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)

India and Radical Hinduism

Hi Doug_Weller & Foxhound03. The following edit I made [1] is not WP:SYNTHESIS, it's from the book "Hindu Nationalism in India and the Politics of Fear" by Dibyesh Anand, Published by the academic publisher Palgrave (https://www.palgrave.com/gp/book/9780230603851), and it's specifically from Chapter 3, which you can access the online version of here : https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057%2F9780230339545_3, and it mentions love jihad 7 times, (i've screenshotted the pages, if you are unable to access them) here one Page 66 (https://i.imgur.com/p3UUyl8.png) and 67 (https://i.imgur.com/lmqRWvD.png)

And all the other sources are just the direct references from Anand's references section starting on page 175. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] Swagmaster11139248 (talk) 11:32, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

Fringe theories noticeboard discussion

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

Lead

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

All your sources are passing mentions and mostly outdated news reports. But I will mainly talk about addressing your book sources. Your one book source talks a lot about Love Jihad, but does not introduce it as a "conspiracy theory".[10] Other source makes a single mention of the word "conspiracy theory".[11] This is not enough to label the subject as a 'conspiracy theory'. Most academics see no 'conspiracy theory',[12][13][14] nor the quality news sources.[15]

Even if you think this is a conspiracy theory, it is technically incorrect because most of the cases saw the reporter of Love Jihad incident to be the victim or victim's parents.[16][17][18][19] How they can have any political motive behind it? They are reporting because what they claim to have experienced than doing anything to orchestrate conspiracy.

Since divorces have taken place in India after the complaint to the court about love jihad,[20] that means there is authenticity in this concept and it cannot be rejected as 'conspiracy theory'. Central Bureau of Investigation and the judge Ajay Kumar Gudia, too agreed with the existence of "Love Jihad".[21] Now whether the concept is being exaggerated or not is another thing, but it is not a conspiracy theory. Rustam Fan (talk) 00:21, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

The academic sources do indeed describe Love Jihad as a conspiracy theory or fabricated claim. See the following quotes (emphasis added):

This chapter examines the conspiracy theory of "Love Jihad" across traditional and social media discourse in India as a way to show how affective strategies promoting Islamophobia are employed through logics of "digital governmentality" (Badouard et al., 2016).

"Love Jihad" is a campaign started by right-wing Hindu nationalists in 2009 (Gökarıskel et al., 2019) alleging that Muslim men feign love to lure non-Muslim women to marry them in order to covert them to Islam (Rao, 2011). The exponents of this conspiracy assert that innocent Hindu women are converted to Islam in order to increase the Muslim population, thereby waging jihad or holy war against Hindus (Gupta, 2009). By evoking demographic fears and anxiety, this campaign demonizes Muslims and works to advance the patriarchal idea of saving Hindu girls from an imagined Muslim menace (Das, 2010). The case study of "Love Jihad' showcases how propaganda and emotionality have, through digital media, come into a now digital discursive configuration, one which has been ideologically named the "post truth era," dominated by online trolls and conspiracy theorists.

Farokhi, Zeinab (3 September 2020). "Hindu Nationalism, News Channels, and "Post-Truth" Twitter: A Case Study of "Love Jihad"". In Boler, Megan; Davis, Elizabeth (eds.). Affective Politics of Digital Media: Propaganda by Other Means. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-000-16917-1. Retrieved 19 September 2020 – via Google Books.

The "love jihad" is a bizarre myth about a Muslim campaign to conquer Hindus by stealing their girls, one heart at a time. The story goes that a handsome young man appears in the community and woos away a Hindu girl with his seductive charms and promises of a better life. He has been schooled in a madrassah, but possesses the wherewithal for modern courtship, like a motorcycle and a mobile phone. Only after she has run off with him does he reveal himself as a Muslim, either forcing her to convert or selling her into slavery.

Like all good propaganda, there is a molehill of fact somewhere within this mountain of fiction. Love often does blossom between young men and women whose matches are deemed unsuitable. Sheer probability dictates that most of these scandalous liaisons involve Hindu couples of different castes or classes; relatively few are interreligious. Some of the couples elope; some are forcibly, even fatally, separated—including through the infamous practice of "honor killings."

George, Cherian (September 2016). Hate Spin: The Manufacture of Religious Offense and Its Threat to Democracy. MIT Press. pp. 83–109. ISBN 978-0-262-33607-9. Retrieved 19 September 2020 – via Google Books.

Muslims form about 15% of India’s population and have suffered severe marginalization in education and employment, since the partition of Hindu-majority India and Muslim-majority Pakistan in 1947 (Alam, 2010). They have since faced recurrent riots (Varshney, 2003). Other hostilities include false accusations of love jihad (a conspiracy theory claiming Muslim men feign love with non-Muslim women to convert them to Islam) and attempts to convert Muslims to Hinduism by Hindu fundamentalist organizations (Gupta, 2009). After the rise of a right-wing Hindu nationalist party Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in 2014, hate crimes against Muslims and Dalits have spiked for allegedly consuming or transporting cows (considered holy in Hinduism) (Human Rights Watch, 2018).

Nair, Rashmi; Vollhardt, Johanna Ray (October 2019). "Intersectional Consciousness in Collective Victim Beliefs: Perceived Intragroup Differences Among Disadvantaged Groups". Political Psychology. 40 (5). Wiley: 917–934. doi:10.1111/pops.12593. Retrieved 19 September 2020 – via ResearchGate.

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

9 reliable news sources describing Love Jihad as a conspiracy theory

This deeply held and entrenched idea of maintaining caste “purity” is part of the BJP's social agenda for a Hindu nation. The party loudly seeks to stigmatise and stoke violence against those who transgress caste and religious boundaries. One popular conspiracy theory shared by the Hindu right is “Love Jihad”. This is the idea that Muslim men target women belonging to non-Muslim communities to convert them to Islam by feigning love. It is an invention to incite suspicion and hatred against Muslims in India. Love Jihad is based on the idea that mixed relationships between Muslims and Hindus will threaten the “purity” of the Hindu nation. In Indian Matchmaking, Hindutva as a social and political project prevails as an international and subtle follow-up to Love jihad. Purewal, Navtej K. (3 September 2020). "Indian Matchmaking: a show about arranged marriages can't ignore the political reality in India". The Conversation. Retrieved 2020-09-19. The Hindu met with members of the HRS, who spoke openly about their campaign on the condition that they would not be named. Formed in 2005, the all-male squad has a clear agenda: “saving” Hindu women from Muslim men. They see themselves as warriors against what they call “Love Jihad,” a conspiracy theory floated by Hindutva groups like the Hindu Janjagruti Samiti which claims that Muslim men lure Hindu women into marriage with the aim of increasing their own population. The vigilantist propaganda campaign, which initially took root in Karnataka and Kerala, has now spread to this region in Maharashtra. In Dhule, the HRS has an extensive network with a well laid out modus operandi. It has recruited young men who are stationed across the city, especially in colleges. If they see Hindu girls befriending Muslim boys, they warn them. Then they inform their parents about the friendship and ask them to keep their daughters “in check.” Most of its members belong to the BJP, the Shiv Sena or the RSS. Byatnal, Amruta (13 October 2013). "Hindutva vigilantes target Hindu-Muslim couples". The Hindu. ISSN 0971-751X. Retrieved 2020-09-19. While Kayum was in the hospital, a mob of around hundred people, comprising members of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, the Bajrang Dal—both organisations are affiliated to the Sangh Parivar—and the Karni Sena, a group which represents the Rajput community and is known for its violent tactics, surrounded the police station and demanded that a case of molestation be filed against Kayum. They shouted slogans against “love jihad”—a conspiracy theory usually propagated by right-wing Hindu outfits who claim that Muslim men lure Hindu women and convert them to Islam. Dhara, Tushar (26 July 2019). "In Rajasthan, a case of "love jihad" cuts stereotypes of caste and party allegiances". The Caravan. Retrieved 2020-09-19. Hindu groups, meanwhile, have started to spread rumours that young Muslim men have been trained to seduce Hindu girls and convert them. This secret operation, they claim, is called "Love Jihad". Two investigations – one by the Karnataka state police and another by the neighbouring Kerala state police – have concluded there is no proof to confirm the "Love Jihad" conspiracy theory. Yet, Hindu nationalist politicians and activists alike freely use the phrase and use it to fan communal frenzy. Girls and boys of different religions are not allowed to interact in their day-to-day life. Two perfect strangers sitting next to each other on a public transport bus cannot even by chance be a Hindu girl and Muslim boy. Bhanutej, N. (23 December 2013). "Socialise at your peril in Indian district". Al Jazeera. Retrieved 2020-09-19. Last week, the woman, from northern Uttar Pradesh state, sensationally retracted her claims, saying she had in fact been pressured by her family to concoct the story. But hardliners remain adamant that Muslims, numbering about 150 million in India, are carrying out a secret strategy to turn the secular country of 1.25 billion into their own. [...] Moderate, mainstream Hindus dismiss "love jihad" as a ridiculous conspiracy theory, but experts warn that the hardliners' efforts to divide India along religious lines risk fuelling animosity among its many faiths. "Hindu radicals risk sectarian tension by pushing 'love jihad' conspiracy theory". Agence France-Presse. 26 October 2014. Retrieved 2020-09-19 – via South China Morning Post. It is therefore a curious irony that the same court had also struck a blow against women’s rights just a week before the triple talaq judgement. On August 16, the Supreme Court ordered the National Investigation Agency to inquire into the religious conversion and marriage of Hadiya, a 24-year old woman from Kerala. In this, it backed an earlier judgement of the Kerala High Court. While Hadiya has converted to Islam and then married of her own choice in 2016, both courts seemed to disregard her own thoughts on the matter, preferring instead to let her father decide for her. Some media reports have presented this as a case of “love jihad”, the conspiracy theory that Muslim men woo Hindu women with the express purpose of pressuring them to convert them to Islam. This is a misrepresentation. Hadiya had converted to Islam long before her marriage. The main issue here is: does India believe an adult woman has a mind of her own? Daniyal, Shoaib; Yamunan, Sruthisagar (31 August 2017). "Love jihad bogey: Hadiya committed no crime. Why has she been in confinement for a year now?". Scroll.in. Retrieved 2020-09-19. Back in 2018, BJP members in more than one state had approached the courts seeking a ban on Kedarnath, alleging that it promotes what fundamentalists call 'love jihad' (the term used for the reprehensible conspiracy theory that Muslim men trap Hindu women with their wiles) and insisting that it hurts Hindu sentiments with its depiction of a romance in a sacred town. The object of their ire was the central plot point of the film: an upper-caste Hindu woman called Mandakini (played by Sara Ali Khan) falling in love with Rajput's Mansoor. Vetticad, Anna MM (23 July 2020). "Let's talk about the Hindu-Muslim amity in Sushant Singh Rajput's films, and other inconvenient truths". Firstpost. Retrieved 2020-09-19. Since 2014, there has been an unprecedented attack on Muslims in social spaces. It started with the lynchings on rumours of beef eating and transporting cattle. The territorialisation of the Hindu nation had begun with that move. Muslims were asked to mind their eating habits, keeping the sentiments of the majority community in mind. There was also an additional charge of ‘love jihad’, a Hindu rightwing conspiracy theory of Muslim men conning Hindu women to marry them to populate their religion. That added a patriarchal barbwire to the territorial game. Bhattacharjee, Manash Firaq (19 December 2019). "An Unnatural Politics and the Madness of the Indian State". The Wire. Retrieved 2020-09-19. Right-wing trolls on Twitter are labeling this as an attempt to promote “love jihad” and calling the ad “anti-Hindu.” Many are objecting to the depiction of a Hindu girl and Muslim boy and asking, “Why not a Muslim girl and Hindu boy instead?” “Love jihad” is a conspiracy theory that alleges that Muslim men target Hindu girls to marry so they can convert them to Islam by faking love. Chandni Doulatramani (13 March 2019). "Ad on Hindu-Muslim unity gets far right in a twist". Asia Times. Retrieved 2020-09-19.

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

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

I agree with Newslinger. Including "conspiracy theory" in the first sentence is in accord with Wikipedia style guidelines and good common sense. XOR'easter (talk) 16:20, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree too; furthermore, the rest of the lead needs to be heavily pruned to give an overview of the subject, not a blow-by-blow account of specific cases. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:59, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

• You appear to be looking for the sources that somehow fits your narrative. Profoundly unreliable sources like The Wire, Scroll and other unreliable sources don't even come close to consideration.

WP:NPOV is important. The lead should not be non-neutral, nor it should be providing weight to slant point of views. Like I said, most reliable sources don't call it a conspiracy theory and if you are going to quote farm the sources then you can see these much better reliable sources:-

On the hother hand, anti-conversion legislation has become a political tool for majoritarian identity politics. In addition, the question of mixed marriage and 'Love Jihad' has come to the fore in anti-Muslim discourses across the region. 'Love Jihad' refers to a claimed Islamist conspiracy whereby Muslim men trick non-Muslim women into marriage as a means to spread Islam.

Marius Timmann Mjaaland. Formatting Religion: Across Politics, Education, Media, and Law. Taylor & Francis.

"Courts also recognized the phenomenon of Love Jihad and commented against it in various cases. On 9 December 2009, Justice K T Sankaran of the Kerala High Court, suspected a clear love jihad angle, during a bail hearing for a Muslim youth arrested for allegedly forcibly converting two campus girls. According to Sankaran, police reports revealed that the 'blessings of some outfits' for a 'concerted' effort for religious conversions. Some 3,000 to 4,000 conversion incidences had taken place after love affairs in a four year period.... In 2017, CBI filed a charge sheet in an alleged case of 'Love Jihad' involving national-level shooter Tara Shahdeo. It was filed against Ranjeet Singh Kohli, who she had alleged had forced her to covert to marry him. The charge sheet was filed in Ranchi court under sections of criminal conspiracy, sexual assault, domestic violence and fraudulently organizing a marriage ceremony without a lawful wedding. After the marriage, Shahdeo, found that Kohli's real name was Raqibul Hasan Khan. She told the police and the CBI that she was tortured for over a month to accept her husband's religion...

Shantanu Gupta. The Monk Who Became Chief Minister: The Definitive Biography Of Yogi Adityanath. Bloomsbury Publishing.

Now unless your sources are capable to address the incidents where convicted cases of 'love jihad' are addressed or they do tell how all of the reported victims, not just in India but also in Myanmar, United Kingdom, etc. are also a part of this 'conspiracy', it would totally make no sense. The lead is fine without that problematic term. Rustam Fan (talk) 00:42, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any "convicted cases" that show that "Love Jihad" is a real phenomenon. Farokhi (first academic source from my initial comment above) makes it very clear that "Love Jihad" is a "conspiracy theory" and a "campaign started by right-wing Hindu nationalists in 2009". Farokhi's analysis was published by Routledge earlier this month, and her analysis is more reliable, more comprehensive, and more recent than anything you've presented.

Your two excerpts show that "Love Jihad" is part of "anti-Muslim discourses", and that people have made allegations of "Love Jihad". That is not mutually exclusive with "Love Jihad" being a conspiracy theory; conspiracy theories are a subset of claimed conspiracies. The Kerala case ended in 2012, when Kerala police concluded after a two-year investigation that "Love Jihad" was "A campaign with no substance", and then charged a website which propagated the "Love Jihad" conspiracy theory for "spreading religious hatred and false propaganda".

The neutral point of view policy includes WP:FALSEBALANCE, which states that "Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity." Although some people have made unconfirmed allegations of "Love Jihad" (an extraordinary claim), the mainstream scholarship and most recent reliable sources overwhelmingly consider "Love Jihad" to be a conspiracy theory or fabricated claim created by "right-wing Hindu nationalists".

To show that "Love Jihad" is not a conspiracy theory, you would need to find a majority of high-quality academic sources which state that "Love Jihad" is not a conspiracy theory, and not merely that it is a "claimed conspiracy" or that people have made allegations of "Love Jihad". At the present time, the mainstream scholarship supports describing "Love Jihad" as a "conspiracy theory" in the lead section. — Newslinger talk 01:37, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Additionally, both The Wire and Scroll.in are reliable sources on the basis of their accolades, which include multiple Ramnath Goenka Excellence in Journalism Awards. The nine reliable news sources I have listed above include a variety of reputable publications from a number of countries. Regardless, the scholarship by itself is sufficient to establish that "Love Jihad" is a conspiracy theory. — Newslinger talk 03:52, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

The Wire and Scroll are not reliable sources per WP:RSN.[22] The Wire cannot be used without attribution but we have better sources to talk about this subject than The Wire.

You are apparently cherrypicking sources instead of accepting the mainstream view.

In short, “Love Jihad” is an alleged scheme through which Muslim men, pretending to be liberal, often at first hiding their religion and using contemporary seduction tactics, lure non-Muslim women into marriage

by Journal of Alternative Perspectives in the Social Sciences (2016) Volume 7 No 3, 355-399

Love jihad is a term used to describe alleged campaigns carried out by Muslim men targeting non-Muslim women for conversion to Islam by feigning love.

"Who Is the Muslim? Discursive Representations of the Muslims and Islam in Indian Prime-Time News".

Love Jihad is perceived as a movement in which Muslim men try to persuade Hindu women to change their religion to Islam by seducing them. The aim of such activities is the islamization of India, reducing the number of Hindu people and taking control over the state

"Obraz kobiety w dyskusji na temat zjawiska Love Jihad w Indiach". Jagiellonian University.

so called Love Jihad, in other words a strategy allegedly deployed by Muslims to woo young Hindu women

Angana P. Chatterji, Thomas Blom Hansen, Christophe Jaffrelot (2019). Majoritarian State: How Hindu Nationalism is Changing India. Oxford University Press. p. 57. ISBN 9780190083403.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Do you think you can find a better critical source than Thomas Blom Hansen, Christophe Jaffrelot for this subject?

And here is a 20 page journal by Univeristy of Chicago Press Journal which does not say it is a conspiracy theory or anything similar.

You have said that it is a "A campaign with no substance", how that is any different than "alleged" act? No one is saying here to call it a proven act. Rustam Fan (talk) 04:18, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

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

• Comment, I would agree that we should avoid calling this a 'conspiracy theory' since the subject has been taken seriously by enough academics as described above by Rustam Fan. Here is another recent source,[23] which shows the existence of this phenomenon has been confirmed by an official. The article appears to have always said that it is "alleged" to be happening, it is not confirming the existence, but I am fine with that. Zakaria1978 ښه راغلاست (talk) 01:43, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

  The source you have provided only shows claims a request from Yogi Adityanath, a politician affiliated with the right-wing, Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Being a politician does not make one an expert in sociology, and politicians are not substitutes for or adequate rebuttals against actual scholarship. The majority of academics note that people (like Yogi Adityanath) have alleged that "Love Jihad" is a conspiracy, but these academics also describe "Love Jihad" as a conspiracy theory created by "right-wing Hindu nationalists". — Newslinger talk 01:49, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

• It notes statements by an official, not Yogi Adityanath who only allowed setting up an inquiry after receiving enough reports. You are misunderstanding the source entirely. Majority of academics treat it as a plausible act or an alleged activity. "Conspiracy theory" is a very different thing. Azuredivay (talk) 02:58, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
  • The source states, "Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath has asked officials to formulate a strategy and 'bring an ordinance if required to prevent religious conversions in the name of love', an official said on Friday." The officials were acting under the direction of politician Adityanath. Further, this is a news report, and news reports rank below scholarship in terms of reliability. For the scholarship, see the excerpts from Farokhi, George, and Nair/Vollhardt above, as well as this excerpt from Economic and Political Weekly below (emphasis added):

The fake claim by the Hindu right that there is a “Love Jihad” organisation which is forcing Hindu women to convert to Islam through false expressions of love is similar to a campaign in the 1920s in north India against alleged “abductions”. Whether 1920 or 2009, 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 legitimate right to love and their right to choice is ignored.

Inter-religious love and marriages are a tricky terrain. They challenge various norms and customs and arouse passions of religious fundamentalists. The “threat” of such intimacies has often resulted in “constructed” campaigns, expressing the anxieties and fears of conservative forces. In India, the Hindu right particularly has been a master at creating panics around expressions of love, be it the Valentine Day, homosexual love or inter-caste and inter-religious romance, posing them as one of the biggest threats to cohesive community identities and boundaries.

The latest in such constructs by the Hindu right is the alleged “Love Jihad” or “Romeo Jihad” organisation, supposed to have been launched by Muslim fundamentalists and youthful Muslim men to convert Hindu and Christian women to Islam through trickery and expressions of false love.

Gupta, Charu (19 December 2009). "Hindu women, Muslim men: Love Jihad and conversions" (PDF). Economic and Political Weekly. 44 (51): 13–15 – via ResearchGate.

— Newslinger talk 04:02, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

• How a source from 2009 is capable to address later investigations and court decisions confirming existence of love jihad?
• So you admit that you misrepresented the source by mislabeling claim of an official as one by Yogi Adityanath? You are claiming now that "The officials were acting under the direction of politician Adityanath", to escape from the allegation of misrepresentation but remember that editors are not here to hear your own conspiracy theories.
• You claim to have formed 'consensus' by posting logically flawed argument on talk page? Rustam Fan (talk) 04:22, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

  I have provided four academic sources so far, Farokhi (September 2020), George (2016), Nair/Vollhardt (2019), and Gupta (2009), which explain that "Love Jihad" is a conspiracy theory or fabricated claim. These publications agree that "Love Jihad" is an alleged conspiracy, and they also state that "Love Jihad" is a conspiracy theory. Conspiracy theories are subsets of alleged conspiracies; they are not mutually exclusive. I've changed "claims" to "a request" above for precision. — Newslinger talk 04:43, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Can we agree to change the lead to something different? We can cover both point of views. Maybe by writing: "Love Jihad or Romeo Jihad is a scheme or a conspiracy theory, according to which Muslim men target women belonging to non-Muslim communities for conversion to Islam by feigning love."

What do you think? Rustam Fan (talk) 04:51, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

No. It's not "a scheme or a conspiracy theory". It's a conspiracy theory. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:28, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

But that fails to address a huge number of reliable sources which does not agree that it is a conspiracy theory. Rustam Fan (talk) 05:33, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

This has been explained to you several times. To show that "Love Jihad" is not a conspiracy theory after you have n=been shown high-quality academic sources which say it is, you would need to find high-quality academic sources which state that "Love Jihad" is not a conspiracy theory. I wrote an essay that may help you to deal with this situation. It is at WP:1AM. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:48, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

That's nonsense. From the beginning I talked about the recent cases and I was provided with the sources with most of them coming before 2014. Your essay which is otherwise nicely written does not apply on me because enough editors have agreed that description as "conspiracy theory" is inappropriate. Rustam Fan (talk) 05:52, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

• I am not seeing if the any of these sources referred the subject as a conspiracy theory after analysing the Tara Sahadev case. Unless we are going to label everybody involved in this subject as a conspiracy theorist which amounts to WP:RGW, I think the term "conspiracy theory" for first sentence is clearly WP:UNDUE since the theory isn't widely termed as a conspiracy theory. I do agree that modification is needed for maintaining WP:NPOV. It is fine as allegation for now. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 05:51, 22 September 2020 (UTC)