North (Mid-Atlantic State) vs South (Southern State) a while ago, and found that it had quickly devolved into a nightmare of nonsense not long after being set up, primarily because it had almost zero watchers, compared to the parent page with over 500. It seems very likely that a similar issue will develop here. Why can't this talkpage do what every other talkpage for a controversial topic does, and strictly moderate posts with a combination of reverts, summary not dones, liberal atops and hats, and speedy archives? --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 00:57, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * If there's a group of people who are doing something that bugs you, I'd suggest that it's better to give them their own space to play rather than to insist that they play in the way you dictate to them. You observed that in some cases this didn't work out well. It's possible (if not likely) that this is a sufficiently different case.
 * Nevertheless, somebody proposed this idea, they got positive feedback and there were no objections, and the only problem we've had with it is the failure of some editors to realize that this subpage has been set up to let such discussions go on in their separate subspace. Fabrickator (talk) 02:44, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * If people are making posts on this talkpage contrary to Wikipedia's purpose, those posts should be removed, and if necessary the editors should be blocked. Wikipedia doesn't host holding pens for disruptive editors. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 02:48, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * From my perspective, a convention has been established for the handling of this specific category of content. Nobody objected to that convention when it was adopted, and nobody has observed any problems with this convention (with regard to this article), except for failure to abide by this convention. You have suggested that people should ignore this established convention, and therefore, your posts are disruptive. Fabrickator (talk) 06:32, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Wow. Talk about lack of good faith. I'm with User:Tamzin here. Maybe we need an RfC for this? Such subpages are just too hard to maintain. Doug Weller  talk 08:47, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Talk:Love jihad/Conspiracy theory
Talk:Love jihad/Conspiracy theory, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Love jihad/Conspiracy theory and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Talk:Love jihad/Conspiracy theory during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. -- Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 09:18, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

More sources of Forced conversation through marriage which may help in balancing out the main article.
https://twitter.com/BefittingFacts/status/1331169210852990979?s=20 Hellobunny001 (talk) 14:02, 24 August 2021 (UTC)


 * That's not a reliable source, and it looks like it is in fact supporting the conspiracy theory. --bonadea contributions talk 14:07, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * @Bonadea Could be moved to the conspiracy subpage? — DaxServer (talk to me) 14:10, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Few references to understand how this article is actually confusing actual events with conspiracy theories. Below are the links from local news papers reports Amar Ujala. These newspapers have readership in million and are bound by India laws for penalty if there create false reports. n
 * - https://www.amarujala.com/madhya-pradesh/love-jihad-in-madhya-pradesh-muslim-youth-marries-hindu-girl-converts-to-islam-after-marriage-maulana-rapes-woman
 * - https://www.amarujala.com/lucknow/crime/a-girl-complained-about-love-jihad-in-bahraich
 * - https://www.amarujala.com/rajasthan/love-jihad-case-in-sawai-madhopur-accused-molested-minor-girl
 * - https://www.amarujala.com/madhya-pradesh/bhind/bhind-govt-employee-nandini-took-her-life-due-to-depression-of-love-jihad 150.143.182.179 (talk) 15:41, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Love jihad allegedly happening in Greece
So here is the link: What is love jihad that has arrived in Greece from Pakistan? (Admittedly "Greek City Times" is not on the WP:Perennial Sources page, but it is cited in a couple of hundred Wikipedia articles.)

I'm actually unclear why they are even suggesting this is called "love jihad". I had thought love jihad to be about the allegations of non-Muslim women marrying Muslims based on feinted love.

OTOH, I had thought of this alleged phenomenon being specific to India. To the extent this is reported to be happening in other countries, I would not expect that the analysis done that it's a conspiracy theory (i.e. in India) would necessarily apply. Fabrickator (talk) 19:20, 18 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Two discussions from the Reliable sources noticeboard suggested that Greek City Times is generally unreliable (2020, 2021). It's also an opinion piece. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:06, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Article talk page header
I have removed the tags from the discussion page header. I would argue that such tags would never be appropriate in an article discussion page header, i.e. if you object to the instructions on an article discussion page, then go ahead and raise your objection, you're already in the right place.

In addition to that, I would like to propose improvements to the existing talk page instructions, essentially, as they apply to the conspiracy theory subpage. I suggest the following wording to be included on the article discussion page:"Discussions that challenge or otherwise dispute the assertion that love jihad is a conspiracy theory should be posted to the conspiracy theory discussion subpage." Fabrickator (talk) 22:45, 28 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Should I interpret the absence of a response as permission to modify the talk page myself? I would probably revise the text that immediately follows the current instructions that follow "skip to table of contents" and would modify the "important notice" box, perhaps removing the big exclamation point and change it to have a more positive approach rather than what comes across as a big danger sign. Fabrickator (talk) 18:23, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I thought the cn tag removals were great. I'm not sold on the other change. I'm ok with formatting changes to the notice along the lines of what you're suggesting, but I would prefer if the text continues to say "must" instead of your proposed "should". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:27, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes. If we must have a subpage then it must be used. Which I doubt will happen Doug Weller  talk 18:32, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Proposal to merge Talk:Love jihad/Conspiracy theory into Talk:Love jihad
Part of the reason Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Love jihad/Conspiracy theory was closed as no consensus was that some editors wanted to preserve the subpage's edit history. I support merging Talk:Love jihad/Conspiracy theory to this talk page, which would preserve the subpage's edit history while centralizing discussion on the article subject in one page. It does not make sense for editors to post edit requests, such as the recently posted, on a different page that is not the article's actual talk page.I do not believe the suggested wording for the talk page header (above) is an improvement, because it only prompts editors to post to the subpage if they wish to "challenge or otherwise dispute the assertion that love jihad is a conspiracy theory". The suggested wording does not prompt editors to post to the subpage if they wish to reiterate that love jihad is a conspiracy theory, as confirmed by the strong collection of high-quality academic sources currently cited in the article. There is no benefit to creating an echo chamber in the article talk namespace that is one step removed from the article discussion. If editors have new information on whether love jihad is a conspiracy theory, that information can be examined right here. —  Newslinger  talk   10:04, 4 September 2022 (UTC) Edited 06:54, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, per my arguments at the MfD; a separate page is either unnecessary or inappropriate depending on what's posted there, and quite possibly both. Vanamonde (Talk) 10:29, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, not much else to say that I haven't said at the MfD. The subpage is pointless if not misguided. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 13:59, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I am perplexed, the proponents appear to be admitting that this is a disingenuous proposal. Am I misunderstanding something? Notwithstanding this, the short lifetime and limited activity of the subpage is successful.  Posts were made with some citations, nobody came out and said "You can't post that here" but nothing got out of hand.  Meanwhile, the conversation on the subpage remains visible, so we don't have the situation of re-hashing reports that were previously raised but got erased. There should be a recognition that erasing the history of these discussions is counter-productive.  But anyway, it's really nonsensical to discuss this proposal if we're not going to say that we're folding the subpage into the main talk page but we're going to continue to prohibit such discussions on the main talk page. Fabrickator (talk) 07:24, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It's obviously implied that constructive discussion would be allowed here (where it needs to be, for anything to come of it) and unconstructive discussion would simply be removed (as it should be, per NOTFORUM). Vanamonde (Talk) 07:44, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Before we get further into this discussion, while it is true that some editors objected to the closure only to preserve edit history, it must be remembered that consensus is not established by a mechanical counting of votes, but by the quality of the arguments (as per [WP:DETCON]]). Furthermore, it is noted that "proposing to change a recently established consensus can be disruptive". On that basis, I request that this proposal be rejected as "out of order". Fabrickator (talk) 11:57, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The MfD closure says "[I]f there is a desire to stop using the subpage, that should probably be decided by another consensus discussion at Talk:Love jihad" which is what this is about. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 14:01, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * And your argument is? Doug Weller  talk 14:44, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The same talk page guidelines apply to Talk:Love jihad/Conspiracy theory as they do to Talk:Love jihad, so there is no difference on the types of discussions that are allowed on either page. Editors are welcome to provide reliable sources right here to support any changes that they would like to make, and those changes will be evaluated in the context of all of the available reliable sources, including the ones cited in the article. Many of the discussions on Talk:Love jihad/Conspiracy theory would receive similar responses if they had been posted here. —  Newslinger  talk   06:11, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Farther on down, there is a comment to the effect that "disruptive comments should be removed", but that such a statement would be "disruptive" regardless of where it's posted. This is the exact opposite of our IRL experiences.  Online should make this easier.  That is, if we have a forum to discuss one particular subject, then somebody raises a "tangential" issue that's off-topic for the current forum, then we just shunt them off to a place where that specific aspect can be discussed.  What we don't expect is that everybody who objected to the discussion on the original forum comes over to this new forum and complain that it must not be discussed there either.
 * Would it be more acceptable if the comments made did not refer to a particular news story, but only raised the issue as to whether the publication is considered a reliable source (because this is not necessarily obvious one way or the other)? Well, I don't think that's a real solution, but an approach that all reports regarding some particular claim are completely without merit has its problems.  Is there a pizza place where men have invited boys (with the incentive of "free pizza") and then the men enticed the boys into participating in sexual acts?  That doesn't seems out of the realm of possibility.  Did this involve the leadership of the Democratic party?  Now we would be more concerned about the credibility of the sources. "Love jihad" (or any sub-page thereof) is probably not the right place to discuss Pizzagate, but if the allegations were that there was some form of religious conversion that involved undue pressure and that might be characterized as "love jihad", then there should be no bar to raising these allegations within Wikipedia, and that a subpage of "love jihad" would likely be the best place to address these allegations, at least until we had some consensus about the credibility of the source.  If you're confident this is all nonsense, you don't need to bother to visit the subpage, because it should stay on that subpage until RS has been addressed. Why is that such a difficult concept? Fabrickator (talk) 19:53, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * In response to "If you're confident this is all nonsense, you don't need to bother to visit the subpage, because it should stay on that subpage until RS has been addressed": this is one of the main problems with the subpage and your proposal at . The purpose of an article talk page is to improve the corresponding article, and Wikipedia is not a forum. If editors want to discuss the love jihad conspiracy theory in a manner that would not improve the article, they are welcome to do so in an alternative outlet. Inviting editors to the subpage to make claims about the article subject that are not supported by reliable sources, while disinviting editors who have reviewed the reliable high-quality academic sources cited in the article from the subpage, would only create an echo chamber that violates the talk page guidelines and WP:NOTFORUM. —  Newslinger  talk   20:09, 7 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Support per my nom statement at MfD. There is no reason that this talkpage, (almost) exceptional among all talkpages on Wikipedia, needs to ghettoize a particular topic, when we have ample moderation tools, including a DS regime covering this page, to deal with users who discuss that topic in a disruptive manner. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 06:25, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Request ruling: As I indicated in my request to declare this action as "out of order", I believe this MfD is effectively in contravention of (the spirit, at least) of WP:DETCON, suggesting that requesting a change to a recently established consensus can be disruptive. I request that the discussion of the subject matter be suspended pending a determination regarding that request. Fabrickator (talk) 07:18, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The MfD closed with a suggestion to resolve this on talk. That's what we're doing. You already tried the "objecting to this system is disruptive editing" line when I initially raised my concern, which is the main thing that led me to take it to MfD, since it seemed unlikely that you were going to suddenly regain the ability to contribute reasonably and civilly on this topic. If you want a policy ruling, you can go ask at WP:VPP, but please stop filibustering. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 07:41, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per all that Vanamonde has said on the topic. Usedtobecool ☎️ 09:06, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per my comments at the MfD and Vanamonde. I also note that Fabrickator writes above that "proposing to change a recently established consensus can be disruptive" while has been pointed out the MfD was closed as "no consensus", ironically while accusing others of being disengenuous. Doug Weller  talk 14:03, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I had read "consensus" but interpreted that to mean a "conclusion", so my bad on that.  But still, we go through this discussion process, we have some kind of a result, and then a few days later, we start all over again.  Seems like a rather frustrating way of doing things.
 * That said, I'm looing for useful, effective solutions. I am honestly trying to understand about various claims of alleged forced conversions.  As soon as somebody mentions this in the main discussion page, almost universally it gets a very hostile response.  And I understand that people may feel they're just being presented with the same set of reports, that they've been previously explained AND it's been ruled that we're really not even allowed to mention it here.  What I don't understand is the sense that this must not be discussed (at least, not in this particular neighborhood).  If my memory is correct, this stuff typically gets deleted (i.e. when it's on the normal article submission page). And that's kind of a problem, because although it can still be found in the "history", it can't be found  though an archive search.  So guess what?  It tends to get posted again.  It's like we're talking about Pizzagate.  I'm able to reject Pizzagate out of hand, it's not so obvious to me that all claims of forced conversions should be summarily dismissed.
 * Okay, to get back to the point, if you have no interest in hearing about allegations of forced conversions, but you object to the subpage, what you're really saying is that nobody should be able to really even mention it. If you talk about Pizzagate, most people are just going to call you nuts if you give that any kind of consideration.  But do Hindu females ever find that they've become interested in Muslim males?  I presume that's a real thing.  Whether there's anything questionable about the circumstances?  It seems like that could be a legitimate question.  If you don't want to be involved in those discussions, then you should vote AGAINST the merger of the subpage.  If you vote FOR the merger of the subpage, then (it seems to me) you are voting to have an environment that annoys you, which then gets resolved by trying to shut down any pertinent discussions. Fabrickator (talk) 17:15, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Constructive comments belong on this page, disruptive comments should be removed, not shunted off to another page. I agree completely with the statement made in the MFD nom. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 16:51, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support no point to fragmenting discussions here. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 07:57, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Confused According to WP:NOTFORUM, articles are not to be used for discussions, and article talk pages are to be targeted to discussions pertaining to improving an article. However, user talk pages are generally open for  discussion of "Wikipedia-related topics".  I'm not suggesting that there aren't any restrictions, but it could include discussions that might not be allowed on an article talk page.  Am I misconstruing anything? Fabrickator (talk) 12:53, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 03 Sep 2022
There are hundreds if not thousands of cases of Love Jihad reported by multiple news media outlets in India. There are three types of love jihad 1) Muslim men change their names and trap girls or young women from other religions primarily Hindu but sometimes Christian or Sikh. 2) Muslim men do not change names but pretend to fall in love with women 3) Muslim men force themselves on girls through rape and violence sometimes followed by murder. Love jihad is not a conspiracy but a fact that Indian women have faced for decades.

One of the most infamous cases of love jihad which was covered widely in the press was that of a national-level shooter Tara Shahdeo.
 * - https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/love-jihad-national-shooter-tara-shahdeos-husband-arrested/articleshow/40942634.cms

Since then, there have been dozens of cases of love jihad in almost all Indian states with a sizeable Islamic population.
 * - https://theprint.in/india/jharkhand-teens-murder-by-muslim-stalker-fans-love-jihad-row-fresh-trouble-for-cm-soren/1107274/
 * - https://www.indiatoday.in/india/video/girl-set-on-fire-for-refusing-proposal-dies-in-jharkhand-dumka-section-144-imposed-1993822-2022-08-29 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhaaratorg (talk • contribs) 04:25, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * - https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/kerala-hc-asks-govt-to-frame-laws-to-stop-love-jihad/articleshow/5320856.cms
 * - https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/hindu-jagran-manch-jharkhand-governor-law-against-love-jihad-1746730-2020-12-04
 * - https://theprint.in/india/theyre-taking-our-girls-to-isis-how-church-is-now-driving-love-jihad-narrative-in-kerala/632324/
 * - https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/muslim-man-raped-hanged-tribal-girl-from-tree-in-jharkhand-s-dumka-tweets-babulal-marandi-1996042-2022-09-03 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhaaratorg (talk • contribs) 04:22, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Enough is enough, this is not Islamophobia. These women have been converted, cheated, raped, beheaded, or doused in flames. We need this article fixed asap. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhaaratorg (talk • contribs)
 * Link 1 only mentions "love jihad" in the headline, which is not reliable per WP:HEADLINES. The second link doesn't work. I stopped there. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:45, 3 September 2022 (UTC)


 * The link stopped working just yesterday. I have added more links to Ankita's story that happened yesterday. You don't need to stop just because one link stopped working. I can give you countless more links. BTW the major source opindia is not even allowed as a credible source on Wikipedia. Is this some type of conspiracy to hide the truth? Bhaaratorg (talk) 02:56, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * None of the sources provided are reliable for your claim:
 * The Times of India: The term love jihad only appears in the headline, which is not reliable (WP:HEADLINES)
 * ThePrint: Fails WP:V. The article does not claim that love jihad is real. It only claims that "BJP leaders" described the incident as a case of love jihad. Politicians are not subject-matter experts in sociology. Claims made by non-expert politicians do not override the consensus of high-quality academic sources, which are among the best sources available.
 * India Today: In the video, India Today does not mention the term love jihad in its own voice at all.
 * The Economic Times: Superseded by later developments. This is already covered in ; see that article section for details.
 * India Today: The article does not claim that love jihad is real. The article quotes the Hindu nationalist group Hindu Jagran Manch, which facilitates reconversion to Hinduism (Ghar Wapsi), and none of its members quoted in the article are subject-matter experts on sociology.
 * ThePrint: The article does not claim that love jihad is real. The quoted representatives of Christian organizations are not subject-matter experts on sociology.
 * India Today: The article does not claim that love jihad is real. It quotes a Twitter post by Babulal Marandi, a non-expert politician.
 * Finally, OpIndia is not a usable source for this article precisely because it is not credible. Reliable sources, including high-quality academic sources, confirm that OpIndia "has published fake news and anti-Muslim commentary on multiple occasions, including a 2020 incident in which it falsely claimed that a Hindu boy was sacrificed in a Bihar mosque." See WP:QS. —  Newslinger   talk   10:44, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * - https://www.firstpost.com/india/love-jihad-muslim-gym-trainer-poses-as-hindu-to-marry-client-forces-her-to-convert-11187531.html
 * - https://www.freepressjournal.in/indore/khandwa-love-jihad-accused-arrested-in-another-case
 * How many more cases do you want? There are dozens of video reports (primarily in Hindi) from News channels too. Let me know because I won't stop until you guys present the facts on Wikipedia.
 * - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnjSRLK6rnw&ab_channel=News18India
 * Just to be sure, Love jihad is the term given to the phenomenon. There are some cases falsely labelled as love jihad that DOES NOT mean that the facts on the ground should be ignored. Bhaaratorg (talk) 13:22, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Your links focus on "alleged" cases in which people have been "accused", but the allegations and accusations are unconfirmed. The article already covers the fact that love jihad is an allegation, because conspiracy theories are a subset of allegations. —  Newslinger  talk   21:57, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

the Love Jihad Echo Chamber is now open
Please refer to User:Love Jihad Echo Chamber before posting your published reports of Love jihad at User Talk: Love Jihad Echo Chamber. Fabrickator (talk) 18:15, 10 September 2022 (UTC)


 * , did you create the account? —  Newslinger   talk   21:51, 13 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes, I am the creator and owner of the "Love Jihad Echo Chamber" account. FWIW, I am open to suggestions as to guidance for appropriate/inappropriate content (presumably at User Talk:Love Jihad Echo Chamber).  Fabrickator (talk) 22:16, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * According to WP:OWNTALK, "the purpose of user talk pages is to draw the attention or discuss the edits of a user". If the account is not being used for editing, designating User talk:Love Jihad Echo Chamber as a replacement for Talk:Love jihad/Conspiracy theory is not really appropriate. You are, however, free to collect information in a user subpage that is intended to improve an article, as long as the content in the subpage does not violate  (WP:UPNOT). —  Newslinger   talk   22:28, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @Newslinger and others, I've raised this at WP:ANI. Doug Weller  talk 08:04, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 December 2022
Please add this: One Aftab Poonawala murdered his Hindu girlfriend, Shraddha Walkar, cut her dead body into pieces and disposed of the parts in different parts of Delhi. In his statement to the Delhi police he said that he had absolutely no regrets about what he had done and he would be rewarded in “jannah” with 72 “hoors” smelling of ISIS indoctrination. Dahshatgardi (talk) 11:31, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Not done. This subject is not a coat rack for hate crimes. It is about a specific conspiracy around fear of conversion. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:54, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 October 2022
The Love Jihad is not a CONSPIRACY THEORY propagated by Hindus, it is a fact. The term was used by Christian priests in 2009.

Fact is, thousands of Hindu girls are trapped in the name of love by Muslim youth, giving Hindu names. The Hindu girls are cheated into marriage, and then forced to convert to Islam.

There are thousands of such cases, including prominent Indian athletes and academicians. DaveF108 (talk) 19:03, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. MadGuy7023 (talk) 20:38, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * First line on this topic is a judgment from wikipedia that love jihad is "CONSPIRACY THEORY". It may or may not. Given that it's correct for wiki to draw a judgment, hence this statement must be removed until facts are established one way or other. 2600:4041:4222:4400:0:0:0:17FF (talk) 02:45, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Correcting typos : First line on this topic is a judgment from wikipedia that love jihad is "CONSPIRACY THEORY" and Islamophobic. It may or may not. Given that it's not correct for wiki to draw a judgment, hence this statement must be removed until facts are established one way or other.
 * On another note, Islamophobic may be rational given there is a muslim following the purest form of Islam jut by Quran and Hadiths. 2600:4041:4222:4400:0:0:0:17FF (talk) 02:48, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Npov
No conservative citation has been used to support any of these supposed claims.Only "scholars" who openly perceive Hindutva as Satanic use these claims.Further,Indian Sources must be added to support claims of "conspiracy theory" Science nerd11112007 (talk) 05:29, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Non hindu
Does Hindu in leade mean person of India or adherent of Hindu religion? If latter then it"s incorrect, love jihad is towards non-muslim women. 131.193.251.39 (talk) 16:36, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 April 2023 (2)
Change "The conspiracy theory purports that Muslim men target Hindu women for conversion to Islam by means such as seduction" to "The conspiracy theory purports that Muslim men target non-muslim women for conversion to Islam by means such as seduction" 131.193.251.39 (talk) 16:50, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The sources linked in the lede appear to discuss specifically Hindu women in the context of Hindu nationalism, not non-Muslim women in general. Lizthegrey (talk) 17:12, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 April 2023
Add to Timeline the following quote from CM OF KERALA

Kerala Chief Minister V.S. Achuthanandan controversially said: "They want to turn Kerala into a Muslim-majority state in 20 years. They are using money and other inducements to convert people to Islam. They even marry women from outside their community in order to increase the Muslim population." 131.193.251.39 (talk) 16:40, 11 April 2023 (UTC)


 * ❌ Please establish a consensus for this change before reactivating the edit request. Izno (talk) 17:57, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 April 2023
In the United Kingdom sub-section of the, "Official investigations" section, please add, "Some Pakistani origin British men have been convicted for using grooming gangs to sexually exploit non-Muslim females. 2406:7400:98:E249:D536:BC02:DB42:AD53 (talk) 15:56, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Cited press piece lacks a clear connection to the subject of this article, which is conversion to Islam rather than the sexual exploitation mentioned in press piece. Lizthegrey (talk) 06:04, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 April 2023
Please add this to the lead of this article: However, one Aftab Poonawala murdered his Hindu girlfriend, Shraddha Walkar, cut her dead body into pieces and disposed of the parts in different parts of Delhi. In his statement to the Delhi police he said that he had absolutely no regrets about what he had done and he would be rewarded in “jannah” with 72 “hoors” smelling of ISIS indoctrination. 2406:7400:98:CD91:E539:D0FC:4E84:1629 (talk) 17:13, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: How is that related at all?  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 17:48, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It was alleged to be an instance of Love jihad. However, unless we decide to add a section regarding alleged instances like this, I doubt it would fit into the article. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 23:05, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * , it is not, "alleged" - these instances are happening. Please create a section for these instances and add them.-2406:7400:98:395:6853:A3AE:E237:482B (talk) 18:28, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Please add this, this and this also.-2406:7400:98:395:AEC3:3AFF:FE2C:9622 (talk) 18:35, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * There are many instances of, "love jihad" - one just has to search online. Are you going to rise to the occasion?-2406:7400:98:395:AEC3:3AFF:FE2C:9622 (talk) 18:48, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 April 2023
Love Jihad is actively organising by Islamic groups in India converting Hindus women to Islam in the name of love and then treating them as sex slaves and sending them to ISIS ( an Islamic terrorist organisation)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.138.16.151 (talk) 20:56, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 April 2023
Love Jihad is actively organising by Islamic groups in India converting Hindus women to Islam in the name of love and then treating them as sex slaves and sending them to ISIS ( an Islamic terrorist organisation)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.138.16.151 (talk) 20:56, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 April 2023
98.42.76.131 (talk) 03:57, 29 April 2023 (UTC) The information is incorrect and facts have been distorted. (LOVE JIHAD)This is a strategic movement by Muslims similar to Grooming Gang in England. I don't need to say more but ask some basic questions: 1) Have you ever heard of any Hindu Organization working on converting anyone else to Hinduism( force, persuasion, greed). Their belief system is too universal, advance, broad and inclusive to accommodate every faith and belief systems. There is nothing like Hinduphobic about it. 2) ISIS and Caliphates are concepts that do not exist. They do not have any Agenda. Please enlighten yourself with views of European Countries. 3) You might want to hear views of victims of Love Jihad who managed to escape from this Farcical(Love Jihad) activity
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Lightoil (talk) 05:24, 29 April 2023 (UTC)