Talk:Love jihad conspiracy theory

Attribution history

Following a copyright investigation that confirmed there have been no versions of this article that did not contain improperly used non-free content, it has been replaced. Some of the content and structure of the original have been retained, although passages have been rewritten to confirm to copyright policy and non-free content practices. Since the structure and some of the language is retained, attribution is required under both CC-By-SA and GFDL for previous contributors. Since the copyrighted contents were twice restored out of process (once accidentally), continued publication of earlier versions of this article seems likely to result in a return of copyrighted contents. Accordingly, the history has been deleted. For attribution, the list of previous contributors is provided here:

Full history

(cur) (prev) 18:19, 12 February 2010 Illuminating Friend (talk | contribs | block) (13,124 bytes) (Undid revision 342694445 by Moonriddengirl (talk)) (undo) (cur) (prev) 18:32, 8 February 2010 117.194.199.64 (talk | block) (13,453 bytes) (Undid revision 342746264 by 117.194.199.64 (talk) sorry, my mistake) (undo) (cur) (prev) 18:31, 8 February 2010 117.194.199.64 (talk | block) (13,124 bytes) (Undid revision 342694445 by Moonriddengirl (talk). rvv. Original texts) (undo) (Tag: copyright violation template removed) (cur) (prev) 13:28, 8 February 2010 Moonriddengirl (talk | contribs | block) (13,453 bytes) (copyvio) (undo) (cur) (prev) 15:23, 28 January 2010 Zencv (talk | contribs | block) m (13,124 bytes) (undo) (cur) (prev) 15:19, 28 January 2010 Zencv (talk | contribs | block) (13,124 bytes) (Reverted to revision 340411055 by Zencv. (TW)) (undo) (cur) (prev) 14:08, 28 January 2010 117.204.94.72 (talk | block) (12,423 bytes) (reverted - undoing major malicious rigging and whitewashing.) (undo) (Tag: references removed) (cur) (prev) 21:52, 27 January 2010 Zencv (talk | contribs | block) (13,124 bytes) (rm unwanted space) (undo) (cur) (prev) 21:49, 27 January 2010 Zencv (talk | contribs | block) (13,125 bytes) (improved sentence structure) (undo) (cur) (prev) 21:48, 27 January 2010 Zencv (talk | contribs | block) (13,138 bytes) (per article of VHP) (undo) (cur) (prev) 21:47, 27 January 2010 Zencv (talk | contribs | block) (13,129 bytes) (formatting, WLs) (undo) (cur) (prev) 21:46, 27 January 2010 Zencv (talk | contribs | block) (13,120 bytes) (added court decision) (undo) (cur) (prev) 21:42, 27 January 2010 Zencv (talk | contribs | block) (12,694 bytes) (Karnataka - rewrite per source) (undo) (cur) (prev) 21:32, 27 January 2010 Zencv (talk | contribs | block) (12,628 bytes) (added court observations with sources) (undo) (cur) (prev) 21:22, 27 January 2010 Zencv (talk | contribs | block) (12,230 bytes) (added initial court observation) (undo) (cur) (prev) 21:18, 27 January 2010 Zencv (talk | contribs | block) (11,771 bytes) (rm repetetive statements that are moved to other paragraphs) (undo) (cur) (prev) 21:15, 27 January 2010 Zencv (talk | contribs | block) (13,019 bytes) (rewrite to past tense, add sources) (undo) (cur) (prev) 21:12, 27 January 2010 Zencv (talk | contribs | block) (12,754 bytes) (reformat) (undo) (cur) (prev) 21:06, 27 January 2010 Zencv (talk | contribs | block) (12,754 bytes) (expanding lead) (undo) (cur) (prev) 21:00, 27 January 2010 Zencv (talk | contribs | block) (12,428 bytes) (more details - rewrite the lead based on further developments) (undo) (cur) (prev) 20:56, 27 January 2010 Zencv (talk | contribs | block) (12,295 bytes) (Frontpage is not a neutral RS in this case - replace with TOI reference) (undo) (cur) (prev) 20:51, 27 January 2010 Zencv (talk | contribs | block) (12,423 bytes) (rm unsourced) (undo) (cur) (prev) 18:21, 16 January 2010 BigDunc (talk | contribs | block) m (12,446 bytes) (Reverted edits by Krishna208 (talk) to last version by Arjun024) (undo) (cur) (prev) 18:16, 16 January 2010 Krishna208 (talk | contribs | block) m (12,172 bytes) (Earlier history of Sri Rama Sena will make no sense in this article. If we want to write about history, we need to present all the historical facts like how muslims raped women during Shivaji time) (undo) (Tag: references removed) (cur) (prev) 05:45, 28 December 2009 Arjun024 (talk | contribs | block) m (12,446 bytes) (Reverted 1 edit by 122.169.127.114 identified as vandalism to last revision by ElijahOmega. (TW)) (undo) (cur) (prev) 02:51, 28 December 2009 122.169.127.114 (talk | block) (9,541 bytes) (→Communal effects) (undo) (cur) (prev) 13:45, 24 December 2009 ElijahOmega (talk | contribs | block) (12,446 bytes) (Undid revision 333759667 by 123.237.7.169 (talk) - rv commentary) (undo) (cur) (prev) 07:12, 24 December 2009 123.237.7.169 (talk | block) (12,585 bytes) (→Communal effects) (undo) (cur) (prev) 15:26, 23 December 2009 Zencv (talk | contribs | block) m (12,446 bytes) (Reverted 2 edits by 123.237.7.169 identified as vandalism to last revision by Node ue. (TW)) (undo) (cur) (prev) 13:25, 23 December 2009 123.237.7.169 (talk | block) (12,792 bytes) (→Communal effects) (undo) (cur) (prev) 13:17, 23 December 2009 123.237.7.169 (talk | block) (12,791 bytes) (→Communal effects) (undo) (cur) (prev) 07:06, 23 December 2009 Node ue (talk | contribs | block) (12,446 bytes) (undo) (cur) (prev) 16:49, 20 December 2009 Joshua Issac (talk | contribs | block) (12,439 bytes) (restore neutralised version of deleted section.) (undo) (cur) (prev) 10:00, 15 December 2009 117.204.89.164 (talk | block) (8,399 bytes) (linkin) (undo) (cur) (prev) 17:58, 14 December 2009 71.111.8.162 (talk | block) (8,372 bytes) (→See also) (undo) (cur) (prev) 07:40, 14 December 2009 121.241.67.226 (talk | block) (8,359 bytes) (→Kerala High Court Observation on Love Jihad: It was not an observation. It was the verdict by the court.) (undo) (cur) (prev) 04:35, 14 December 2009 Frindro (talk | contribs | block) (8,364 bytes) (→Allegations by Christian organization: corrected grammer by capitalizing "Christian" and adding a comma after "leader") (undo) (cur) (prev) 17:57, 12 December 2009 86.96.226.93 (talk | block) (8,363 bytes) (This not verdict. it is an observation by justice) (undo) (cur) (prev) 17:18, 11 December 2009 Xqbot (talk | contribs | block) m (8,359 bytes) (robot Modifying: ml:ലൗ ജിഹാദ് വിവാദം) (undo) (cur) (prev) 10:31, 11 December 2009 Arjun024 (talk | contribs | block) m (8,340 bytes) (typo) (undo) (cur) (prev) 10:30, 11 December 2009 Arjun024 (talk | contribs | block) (8,339 bytes) (RV due to vandalism.) (undo) (cur) (prev) 09:16, 11 December 2009 117.197.195.23 (talk | block) (8,448 bytes) (undo) (cur) (prev) 09:15, 11 December 2009 117.197.195.23 (talk | block) (8,430 bytes) (undo) (cur) (prev) 07:07, 11 December 2009 121.241.67.226 (talk | block) (8,339 bytes) (undo) (cur) (prev) 07:05, 11 December 2009 121.241.67.226 (talk | block) (8,358 bytes) (undo) (cur) (prev) 04:03, 10 December 2009 121.241.67.226 (talk | block) (8,130 bytes) (Added details for Kerala High Court Verdict) (undo) (cur) (prev) 13:32, 8 December 2009 Xqbot (talk | contribs | block) m (5,922 bytes) (robot Modifying: ml:ലൗ ജിഹാദ് വിവാദം) (undo) (cur) (prev) 00:41, 4 December 2009 Chris the speller (talk | contribs | block) m (5,905 bytes) (sp, caps) (undo) (cur) (prev) 11:40, 25 November 2009 Suffusion of Yellow (talk | contribs | block) m (5,905 bytes) (Reverted edits by 89.211.162.121 (talk) to last version by Tim1357) (undo) (cur) (prev) 11:38, 25 November 2009 89.211.162.121 (talk | block) (6,704 bytes) (undo) (cur) (prev) 02:50, 25 November 2009 Tim1357 (talk | contribs | block) m (5,905 bytes) (Typo) (undo) (cur) (prev) 23:00, 19 November 2009 TimVickers (talk | contribs | block) m (5,906 bytes) (Removed category Romeo Jihad (using HotCat)) (undo) (cur) (prev) 23:00, 19 November 2009 TimVickers (talk | contribs | block) m (5,931 bytes) (Removed category Love Jihad (using HotCat)) (undo) (cur) (prev) 04:32, 19 November 2009 61.17.217.164 (talk | block) (5,956 bytes) (→References) (undo) (cur) (prev) 04:29, 19 November 2009 Pkapildas (talk | contribs | block) (5,904 bytes) (→Police report) (undo) (cur) (prev) 04:27, 19 November 2009 Pkapildas (talk | contribs | block) (6,354 bytes) (→Police report) (undo) (cur) (prev) 04:27, 19 November 2009 Pkapildas (talk | contribs | block) (6,355 bytes) (→Police report) (undo) (cur) (prev) 12:34, 18 November 2009 AnomieBOT (talk | contribs | block) (5,904 bytes) (Rescuing orphaned refs ("beware" from rev 326432132)) (undo) (cur) (prev) 11:30, 18 November 2009 86.96.227.85 (talk | block) (5,649 bytes) (→Communal Effects) (undo) (Tag: section blanking) (cur) (prev) 23:08, 17 November 2009 Newman Luke (talk | contribs | block) (9,739 bytes) (→See also) (undo) (cur) (prev) 22:06, 17 November 2009 198.83.120.99 (talk | block) (9,692 bytes) (→Communal Effects) (undo) (cur) (prev) 21:39, 17 November 2009 Rich Farmbrough (talk | contribs | block) m (9,677 bytes) (Correct cite dates. using AWB) (undo) (cur) (prev) 03:50, 17 November 2009 ARUNKUMAR P.R (talk | contribs | block) (9,715 bytes) (→Communal Effects: -> Rm bad link) (undo) (cur) (prev) 12:00, 16 November 2009 NellieBly (talk | contribs | block) m (9,719 bytes) (Reverted edits by Trackrobo to last revision by NellieBly (HG)) (undo) (cur) (prev) 12:00, 16 November 2009 Trackrobo (talk | contribs | block) (1,776 bytes) (undo) (cur) (prev) 11:57, 16 November 2009 NellieBly (talk | contribs | block) m (9,719 bytes) (Reverted edits by Trackrobo to last revision by ClueBot (HG)) (undo) (cur) (prev) 11:56, 16 November 2009 Trackrobo (talk | contribs | block) (203 bytes) (←Replaced content with '{{POV|date=October 2009}} Love Jihad : A Dirty Story Made by Shangh Parivar To Devide Indians Love Jihad : A Dirty Story Made by Shangh Parivar To Devid...') (undo) (cur) (prev) 11:54, 16 November 2009 ClueBot (talk | contribs | block) m (9,719 bytes) (Reverting possible vandalism by Trackrobo to version by Ciphers. False positive? Report it. Thanks, ClueBot. (824142) (Bot)) (undo) (cur) (prev) 11:54, 16 November 2009 Trackrobo (talk | contribs | block) (166 bytes) (←Replaced content with '{{POV|date=October 2009}} [[ml:ലൗ ജിഹാ�...') (undo) (cur) (prev) 15:18, 15 November 2009 Ciphers (talk | contribs | block) m (9,719 bytes) (Reverted 1 edit by Trackrobo identified as vandalism to last revision by Zhang He. (TW)) (undo) (cur) (prev) 12:06, 15 November 2009 Trackrobo (talk | contribs | block) (8,091 bytes) (undo) (Tag: categories removed) (cur) (prev) 17:19, 14 November 2009 Zhang He (talk | contribs | block) (9,719 bytes) (Reverted 1 edit by Prime1111; Then provide reliable sources to back up your edits. It's as simple as that.. (TW)) (undo) (cur) (prev) 17:17, 14 November 2009 Prime1111 (talk | contribs | block) (8,599 bytes) (→Police report: i have deleted this before giving proper reason, unless the user who restores this is a bot.. did you even bother reading the new changes ?) (undo) (Tag: section blanking) (cur) (prev) 07:11, 14 November 2009 Smsarmad (talk | contribs | block) (9,719 bytes) (Undid revision 325756404 by Prime1111 (talk)restoring deleted content) (undo) (cur) (prev) 06:45, 14 November 2009 Prime1111 (talk | contribs | block) (8,599 bytes) (→Police report: The DGP has since changed his statement. Outdated information.) (undo) (Tag: section blanking) (cur) (prev) 06:43, 14 November 2009 Prime1111 (talk | contribs | block) (9,719 bytes) (Included new developments) (undo) (cur) (prev) 19:25, 13 November 2009 4twenty42o (talk | contribs | block) m (10,015 bytes) (Reverted edits by 117.204.80.158 (talk) to last version by Woohookitty) (undo) (cur) (prev) 19:23, 13 November 2009 117.204.80.158 (talk | block) (10,675 bytes) (→Police report) (undo) (cur) (prev) 06:42, 10 November 2009 Woohookitty (talk | contribs | block) m (10,015 bytes) (WikiCleaner 0.98 - Repairing link to disambiguation page - You can help!) (undo) (cur) (prev) 14:49, 7 November 2009 A8UDI (talk | contribs | block) m (10,002 bytes) (Reverted edits by 92.29.113.219 (talk) to last version by Zencv) (undo) (cur) (prev) 14:49, 7 November 2009 92.29.113.219 (talk | block) (3,952 bytes) (→Police report) (undo) (Tag: section blanking) (cur) (prev) 14:49, 7 November 2009 92.29.113.219 (talk | block) (5,072 bytes) (→Allegations by Christian organization) (undo) (Tag: section blanking) (cur) (prev) 14:49, 7 November 2009 92.29.113.219 (talk | block) (5,898 bytes) (→Communal Effects) (undo) (Tag: section blanking) (cur) (prev) 21:04, 6 November 2009 Zencv (talk | contribs | block) (10,002 bytes) (→See also: no islamic groups have claimed so far that this is part of Dawa, no sources say so either) (undo) (cur) (prev) 21:02, 6 November 2009 Zencv (talk | contribs | block) m (10,035 bytes) (Removed category Marriage and religion (using HotCat)) (undo) (cur) (prev) 18:56, 6 November 2009 Dizzledorf (talk | contribs | block) (10,070 bytes) (→See also: Only related in semantics, not context) (undo) (cur) (prev) 18:45, 6 November 2009 Dizzledorf (talk | contribs | block) (10,092 bytes) (→See also: Islamic Missionary Activity) (undo) (cur) (prev) 18:37, 6 November 2009 Dizzledorf (talk | contribs | block) m (10,059 bytes) (Quick-adding category Marriage and religion (using HotCat)) (undo) (cur) (prev) 18:34, 6 November 2009 Dizzledorf (talk | contribs | block) m (10,024 bytes) (Quick-adding category Conversion to Islam (using HotCat)) (undo) (cur) (prev) 18:29, 6 November 2009 Dizzledorf (talk | contribs | block) m (9,991 bytes) (Quick-adding category Religious conversion (using HotCat)) (undo) (cur) (prev) 18:25, 6 November 2009 Dizzledorf (talk | contribs | block) (9,957 bytes) (Copy edit) (undo) (cur) (prev) 19:48, 4 November 2009 Lord of the Pit (talk | contribs | block) (9,951 bytes) (Undid revision 323945284 by 119.82.89.30 (talk)) (undo) (cur) (prev) 19:48, 4 November 2009 119.82.89.30 (talk | block) (9,135 bytes) (→Allegations by Christian organization) (undo) (Tag: references removed) (cur) (prev) 19:29, 3 November 2009 Zencv (talk | contribs | block) (9,951 bytes) (→See also: rm as pub attack is not directly related to Love Jihad) (undo) (cur) (prev) 17:39, 3 November 2009 Zencv (talk | contribs | block) (9,982 bytes) (Reverted 1 edit by 117.204.86.150; Shri Ram Sena and its activities are relevant, also rm category per talk. (TW)) (undo) (cur) (prev) 16:37, 3 November 2009 117.204.86.150 (talk | block) (9,969 bytes) (removed unrelated 'see also' links.. add catg) (undo) (cur) (prev) 05:50, 3 November 2009 Porsched sgools (talk | contribs | block) (9,982 bytes) (add new info) (undo) (cur) (prev) 13:54, 1 November 2009 117.204.89.188 (talk | block) (9,646 bytes) (minor edit) (undo) (cur) (prev) 10:09, 1 November 2009 UltraMagnus (talk | contribs | block) (9,642 bytes) (Reverted good faith edits by 198.36.32.137; Rv unexplained changed of wording and meaning. (TW)) (undo) (cur) (prev) 09:58, 1 November 2009 198.36.32.137 (talk | block) (9,643 bytes) (→Police report) (undo) (cur) (prev) 09:06, 1 November 2009 Zencv (talk | contribs | block) (9,642 bytes) (→Communal Effects: details about Sena) (undo) (cur) (prev) 08:50, 1 November 2009 Zencv (talk | contribs | block) (9,367 bytes) (added Shri Ram Sena allegation) (undo) (cur) (prev) 08:23, 1 November 2009 Zencv (talk | contribs | block) m (8,841 bytes) (Removed category Jihadist organizations (using HotCat)) (undo) (cur) (prev) 15:58, 31 October 2009 Apibrahimk (talk | contribs | block) (8,877 bytes) (this category not required. this articel not related to islam) (undo) (cur) (prev) 17:44, 30 October 2009 Zencv (talk | contribs | block) (8,892 bytes) (Reverted to revision 322861591 by Porsched sgools; reason why this OR section is not OK had been mentioned several times. (TW)) (undo) (cur) (prev) 16:00, 30 October 2009 Purger.kl (talk | contribs | block) (10,515 bytes) (similar incidents) (undo) (cur) (prev) 03:34, 30 October 2009 Porsched sgools (talk | contribs | block) (8,892 bytes) (add place info, per ref, required) (undo) (cur) (prev) 23:02, 29 October 2009 Zencv (talk | contribs | block) (8,877 bytes) (→Police report: fixing broken ref) (undo) (cur) (prev) 22:59, 29 October 2009 Zencv (talk | contribs | block) (8,879 bytes) (→Police report: added per source) (undo) (cur) (prev) 19:32, 29 October 2009 Zencv (talk | contribs | block) (8,360 bytes) (→Allegations by Christian organization: rm sentence not supported by source) (undo) (cur) (prev) 19:30, 29 October 2009 Zencv (talk | contribs | block) m (8,433 bytes) (→Communal Effects: wikify ref.) (undo) (cur) (prev) 19:29, 29 October 2009 Zencv (talk | contribs | block) (8,424 bytes) (→Communal Effects: per source) (undo) (cur) (prev) 19:28, 29 October 2009 Zencv (talk | contribs | block) (8,456 bytes) (→Communal Effects: rm unreferenced) (undo) (cur) (prev) 19:27, 29 October 2009 Zencv (talk | contribs | block) m (8,591 bytes) (→Allegations by Chrisitan organizations: typo) (undo) (cur) (prev) 19:27, 29 October 2009 Zencv (talk | contribs | block) (8,592 bytes) (per source, neutralized heading) (undo) (cur) (prev) 19:25, 29 October 2009 Zencv (talk | contribs | block) (8,572 bytes) (74.125.153.132 is non English and not a RS. Asianet talks about 2 girls suiciding - not about Love Jihad - the section is synthesised and unreferenced) (undo) (cur) (prev) 19:22, 29 October 2009 Zencv (talk | contribs | block) (9,876 bytes) (→Police report: per source) (undo) (cur) (prev) 19:21, 29 October 2009 Zencv (talk | contribs | block) (9,717 bytes) (→Police report: rm unreferenced and biased sentenses) (undo) (cur) (prev) 19:19, 29 October 2009 Zencv (talk | contribs | block) (10,391 bytes) (rm link to non English partisan material that violates WP:EL) (undo) (cur) (prev) 19:18, 29 October 2009 Zencv (talk | contribs | block) (10,643 bytes) (None of the sources talk about Love Jihad - they only talk about marital conversion) (undo) (cur) (prev) 19:16, 29 October 2009 Zencv (talk | contribs | block) (12,266 bytes) (→Modus Operandi: rm synthesised contents sourced to non English source) (undo) (cur) (prev) 15:57, 29 October 2009 Michael.Kaamarajan (talk | contribs | block) (13,853 bytes) (Cleaning vandalism) (undo) (cur) (prev) 15:56, 29 October 2009 Michael.Kaamarajan (talk | contribs | block) (8,100 bytes) (undo) (cur) (prev) 15:27, 29 October 2009 Porsched sgools (talk | contribs | block) (8,115 bytes) (add info) (undo) (cur) (prev) 09:41, 29 October 2009 Oniongas (talk | contribs | block) m (8,100 bytes) (Reverted edits by 125.16.65.7 (talk) to last version by Nezzadar) (undo) (cur) (prev) 06:15, 29 October 2009 125.16.65.7 (talk | block) (13,853 bytes) (removing vandalism) (undo) (cur) (prev) 06:14, 29 October 2009 125.16.65.7 (talk | block) (8,066 bytes) (Undid revision 322675135 by Nezzadar (talk)) (undo) (cur) (prev) 04:07, 29 October 2009 Nezzadar (talk | contribs | block) (8,100 bytes) (Added that the two places were in India. Seems kind of important, doesn't it?) (undo) (cur) (prev) 04:04, 29 October 2009 Oniongas (talk | contribs | block) m (8,066 bytes) (Reverted edits by 122.162.68.7 (talk) to last version by Zencv) (undo) (cur) (prev) 01:51, 29 October 2009 122.162.68.7 (talk | block) (13,853 bytes) (removing vandalism) (undo) (cur) (prev) 20:21, 28 October 2009 Zencv (talk | contribs | block) (8,066 bytes) (Reverted to revision 322385221 by Zencv; restore last good version - rm OR by banned user. (TW)) (undo) (cur) (prev) 01:28, 28 October 2009 Yusuf.Abdullah (talk | contribs | block) (13,853 bytes) (→History) (undo) (cur) (prev) 00:58, 28 October 2009 Yusuf.Abdullah (talk | contribs | block) (13,522 bytes) (All the references are valid) (undo) (cur) (prev) 18:50, 27 October 2009 Zencv (talk | contribs | block) (8,066 bytes) (Reverted 1 edit by Yusuf.Abdullah; Which vandalism? Do not add unreferenced sections. See also talk page.. (TW)) (undo) (cur) (prev) 16:23, 27 October 2009 Yusuf.Abdullah (talk | contribs | block) (13,522 bytes) (reverted vandalism) (undo) (cur) (prev) 15:36, 27 October 2009 Oniongas (talk | contribs | block) m (8,066 bytes) (Reverted edits by Yusuf.Abdullah (talk) to last version by Zencv) (undo) (cur) (prev) 13:36, 27 October 2009 Yusuf.Abdullah (talk | contribs | block) (13,522 bytes) (undo) (cur) (prev) 13:33, 27 October 2009 Zencv (talk | contribs | block) (8,066 bytes) (Reverted 1 edit by Yusuf.Abdullah; See talk page and discuss before you edit further. (TW)) (undo) (cur) (prev) 13:31, 27 October 2009 Yusuf.Abdullah (talk | contribs | block) (13,522 bytes) (Stop vandalizing the article. Your intention to destroy the article is well known to everyone.) (undo) (cur) (prev) 12:50, 27 October 2009 Zencv (talk | contribs | block) (8,066 bytes) (Reverted to revision 322242075 by Zencv; take it to talk pages before adding OR, unreferenced sections. (TW)) (undo) (cur) (prev) 09:06, 27 October 2009 125.16.65.7 (talk | block) (13,522 bytes) (undo) (cur) (prev) 09:06, 27 October 2009 125.16.65.7 (talk | block) (13,521 bytes) (undo) (cur) (prev) 06:41, 27 October 2009 125.16.65.7 (talk | block) (13,478 bytes) (→Similar Incidents) (undo) (cur) (prev) 06:31, 27 October 2009 Woohookitty (talk | contribs | block) m (13,056 bytes) (WikiCleaner 0.98 - Repairing link to disambiguation page - You can help!) (undo) (cur) (prev) 06:06, 27 October 2009 125.16.65.7 (talk | block) (13,041 bytes) (→Similar Incidents) (undo) (cur) (prev) 04:29, 27 October 2009 Porsched sgools (talk | contribs | block) m (13,037 bytes) (→Similar Incidents: formatting) (undo) (cur) (prev) 04:27, 27 October 2009 Porsched sgools (talk | contribs | block) (13,037 bytes) (add info, new ref) (undo) (cur) (prev) 01:29, 27 October 2009 Yusuf.Abdullah (talk | contribs | block) (12,847 bytes) (undo) (cur) (prev) 01:27, 27 October 2009 59.165.93.2 (talk | block) (11,902 bytes) (→History) (undo) (cur) (prev) 01:27, 27 October 2009 203.180.31.95 (talk | block) (12,847 bytes) (undo) (cur) (prev) 01:26, 27 October 2009 203.180.31.95 (talk | block) (7,734 bytes) (undo) (cur) (prev) 01:25, 27 October 2009 203.180.31.95 (talk | block) (7,671 bytes) (undo) (cur) (prev) 01:25, 27 October 2009 203.180.31.95 (talk | block) (7,687 bytes) (undo) (Tag: references removed) (cur) (prev) 01:25, 27 October 2009 203.180.31.95 (talk | block) (7,801 bytes) (undo) (Tag: references removed) (cur) (prev) 01:24, 27 October 2009 203.180.31.95 (talk | block) (8,068 bytes) (undo) (cur) (prev) 23:50, 26 October 2009 Zencv (talk | contribs | block) m (8,066 bytes) (undo) (cur) (prev) 23:45, 26 October 2009 Zencv (talk | contribs | block) (8,068 bytes) (→Police report: added more) (undo) (cur) (prev) 23:34, 26 October 2009 Zencv (talk | contribs | block) (7,801 bytes) (added source for lead) (undo) (cur) (prev) 23:30, 26 October 2009 Zencv (talk | contribs | block) m (7,687 bytes) (undo) (cur) (prev) 23:29, 26 October 2009 Zencv (talk | contribs | block) (7,671 bytes) (Add appropriate refernce to lead sentence) (undo) (cur) (prev) 22:16, 26 October 2009 Zencv (talk | contribs | block) (7,734 bytes) (Reverted to revision 322016477 by Zencv; see talk page. (TW)) (undo) (cur) (prev) 19:15, 26 October 2009 Yusuf.Abdullah (talk | contribs | block) (12,847 bytes) (→Modus Operandi) (undo) (cur) (prev) 19:04, 26 October 2009 Yusuf.Abdullah (talk | contribs | block) (12,795 bytes) (→History) (undo) (cur) (prev) 18:55, 26 October 2009 Yusuf.Abdullah (talk | contribs | block) (11,851 bytes) (→Communal Effects) (undo) (cur) (prev) 18:32, 26 October 2009 Yusuf.Abdullah (talk | contribs | block) (11,838 bytes) (→Modus Operandi) (undo) (cur) (prev) 18:29, 26 October 2009 Yusuf.Abdullah (talk | contribs | block) (11,772 bytes) (→Modus Operandi) (undo) (cur) (prev) 17:50, 26 October 2009 Yusuf.Abdullah (talk | contribs | block) (11,701 bytes) (→Similar Incidents) (undo) (cur) (prev) 17:45, 26 October 2009 Yusuf.Abdullah (talk | contribs | block) (11,619 bytes) (→Similar Incidents) (undo) (cur) (prev) 17:40, 26 October 2009 Yusuf.Abdullah (talk | contribs | block) (11,562 bytes) (→Similar Incidents) (undo) (cur) (prev) 17:39, 26 October 2009 Yusuf.Abdullah (talk | contribs | block) (11,545 bytes) (→Similar Incidents) (undo) (cur) (prev) 17:28, 26 October 2009 Yusuf.Abdullah (talk | contribs | block) (11,377 bytes) (→Similar Incidents) (undo) (cur) (prev) 16:19, 26 October 2009 117.194.197.49 (talk | block) (11,322 bytes) (→Similar Incidents: blogs are not a good source (especially shitty myspace *ugh*). Add something better + avoid loaded words like "fanatic") (undo) (Tag: references removed) (cur) (prev) 15:31, 26 October 2009 Yusuf.Abdullah (talk | contribs | block) (11,408 bytes) (→Similar Incidents) (undo) (cur) (prev) 15:27, 26 October 2009 Yusuf.Abdullah (talk | contribs | block) (11,297 bytes) (→Similar Incidents) (undo) (cur) (prev) 15:17, 26 October 2009 Yusuf.Abdullah (talk | contribs | block) (11,225 bytes) (→Similar Incidents) (undo) (cur) (prev) 15:16, 26 October 2009 Yusuf.Abdullah (talk | contribs | block) (11,195 bytes) (→Similar Incidents) (undo) (cur) (prev) 15:10, 26 October 2009 Yusuf.Abdullah (talk | contribs | block) (10,658 bytes) (→References) (undo) (cur) (prev) 15:08, 26 October 2009 Yusuf.Abdullah (talk | contribs | block) (10,406 bytes) (→Modus Operandi) (undo) (cur) (prev) 15:05, 26 October 2009 Yusuf.Abdullah (talk | contribs | block) (10,392 bytes) (→Modus Operandi) (undo) (cur) (prev) 15:04, 26 October 2009 Yusuf.Abdullah (talk | contribs | block) (10,372 bytes) (→Modus Operandi) (undo) (cur) (prev) 14:44, 26 October 2009 Yusuf.Abdullah (talk | contribs | block) (9,008 bytes) (→Police report) (undo) (cur) (prev) 14:37, 26 October 2009 Yusuf.Abdullah (talk | contribs | block) (8,854 bytes) (→Modus Operandi) (undo) (cur) (prev) 14:37, 26 October 2009 Yusuf.Abdullah (talk | contribs | block) (8,798 bytes) (→Modus Operandi) (undo) (cur) (prev) 14:23, 26 October 2009 Yusuf.Abdullah (talk | contribs | block) (8,655 bytes) (→Modus Operandi) (undo) (cur) (prev) 14:21, 26 October 2009 Yusuf.Abdullah (talk | contribs | block) (7,985 bytes) (→Communal Effects) (undo) (cur) (prev) 14:19, 26 October 2009 Yusuf.Abdullah (talk | contribs | block) (8,495 bytes) (→Communal Effects) (undo) (cur) (prev) 14:17, 26 October 2009 Yusuf.Abdullah (talk | contribs | block) (8,496 bytes) (→Communal Effects) (undo) (cur) (prev) 14:14, 26 October 2009 Yusuf.Abdullah (talk | contribs | block) (8,418 bytes) (undo) (cur) (prev) 14:11, 26 October 2009 Yusuf.Abdullah (talk | contribs | block) (8,318 bytes) (undo) (cur) (prev) 04:41, 26 October 2009 121.241.67.226 (talk | block) (8,354 bytes) (→Police report: Removed statement sourced from "islamic" portal and sourced from Mathrubhumi, which is neutral and well recognised.) (undo) (cur) (prev) 22:09, 25 October 2009 Zencv (talk | contribs | block) (7,734 bytes) (→Police report) (undo) (cur) (prev) 22:00, 25 October 2009 Zencv (talk | contribs | block) (7,236 bytes) (rm notability tag, add OR tag as article is full of synthesised claims unsupported by sources) (undo) (cur) (prev) 21:56, 25 October 2009 Zencv (talk | contribs | block) (7,233 bytes) (→Communal Effects: rm unreferenced) (undo) (cur) (prev) 21:53, 25 October 2009 Zencv (talk | contribs | block) (7,366 bytes) (→Communal Effects: rm non neutral WL) (undo) (cur) (prev) 18:31, 24 October 2009 117.194.196.5 (talk | block) (7,334 bytes) (→Communal Effects: rm repeat) (undo) (cur) (prev) 18:31, 24 October 2009 117.194.196.5 (talk | block) (7,467 bytes) (rm inapplicable category (see WP:TERRORIST. Added relevant cats and some refs) (undo) (cur) (prev) 18:21, 24 October 2009 117.194.196.5 (talk | block) (6,729 bytes) (→Communal Effects) (undo) (cur) (prev) 18:14, 24 October 2009 117.194.196.5 (talk | block) (6,533 bytes) (rv nonsense. The termis also being used by Christians) (undo) (Added xx/xx/xxxx:- probably a date in unclear format) (cur) (prev) 14:06, 24 October 2009 122.162.4.110 (talk | block) (4,510 bytes) (undo) (cur) (prev) 12:06, 24 October 2009 59.88.67.238 (talk | block) (5,794 bytes) (Anti Muslim forces phrase 'Love Jihad') (undo) (Tag: references removed) (cur) (prev) 03:04, 24 October 2009 Jake Wartenberg (talk | contribs | block) (6,533 bytes) (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Love Jihad closed as keep) (undo) (cur) (prev) 11:23, 23 October 2009 121.241.67.226 (talk | block) (6,861 bytes) (undo) (cur) (prev) 21:19, 22 October 2009 Zencv (talk | contribs | block) (6,407 bytes) (allegations) (undo) (cur) (prev) 05:09, 22 October 2009 Porsched sgools (talk | contribs | block) (6,394 bytes) (add info) (undo) (cur) (prev) 09:46, 21 October 2009 Porsched sgools (talk | contribs | block) (6,183 bytes) (add info about mangalore) (undo) (cur) (prev) 03:03, 20 October 2009 RussBot (talk | contribs | block) m (5,817 bytes) (Robot: fix links to disambiguation page English) (undo) (cur) (prev) 01:54, 20 October 2009 Purger.kl (talk | contribs | block) (5,766 bytes) (undo) (cur) (prev) 17:34, 18 October 2009 Triplestop (talk | contribs | block) (4,591 bytes) (reword) (undo) (cur) (prev) 17:33, 18 October 2009 Triplestop (talk | contribs | block) (4,616 bytes) (added per source) (undo) (cur) (prev) 10:28, 18 October 2009 UltraMagnus (talk | contribs | block) m (4,578 bytes) (undo) (cur) (prev) 05:06, 18 October 2009 117.206.37.186 (talk | block) (4,567 bytes) (→Communal Effects) (undo) (cur) (prev) 04:48, 18 October 2009 117.206.37.186 (talk | block) (3,625 bytes) (undo) (cur) (prev) 02:14, 18 October 2009 117.206.37.71 (talk | block) (3,262 bytes) (++) (undo) (Added xx/xx/xxxx:- probably a date in unclear format) (cur) (prev) 19:36, 17 October 2009 SmackBot (talk | contribs | block) m (2,517 bytes) (Date maintenance tags and general fixes) (undo) (cur) (prev) 09:25, 17 October 2009 Zencv (talk | contribs | block) (2,641 bytes) (AfD: Nominated for deletion; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Love Jihad) (undo) (cur) (prev) 08:59, 17 October 2009 Zencv (talk | contribs | block) (2,324 bytes) (see talk page) (undo) (cur) (prev) 08:55, 17 October 2009 Zencv (talk | contribs | block) (2,293 bytes) (rm current as per Wikipedia:How_the_Current_events_page_works#Wikipedia_is_not_a_news_service) (undo) (cur) (prev) 06:27, 17 October 2009 Cunard (talk | contribs | block) (2,305 bytes) (removed hangon and prod, the prod has been contested > take to WP:AFD if you wish to pursue deletion) (undo) (cur) (prev) 05:59, 17 October 2009 117.206.41.237 (talk | block) (2,655 bytes) (undo) (cur) (prev) 01:17, 17 October 2009 117.206.36.229 (talk | block) (2,643 bytes) (undo) (Added xx/xx/xxxx:- probably a date in unclear format) (cur) (prev) 14:07, 16 October 2009 Zencv (talk | contribs | block) (2,150 bytes) (Proposing article for deletion per WP:PROD. (TW)) (undo) (cur) (prev) 00:35, 14 October 2009 Numbo3-bot (talk | contribs | block) m (1,703 bytes) (robot Adding: ml:ലൗ ജിഹാദ്) (undo) (cur) (prev) 04:07, 13 October 2009 Porsched sgools (talk | contribs | block) (1,669 bytes) (undo) (cur) (prev) 03:54, 13 October 2009 Porsched sgools (talk | contribs | block) (1,645 bytes) (undo) (cur) (prev) 03:54, 13 October 2009 Porsched sgools (talk | contribs | block) (1,606 bytes) (add) (undo) (cur) (prev) 07:54, 12 October 2009 Proud ezhava (talk | contribs | block) (1,373 bytes) (Created article)

Contributors are reminded, please, not to import text from previously published sources unless that text is public domain or licensed compatibly with our Terms of Use (see copyright policy for more details). Brief excerpts of non-free text can be utilized in accordance with non-free content guidelines, but in all cases these must be clearly marked by quotation marks or block quotation. All other use of copyrighted text is prohibited by Wikipedia's policy. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 April 2023 (2)

These instances should be incorporated into this Wikipedia Love jihad article which is extended confirmed protected. Please do so (some editor reverted it there at wikiquote by giving the reason that it should be incorporated in the Wikipedia article here, first)!- 2406:7400:98:395:84E:7F2F:E9ED:1D36 (talk) 08:20, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Where do you want to add it? Add the exact text in your request don't give a diff. Lightoil (talk) 09:25, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Lightoil or anyone else, please create a new section with the title, "Instances" and add these (the last "point" should be without a bullet but since I am unable to format it correctly as it doesn't go to the next line, I will leave it for someone else to do so):-

• 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.
• A Hindu girl was chopped into pieces by her supposed lover, a Muslim.
• A tribal Christian girl was chopped into pieces by her Muslim lover.
• A Muslim man was arrested for murdering his Hindu wife in Mumbai and her kin claim it to be love jihad.
• The Vishwa Hindu Parishad released a list of four hundred cases and demanded a law against it by the Government of India.-2406:7400:98:395:A529:5B99:290D:3783 (talk) 11:35, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

References

 Not done: It could potentially be defamatory to insert these cases into Wikipedia as the motivation has not been proven in any of these cases (and indeed the media reports often don't even mention motivation, only factually the religions of the alleged perpetrators and victims). The mainspace article says it's about forced conversion, but it's unclear how these incidents of violence relate to conversion as opposed to simply intermarriage. Domestic violence is unfortunately a WP:ROUTINE (see also: WP:NCRIME) event in the world, and not necessarily notable. Lizthegrey (talk) 20:38, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

If sources are cited, I am sure those sentences can be added.2406:7400:98:E812:4DAB:1A6:E0EB:10D6 (talk) 04:15, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. Lightoil (talk) 05:37, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 April 2023

The word conspiracy should be changed with name given to the act of conversion by getting into a relationship. Saying an act done by some muslims is islamophobic is like sayng the word terrorism or atankwaad is islamophobic. There are multiple cases of love jihad in India, UK, and Scandinavian countries. 2405:201:5014:686B:DC3F:A7EF:1F13:CB9A (talk) 05:02, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:10, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

RFC on target of Love Jihad

Should the leade sentence The conspiracy theory purports that Muslim men target Hindu women for conversion to Islam by means such as seduction be changed to The conspiracy theory purports that Muslim men target non-muslim women for conversion to Islam by means such as seduction? 71.201.78.227 (talk) 06:04, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

• Yes - The earliest sources [1] included a mix of Christian and Hindu accusations. See this early article that mentions Christians along with Hindus [2] Not to mention the remarks made by christian groups in 2020s. Current leade is WP:UNDUE.71.201.78.227 (talk) 06:16, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support - .......and non-Muslim should be linked like I have just done.-2406:7400:98:E812:64F6:9824:569F:E779 (talk) 04:58, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

No

I took a look at the top 20 results on Google Scholar and examined all the RS in those results, ordered by year of publication below:

• 2009 "forcing Hindu women to convert to Islam", also mentions Christian women but says the claims are coming from the Hindu right
• "Hindu and Christian girls" (2011)
• 2014 only covers Hindu women
• 2018 "right-wing Hindu activists have alleged that members of the Muslim community are conspiring to marry Hindu women"
• 2018 "a moral panic against the alleged seduction, marriage, forced conversion and trafficking of young Hindu girls by Muslim men"
• 2018 ? (no access), but says that love jihad is associated with anti-Christian themes
• 2021 "romantic liaisons between Muslim men and Hindu women"
• 2021 "a supposed trend of Muslim men coercing Hindu women into conversion and marriage"

While some earlier sources do mention Christians as a target of the conspiracy theory, that seems to have vanished in more recent sources, so overall I think that the article should follow the majority of reliable sources and not over-emphasize the role of Christians in the conspiracy theory. Also the article should state that the claims of love jihad are coming from the Hindu religious/nationalist right. Indeed, one source specifically mentions that love jihad is also associated with anti-Christian themes. (t · c) buidhe 19:34, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

@Buidhe: To the contrary, the current sentence has a Hindu overemphasis. non-muslims does not emphasis neither hindu nor christian. It could be sikh or any other religion person. As @2406:7400:98:E812:64F6:9824:569F:E779: said, Kafir is the appropriate term for a non-muslim but I don't think it's WP:NPOV.2601:246:5400:1CE6:75EA:BDC2:F6A9:87A6 (talk) 20:04, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

"Love jihad" is not a real phenomenon (unless you consider people freely deciding to change their religion and/or get married a "jihad") but rather a moral panic propagated by the Hindu right. All sources agree on that. (t · c) buidhe 22:28, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

• No, entirely per Buidhe above. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:38, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
• No, per what buidhe has already articulated. Also, in case it hasn't been noticed, the ending paragraph of the lead does mention its adoption among groups or movements beyond that of Hindutva. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 06:34, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
• No per Buidhe and Tayi Arajakate. Doug Weller talk 13:17, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Here's an verifyable account of a love jihad victim's interview

Love jihad is not a conspiracy theory, he's an evidence on how madrasa trains them. It's quite shocking that you still call this conspiracy theory. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uI0IljdELts&feature=youtu.be. Srj.cooldude (talk) 19:49, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Karnataka High court order to probe Love Jihad.

Inspite of so many publicly available information on probe and high court ordered investigation, you have dismissed it as a conspiracy theory to support the islamist agenda. https://www.deccanherald.com/national/love-jihad-courts-ask-kerala-karnataka-police-to-probe-30539.html Srj.cooldude (talk) 19:55, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

The police in their report said that no 'love jihad' or 'romeo jihad' existed in the state. But in the last paragraph of the report, they said there were suspicions that some conversions may have taken place in this manner.

Also, they found no evidence of love jihad ([3], [4]). EvergreenFir (talk) 20:08, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

You have to read the full police report. The former CM of Kerala also confirmed this in a press conference in 2010. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=x6QSaW-n0lY&feature=youtu.be

The statement of the then cheif minister carries enough credibility to include in this page.

There is also another Jharkhand cop who gave a detailed account on the money trails and how muslim men get rewards and incentives once they accomplish the goal. Inspite of all this it's shocking that you dismiss this as conspiracy theory which isn't true. There have been several women from Kerala who went to fight for ISIS, all of whom were victims of love jihad. This Wikipedia page is quite blatantly biased and defends the act by firstly dismissing it as just conspiracy theory and then outrigtly hinduphobic. This is a matter of grave concern and a means for terrorists to recruit members by brainwashing them.

Anybody reading this page can clearly see the bias in the write-up and the way it is presented as islamophobia is to twist the narrative. This isn't the attack on all muslims, perpetrators are terrorist organisations and not all muslims support this page's portrayal as just a conspiracy theory. The contributors of this page should investigate the edits done to this page by supporters of Islamist organizations. Srj.cooldude (talk) 20:26, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

We must have reliable sources. Not "go read the police report" or Youtube videos. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:47, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

The then CM of Kerala's statement in 2010 should be included

The statement by the Cheif minister of Kerala in 2010 press conference where he spoke about the Islamist agenda of converting Kerala into Islamic state in 20 years by converting non-Muslim women into Islam by love jihad should be included in this post. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=x6QSaW-n0lY&feature=youtu.be

I repeat this page is very very biased from the first paragraph, anybody reading this can clearly get the sense how this page is one sided and ignored several credible sources Srj.cooldude (talk) 20:30, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

NIA(National Investigation Agency) Report on Love jihad should be included in this page.

In a shocking revelation, it has come to the fore that 'love jihad' and forcible conversion are a reality in Kerala. Times Now has accessed the secret reports, made by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) and the Kerala Police, which reveal the plot by the Islamists to hunt, convert and exploit Hindu girls. The investigative agencies have found that Islamist organisations have formed ‘Dawa Squads’ to forcibly convert Hindu girls of a particular disposition in Kerala https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/videos/city/kochi/kerala-love-jihad-case-105-women-converted-in-last-one-year/videoshow/60302162.cms?from=mdr Srj.cooldude (talk) 20:47, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

WP:TOI EvergreenFir (talk) 03:50, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Srj.cooldude, you need to cite reliable sources for every sentence you try to add or request to be added to Wikipedia. See WP:RS.-2406:7400:98:E812:4DAB:1A6:E0EB:10D6 (talk) 04:21, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

What on earth are you saying? Times of India is one of the oldest reliable publications, explain why it is not reliable?. Wikipedia has full of times of india references. This is purely bigotry to refuse to accept fact anything against your agenda of whitewashing love jihad.

It is evident from several of your comments that whenever someone is giving sources, you reject them. You have a clear agenda Srj.cooldude (talk) 12:00, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

I checked there are 24 references of Times of India quoted in this page itself, was it not reliable for those references?. Why are you being selective. This clearly shows you are biased. Please stop vandalising pages to suite your islamic political agenda.

"Bajrangi Bhaijaan: Beyond love jihad". The Times of India.

"Love jihad sparks hate". The Times of India. 17 December 2011. Archived from the original on 30 January 2016. Retrieved 22 December 2011.

"'Love jihad' piqued US interest". The Times of India. 6 September 2011. Archived from the original on 14 September 2018. Retrieved 8 September 2012. 125.99.240.56 (talk) 12:20, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Request for Comment on adding instances

A new section with the title, "Instances" should be created and these instances should be mentioned in this article:-

* 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.

* A Hindu girl was chopped into pieces by her supposed lover, a Muslim.

* A tribal Christian girl was chopped into pieces by her Muslim lover.

* A Muslim man was arrested for murdering his Hindu wife in Mumbai and her kin claim it to be love jihad.

The Vishwa Hindu Parishad released a list of four hundred cases and demanded a law against it by the Government of India.

The term, "Islamophobic conspiracy theory" must be removed from the lead.

A subsection to the, "Instances" section should be added with the title, "In popular culture and the movie, "The Kerala Story" should be mentioned with a sentence or two about the movie with a link about the Wikipedia article about it.-04:44, 3 May 2023 (UTC) 2406:7400:98:2CA:2740:1981:5AE6:E5C3 (talk) 04:44, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support - Many states of India have already enacted laws against, "Love jihad" and so, it can not be just a theory.-2406:7400:98:2CA:2740:1981:5AE6:E5C3 (talk) 04:56, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

  References for bullet points 1 and 2 don't even mention "jihad". Number 3 is "kin" alleging love jihad. And USian politicians passed laws on "post birth abortions" and other nonsense, so that argument doesn't work.

  If this were a real thing, you'd think finding rock solid sources would be easy. Or government investigations would substantiate it. But it's not and they don't. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:40, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

  This page will remain a propaganda material for Islamist as long as the editors himself is working with an agenda to whitewash and downplay Islamic extremism. Srj.cooldude (talk) 12:03, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

  This is the biggest irony "If this were a real thing, you'd think finding rock solid sources would be easy." You wouldn't accept any source even if that source was already used in the page. You are selectively picking stories that suite your personal agenda and refusing any reliable source which shows your biased views and lack of neutrality and lack of integrity. 125.99.240.56 (talk) 12:23, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - I don't think the term, "love jihad" needs to be mentioned in the cited source, the religion and actions are enough. There are many more instances of, "Love jihad" and believe that more such instances can be added later. Someone can add instances from other sources after reading about the 400 instances mentioned in this. The RFCBEFORE was here.-2406:7400:98:2CA:2740:1981:5AE6:E5C3 (talk) 05:53, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Oppose: So, this is a page about the conspiracy theory; not a page devoted to furthering the conspiracy theory, which is all that adding random anecdotal crime reports could possible hope to serve. As for Vishwa Hindu Parishad, the only way in which this material would be worth adding would be to illustrate how militant organizations are working to spread the conspiracy theory. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:08, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

That's my question why is this page a conspiracy theory, there are several facts and instances to substantiate the fact that terrorists are actively recruiting people by brainwashing them. By ignoring the facts before us you're in denial like how the London grooming gangs were operating for decades without action because whenever there was a report, it was downplayed by section of people who think exactly like you. This is absolutely shameless act of defending terrorists. This page needs to be factual. This page also has bigotry against Hindus by blaming Hindus are controlling women like processions. Where is neutrality in this? Srj.cooldude (talk) 12:09, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, you are stating 'terrorists' as if that is a self-explanatory term without an adjective. Terrorists come from all creeds. Here's an explainer on various myths, including that of Love Jihad. And the subject here is called a conspiracy theory because that's precisely what in-depth, thorough academic studies on the subject, like Sound Biting Conspiracy: From India with “Love Jihad” and Introduction: “Love Jihad”: Sexuality, Reproduction and the Construction of the Predatory Muslim Male tell us. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:58, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

As also mentioned by EverGreenFir, neither of the first two sources even mention the conspiracy theory, so those two are just plain WP:SYNTH. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:42, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Support If WP:Notable, these instances of 'love jihad' could be mention. Otherwise just create a list like List_of_terrorist_incidents/2601:246:5400:1CE6:1CFB:9E46:3F0:771 (talk) 13:23, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Malformed RfC. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment: Keep the RfC statement (and heading) neutrally worded, short and simple. The statement isn't short, or simple. It is asking for comment on three different things: (a) addition of an 'instances' section, (b) removal of the term 'Islamophobic conspiracy theory' from the lede, and (c) addition of a 'popular culture' section with specific content. And nor is the statement neutral: it argues that edits 'should' be made. This RfC is malformed and confusing, and highly unlikely to resolve anything. Accordingly it should be closed, and any future RfCs confined to single, simple questions, neutrally worded. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:59, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Strongest Possible Oppose. I The RFC (from an IP which has only ever edited related to this, and supported only by an IP with only one edit), is in essence to reject the well established, RS supported consensus version of the article and transform it into a page supporting the conspiracy based on a few cases and the claims of a far-right hindu nationalist organization. Googleguy007 (talk) 16:02, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Comment. I would be willing to support on the condition that a seperate page is created listing every incident of Hindu on Muslim violence, and claiming that there is a conserted conspiracy by hindus to eradicate muslims. Googleguy007 (talk) 16:18, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

References

Objection to Hinduphobic line in "Notion of women as possession"

Since the editors object to any source that proves love jihad by refusing to accept the credibility of the source. I demand the source of this line: "notions based on the assumption that the Hindu women are possessions of men, whose purity is defiled as an equivalent to territorial conquest, and hence need to be controlled and protected from Muslims"

What is the source or reference for this line. I find this line degrades the entire Hindu community as a whole and it is Hinduphobic. Srj.cooldude (talk) 17:00, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

The section cites sources. Perhaps you should read them. As for the conspiracy theory being degrading, and possibly Hinduphobic, You'd need a source for the latter, I'd have thought, since it seems to be a conspiracy theory propagated by Hindus. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:18, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

By Hindus is a broad generalisation of all Hindus. I checked the source(https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0031322X.2020.1759861), there was no mention of "Hindu women are possessions of men" anywhere in the source page. Srj.cooldude (talk) 17:37, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

You are looking at the wrong source. Citations come after the text they are being cited for: there is a list of 7 sources cited. This clearly isn't ideal when trying to find the specifics, obviously. Perhaps someone else can help narrow it down. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:55, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

I searched all the 7 sources and still couldn't find the line. Srj.cooldude (talk) 18:33, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

A page that talks about discrimination of Muslims shouldn't discriminate all Hindus with broad generalisation. Srj.cooldude (talk) 17:40, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

That is not a source being cited for that line. Anyways, I think you are just misreading the sentence. In simpler terms, the part you've focused on says that notions within the Love jihad conspiracy theory work on an assumption that Hindu women are the possessions of men. I don't know how you find the write-up to be discriminatory towards all Hindus or anything like that, other than perhaps the theory and its proponents themselves being discriminatory towards Hindu women (and women in general). Tayi Arajakate _Talk 17:53, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Let me bring your attention to the reference of the circular by Syro Malabar Church. Under the section"2020 legislation and outcomes"

"According to the church, Christian women are being targeted, recruited to terrorist outfit Islamic State, making them sex slaves and even killed. Detailing this, a circular, issued by Church chief Cardinal Mar George Alencherry. "

So it is not just claim by Hindutva organisations. Considering this it would be incorrect to term it as just Hindu propaganda or just Hindu women. In case Sonia Sebestian who went to fight for ISIS she was a christian. Srj.cooldude (talk) 18:13, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

If a Christian church is also propagating the conspiracy theory, that is unfortunate. It doesn't however invalidate the legitimacy of sources we cite, who are clearly looking at the discourse surrounding the theory in broad terms - where it is clearly situated within aspects of Hindutva ideology. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:20, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

What is unfortunate that many non-muslim women are being targeted and it is being dismissed as a just conspiracy theory. Which is very very sad. The Church was approached by aggrieved parents and the church has handled several such cases and hence they had to release the statement, the church doesn't simply make a statement without facts or a cause.

Instead of just focusing on who is making the claim and outrightly rejecting it, it is more important to investigate whether the claim is real or not. Also it is not neutral or ethical to dismiss any claim because it is coming from an organisation or group that you disagree or dislike. Srj.cooldude (talk) 18:27, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not 'investigate' things. It reports what reliable sources (i.e. the academic sources we cite) have to say on a subject. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:39, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

When I mean investigate, I meant Investigate events from multiple credible sources. Dismissing Love Jihad as just a conspiracy theory is a gross injustice to the victims who suffered, who's stories and interviews are widely available online. Srj.cooldude (talk) 18:47, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

I understood what you meant. Find academic sources of equal credibility to the ones we cite, arguing that this isn't a conspiracy theory, and we may have to revise the article. We aren't going to do so on the basis of selective analysis of incidents reported by media targeting the same audience as the conspiracy theorists. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:52, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Comment. I find it funny that you are crying over alledged hinduphobia while actively trying to promote islamaphobia. Googleguy007 (talk) 16:04, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

That statement is sourced to seven different sources, none of them a tandf source, though that material does need copying to the body somewhere so that it's not featured solely in the lead. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:58, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. The lede is arguably too detailed, and probably needs trimming down after ensuring relevant material is moved elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:06, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

I searched all the 7 sources and still couldn't find the line. Srj.cooldude (talk) 18:21, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

What 'line' are you looking for? We cite sources, and paraphrase them. From a quick look (I don't have complete access to all the sources, do you?) the first source cited (https://www.jstor.org/stable/25663907) seems to be making essentially this point in its introductory paragraph: "Hindu patriarchal notions appear deeply entrenched in such campaigns: images of passive victimised Hindu women at the hands of inscrutable Muslims abound, and any possibility of women exercising their right to love and their choice is ignored." AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:36, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

I went through this source and nowhere it mentions are "Hindu women are possessions of men"

Also I'd suggest you to look beyond theories against or supporting and start looking at real incidents and cases of women who are already targeted, converted and languishing in Afghan jails. https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/mother-of-kerala-woman-nimisha-fathima-who-joined-isis-seeks-her-return-from-afghanistan-2513522 Srj.cooldude (talk) 18:40, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

You appear to have a fundamental misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works. Read Wikipedia:No original research. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:42, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

I removed that paragraph from the lead. It is in no way a summary of the "Love Jihad" topic. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:33, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

The corresponding paragraph in the body remains. However, all of these are somebody's theories and opinions and so they should be suitably attributed, unless they are based on some empirical data.

I also don't see what is particularly "Hindu" about these phenomena. Patriarchal tendencies in all kinds of communities. See for example honour killings in UK.

Neither is "love jihad" such a wild conspiracy theory. Abduction and forcible conversion of non-Muslim women/girls happen on a regular basis in Pakistan, mostly Sindh. Apparently, the perpetrators get rewarded, either in this life or the next. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:04, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

The topic of this article is a discourse that well-qualified academic sources describe as a conspiracy theory. Your personal observations don't get to override such sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:15, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Maybe a conspiracy theory. I don't care about that. What I am objecting to are all these secondary commentaries, which pure opinions of somebody or other. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:25, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Secondary commentaries as in secondary sources? Everything is an opinion in that sense. But that is not the definition of opinion that we use here to differentiate reliable sources from opinion in the sense of editorial. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:28, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

The material is clearly sourced to sizeable numbers of credible published works and scholarly papers, so this is not content with anything to prove. However, we had already been broaching the subject of whether this material was undue - better to let the discussion actually get somewhere. But to add to Andy's refrain, "love jihad" is indeed a wild conspiracy theory, say the sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:26, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Maybe. The question is, whether their own opinions or whether they are substantiated with any evidence. Also pertinent is whether they have actually studied the appropriation of women in Islamic communities before they decided that this is a "wild" conspiracy theory. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:35, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Have you read the sources cited? AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:38, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, some of them. This one published as a "Commentary". And this one which cites the first one as its evidence. This all seems to be blind leading the blind, with suppositions, speculations and hyperbole. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:45, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

That's right. It is 'commentary'. Alongside every work written by a historian or social scientist, ever. Commenting on things is what academics do. It is what the are qualified to do. It is why we cite them - as those most qualified to comment on such topics. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:49, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

There are a lot of sources, and I do not have access to all of them, but this one substantiates the "patriachal notions" part. It's a source that can't be searched, but I imagine a thorough read will reveal more. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:23, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Can you give a policy based reason for placing the POV template? I don't see one here. Our personal observations can not override those of academic sources and most of the sources present in the lead are peer reviewed works published by reputable publishers. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 14:47, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

The lead summarises the article and it highlights the most important points that are widely mentioned in reliable sources. And by reliable sources, we expect solid evidence-based research articles, not random commentaries. If you think there are important commentaries that should be included then, by all means, put them in the body and suitably attribute them. They have no business in the second paragraph of the lead. An encyclopedia is a repository of "knowledge". Its purpose is to inform, not to influence. Everything in this paragraph smells like WP:SOAPBOXing. Look how awful this theory is, and how clever we are to dig up mud on it. This is quite ridiculous and completely unencyclopaedic. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:43, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

The article does inform. It informs readers what qualified academic sources have to say regarding the so-called 'love jihad'. As for soapboxes, you seem to have arrived with one of your own. First you write "Maybe a conspiracy theory. I don't care about that", and then you raise objections to sources that do care - that care enough to explain why they see it as a conspiracy theory. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:05, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

NPOV doesnt mean going to the page on holocaust denialism and editing it to say "Some people think the holocaust happened, some dont, both are equally valid". Wikipedia represents what RS say, and RS blatantly regard "love jihad" as a conspiracy theory. Googleguy007 (talk) 16:14, 4 May 2023 (UTC)