Talk:Love Jihad

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Attribution history[edit]

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
  1. (cur) (prev) 18:19, 12 February 2010 Illuminating Friend (talk | contribs | block) (13,124 bytes) (Undid revision 342694445 by Moonriddengirl (talk)) (undo)
  2. (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)
  3. (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)
  4. (cur) (prev) 13:28, 8 February 2010 Moonriddengirl (talk | contribs | block) (13,453 bytes) (copyvio) (undo)
  5. (cur) (prev) 15:23, 28 January 2010 Zencv (talk | contribs | block) m (13,124 bytes) (undo)
  6. (cur) (prev) 15:19, 28 January 2010 Zencv (talk | contribs | block) (13,124 bytes) (Reverted to revision 340411055 by Zencv. (TW)) (undo)
  7. (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)
  8. (cur) (prev) 21:52, 27 January 2010 Zencv (talk | contribs | block) (13,124 bytes) (rm unwanted space) (undo)
  9. (cur) (prev) 21:49, 27 January 2010 Zencv (talk | contribs | block) (13,125 bytes) (improved sentence structure) (undo)
  10. (cur) (prev) 21:48, 27 January 2010 Zencv (talk | contribs | block) (13,138 bytes) (per article of VHP) (undo)
  11. (cur) (prev) 21:47, 27 January 2010 Zencv (talk | contribs | block) (13,129 bytes) (formatting, WLs) (undo)
  12. (cur) (prev) 21:46, 27 January 2010 Zencv (talk | contribs | block) (13,120 bytes) (added court decision) (undo)
  13. (cur) (prev) 21:42, 27 January 2010 Zencv (talk | contribs | block) (12,694 bytes) (Karnataka - rewrite per source) (undo)
  14. (cur) (prev) 21:32, 27 January 2010 Zencv (talk | contribs | block) (12,628 bytes) (added court observations with sources) (undo)
  15. (cur) (prev) 21:22, 27 January 2010 Zencv (talk | contribs | block) (12,230 bytes) (added initial court observation) (undo)
  16. (cur) (prev) 21:18, 27 January 2010 Zencv (talk | contribs | block) (11,771 bytes) (rm repetetive statements that are moved to other paragraphs) (undo)
  17. (cur) (prev) 21:15, 27 January 2010 Zencv (talk | contribs | block) (13,019 bytes) (rewrite to past tense, add sources) (undo)
  18. (cur) (prev) 21:12, 27 January 2010 Zencv (talk | contribs | block) (12,754 bytes) (reformat) (undo)
  19. (cur) (prev) 21:06, 27 January 2010 Zencv (talk | contribs | block) (12,754 bytes) (expanding lead) (undo)
  20. (cur) (prev) 21:00, 27 January 2010 Zencv (talk | contribs | block) (12,428 bytes) (more details - rewrite the lead based on further developments) (undo)
  21. (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)
  22. (cur) (prev) 20:51, 27 January 2010 Zencv (talk | contribs | block) (12,423 bytes) (rm unsourced) (undo)
  23. (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)
  24. (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)
  25. (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)
  26. (cur) (prev) 02:51, 28 December 2009 122.169.127.114 (talk | block) (9,541 bytes) (→Communal effects) (undo)
  27. (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)
  28. (cur) (prev) 07:12, 24 December 2009 123.237.7.169 (talk | block) (12,585 bytes) (→Communal effects) (undo)
  29. (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)
  30. (cur) (prev) 13:25, 23 December 2009 123.237.7.169 (talk | block) (12,792 bytes) (→Communal effects) (undo)
  31. (cur) (prev) 13:17, 23 December 2009 123.237.7.169 (talk | block) (12,791 bytes) (→Communal effects) (undo)
  32. (cur) (prev) 07:06, 23 December 2009 Node ue (talk | contribs | block) (12,446 bytes) (undo)
  33. (cur) (prev) 16:49, 20 December 2009 Joshua Issac (talk | contribs | block) (12,439 bytes) (restore neutralised version of deleted section.) (undo)
  34. (cur) (prev) 10:00, 15 December 2009 117.204.89.164 (talk | block) (8,399 bytes) (linkin) (undo)
  35. (cur) (prev) 17:58, 14 December 2009 71.111.8.162 (talk | block) (8,372 bytes) (→See also) (undo)
  36. (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)
  37. (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)
  38. (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)
  39. (cur) (prev) 17:18, 11 December 2009 Xqbot (talk | contribs | block) m (8,359 bytes) (robot Modifying: ml:ലൗ ജിഹാദ് വിവാദം) (undo)
  40. (cur) (prev) 10:31, 11 December 2009 Arjun024 (talk | contribs | block) m (8,340 bytes) (typo) (undo)
  41. (cur) (prev) 10:30, 11 December 2009 Arjun024 (talk | contribs | block) (8,339 bytes) (RV due to vandalism.) (undo)
  42. (cur) (prev) 09:16, 11 December 2009 117.197.195.23 (talk | block) (8,448 bytes) (undo)
  43. (cur) (prev) 09:15, 11 December 2009 117.197.195.23 (talk | block) (8,430 bytes) (undo)
  44. (cur) (prev) 07:07, 11 December 2009 121.241.67.226 (talk | block) (8,339 bytes) (undo)
  45. (cur) (prev) 07:05, 11 December 2009 121.241.67.226 (talk | block) (8,358 bytes) (undo)
  46. (cur) (prev) 04:03, 10 December 2009 121.241.67.226 (talk | block) (8,130 bytes) (Added details for Kerala High Court Verdict) (undo)
  47. (cur) (prev) 13:32, 8 December 2009 Xqbot (talk | contribs | block) m (5,922 bytes) (robot Modifying: ml:ലൗ ജിഹാദ് വിവാദം) (undo)
  48. (cur) (prev) 00:41, 4 December 2009 Chris the speller (talk | contribs | block) m (5,905 bytes) (sp, caps) (undo)
  49. (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)
  50. (cur) (prev) 11:38, 25 November 2009 89.211.162.121 (talk | block) (6,704 bytes) (undo)
  51. (cur) (prev) 02:50, 25 November 2009 Tim1357 (talk | contribs | block) m (5,905 bytes) (Typo) (undo)
  52. (cur) (prev) 23:00, 19 November 2009 TimVickers (talk | contribs | block) m (5,906 bytes) (Removed category Romeo Jihad (using HotCat)) (undo)
  53. (cur) (prev) 23:00, 19 November 2009 TimVickers (talk | contribs | block) m (5,931 bytes) (Removed category Love Jihad (using HotCat)) (undo)
  54. (cur) (prev) 04:32, 19 November 2009 61.17.217.164 (talk | block) (5,956 bytes) (→References) (undo)
  55. (cur) (prev) 04:29, 19 November 2009 Pkapildas (talk | contribs | block) (5,904 bytes) (→Police report) (undo)
  56. (cur) (prev) 04:27, 19 November 2009 Pkapildas (talk | contribs | block) (6,354 bytes) (→Police report) (undo)
  57. (cur) (prev) 04:27, 19 November 2009 Pkapildas (talk | contribs | block) (6,355 bytes) (→Police report) (undo)
  58. (cur) (prev) 12:34, 18 November 2009 AnomieBOT (talk | contribs | block) (5,904 bytes) (Rescuing orphaned refs ("beware" from rev 326432132)) (undo)
  59. (cur) (prev) 11:30, 18 November 2009 86.96.227.85 (talk | block) (5,649 bytes) (→Communal Effects) (undo) (Tag: section blanking)
  60. (cur) (prev) 23:08, 17 November 2009 Newman Luke (talk | contribs | block) (9,739 bytes) (→See also) (undo)
  61. (cur) (prev) 22:06, 17 November 2009 198.83.120.99 (talk | block) (9,692 bytes) (→Communal Effects) (undo)
  62. (cur) (prev) 21:39, 17 November 2009 Rich Farmbrough (talk | contribs | block) m (9,677 bytes) (Correct cite dates. using AWB) (undo)
  63. (cur) (prev) 03:50, 17 November 2009 ARUNKUMAR P.R (talk | contribs | block) (9,715 bytes) (→Communal Effects: -> Rm bad link) (undo)
  64. (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)
  65. (cur) (prev) 12:00, 16 November 2009 Trackrobo (talk | contribs | block) (1,776 bytes) (undo)
  66. (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)
  67. (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)
  68. (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)
  69. (cur) (prev) 11:54, 16 November 2009 Trackrobo (talk | contribs | block) (166 bytes) (←Replaced content with '{{POV|date=October 2009}} [[ml:ലൗ ജിഹാ�...') (undo)
  70. (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)
  71. (cur) (prev) 12:06, 15 November 2009 Trackrobo (talk | contribs | block) (8,091 bytes) (undo) (Tag: categories removed)
  72. (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)
  73. (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)
  74. (cur) (prev) 07:11, 14 November 2009 Smsarmad (talk | contribs | block) (9,719 bytes) (Undid revision 325756404 by Prime1111 (talk)restoring deleted content) (undo)
  75. (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)
  76. (cur) (prev) 06:43, 14 November 2009 Prime1111 (talk | contribs | block) (9,719 bytes) (Included new developments) (undo)
  77. (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)
  78. (cur) (prev) 19:23, 13 November 2009 117.204.80.158 (talk | block) (10,675 bytes) (→Police report) (undo)
  79. (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)
  80. (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)
  81. (cur) (prev) 14:49, 7 November 2009 92.29.113.219 (talk | block) (3,952 bytes) (→Police report) (undo) (Tag: section blanking)
  82. (cur) (prev) 14:49, 7 November 2009 92.29.113.219 (talk | block) (5,072 bytes) (→Allegations by Christian organization) (undo) (Tag: section blanking)
  83. (cur) (prev) 14:49, 7 November 2009 92.29.113.219 (talk | block) (5,898 bytes) (→Communal Effects) (undo) (Tag: section blanking)
  84. (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)
  85. (cur) (prev) 21:02, 6 November 2009 Zencv (talk | contribs | block) m (10,035 bytes) (Removed category Marriage and religion (using HotCat)) (undo)
  86. (cur) (prev) 18:56, 6 November 2009 Dizzledorf (talk | contribs | block) (10,070 bytes) (→See also: Only related in semantics, not context) (undo)
  87. (cur) (prev) 18:45, 6 November 2009 Dizzledorf (talk | contribs | block) (10,092 bytes) (→See also: Islamic Missionary Activity) (undo)
  88. (cur) (prev) 18:37, 6 November 2009 Dizzledorf (talk | contribs | block) m (10,059 bytes) (Quick-adding category Marriage and religion (using HotCat)) (undo)
  89. (cur) (prev) 18:34, 6 November 2009 Dizzledorf (talk | contribs | block) m (10,024 bytes) (Quick-adding category Conversion to Islam (using HotCat)) (undo)
  90. (cur) (prev) 18:29, 6 November 2009 Dizzledorf (talk | contribs | block) m (9,991 bytes) (Quick-adding category Religious conversion (using HotCat)) (undo)
  91. (cur) (prev) 18:25, 6 November 2009 Dizzledorf (talk | contribs | block) (9,957 bytes) (Copy edit) (undo)
  92. (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)
  93. (cur) (prev) 19:48, 4 November 2009 119.82.89.30 (talk | block) (9,135 bytes) (→Allegations by Christian organization) (undo) (Tag: references removed)
  94. (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)
  95. (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)
  96. (cur) (prev) 16:37, 3 November 2009 117.204.86.150 (talk | block) (9,969 bytes) (removed unrelated 'see also' links.. add catg) (undo)
  97. (cur) (prev) 05:50, 3 November 2009 Porsched sgools (talk | contribs | block) (9,982 bytes) (add new info) (undo)
  98. (cur) (prev) 13:54, 1 November 2009 117.204.89.188 (talk | block) (9,646 bytes) (minor edit) (undo)
  99. (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)
  100. (cur) (prev) 09:58, 1 November 2009 198.36.32.137 (talk | block) (9,643 bytes) (→Police report) (undo)
  101. (cur) (prev) 09:06, 1 November 2009 Zencv (talk | contribs | block) (9,642 bytes) (→Communal Effects: details about Sena) (undo)
  102. (cur) (prev) 08:50, 1 November 2009 Zencv (talk | contribs | block) (9,367 bytes) (added Shri Ram Sena allegation) (undo)
  103. (cur) (prev) 08:23, 1 November 2009 Zencv (talk | contribs | block) m (8,841 bytes) (Removed category Jihadist organizations (using HotCat)) (undo)
  104. (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)
  105. (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)
  106. (cur) (prev) 16:00, 30 October 2009 Purger.kl (talk | contribs | block) (10,515 bytes) (similar incidents) (undo)
  107. (cur) (prev) 03:34, 30 October 2009 Porsched sgools (talk | contribs | block) (8,892 bytes) (add place info, per ref, required) (undo)
  108. (cur) (prev) 23:02, 29 October 2009 Zencv (talk | contribs | block) (8,877 bytes) (→Police report: fixing broken ref) (undo)
  109. (cur) (prev) 22:59, 29 October 2009 Zencv (talk | contribs | block) (8,879 bytes) (→Police report: added per source) (undo)
  110. (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)
  111. (cur) (prev) 19:30, 29 October 2009 Zencv (talk | contribs | block) m (8,433 bytes) (→Communal Effects: wikify ref.) (undo)
  112. (cur) (prev) 19:29, 29 October 2009 Zencv (talk | contribs | block) (8,424 bytes) (→Communal Effects: per source) (undo)
  113. (cur) (prev) 19:28, 29 October 2009 Zencv (talk | contribs | block) (8,456 bytes) (→Communal Effects: rm unreferenced) (undo)
  114. (cur) (prev) 19:27, 29 October 2009 Zencv (talk | contribs | block) m (8,591 bytes) (→Allegations by Chrisitan organizations: typo) (undo)
  115. (cur) (prev) 19:27, 29 October 2009 Zencv (talk | contribs | block) (8,592 bytes) (per source, neutralized heading) (undo)
  116. (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)
  117. (cur) (prev) 19:22, 29 October 2009 Zencv (talk | contribs | block) (9,876 bytes) (→Police report: per source) (undo)
  118. (cur) (prev) 19:21, 29 October 2009 Zencv (talk | contribs | block) (9,717 bytes) (→Police report: rm unreferenced and biased sentenses) (undo)
  119. (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)
  120. (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)
  121. (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)
  122. (cur) (prev) 15:57, 29 October 2009 Michael.Kaamarajan (talk | contribs | block) (13,853 bytes) (Cleaning vandalism) (undo)
  123. (cur) (prev) 15:56, 29 October 2009 Michael.Kaamarajan (talk | contribs | block) (8,100 bytes) (undo)
  124. (cur) (prev) 15:27, 29 October 2009 Porsched sgools (talk | contribs | block) (8,115 bytes) (add info) (undo)
  125. (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)
  126. (cur) (prev) 06:15, 29 October 2009 125.16.65.7 (talk | block) (13,853 bytes) (removing vandalism) (undo)
  127. (cur) (prev) 06:14, 29 October 2009 125.16.65.7 (talk | block) (8,066 bytes) (Undid revision 322675135 by Nezzadar (talk)) (undo)
  128. (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)
  129. (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)
  130. (cur) (prev) 01:51, 29 October 2009 122.162.68.7 (talk | block) (13,853 bytes) (removing vandalism) (undo)
  131. (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)
  132. (cur) (prev) 01:28, 28 October 2009 Yusuf.Abdullah (talk | contribs | block) (13,853 bytes) (→History) (undo)
  133. (cur) (prev) 00:58, 28 October 2009 Yusuf.Abdullah (talk | contribs | block) (13,522 bytes) (All the references are valid) (undo)
  134. (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)
  135. (cur) (prev) 16:23, 27 October 2009 Yusuf.Abdullah (talk | contribs | block) (13,522 bytes) (reverted vandalism) (undo)
  136. (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)
  137. (cur) (prev) 13:36, 27 October 2009 Yusuf.Abdullah (talk | contribs | block) (13,522 bytes) (undo)
  138. (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)
  139. (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)
  140. (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)
  141. (cur) (prev) 09:06, 27 October 2009 125.16.65.7 (talk | block) (13,522 bytes) (undo)
  142. (cur) (prev) 09:06, 27 October 2009 125.16.65.7 (talk | block) (13,521 bytes) (undo)
  143. (cur) (prev) 06:41, 27 October 2009 125.16.65.7 (talk | block) (13,478 bytes) (→Similar Incidents) (undo)
  144. (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)
  145. (cur) (prev) 06:06, 27 October 2009 125.16.65.7 (talk | block) (13,041 bytes) (→Similar Incidents) (undo)
  146. (cur) (prev) 04:29, 27 October 2009 Porsched sgools (talk | contribs | block) m (13,037 bytes) (→Similar Incidents: formatting) (undo)
  147. (cur) (prev) 04:27, 27 October 2009 Porsched sgools (talk | contribs | block) (13,037 bytes) (add info, new ref) (undo)
  148. (cur) (prev) 01:29, 27 October 2009 Yusuf.Abdullah (talk | contribs | block) (12,847 bytes) (undo)
  149. (cur) (prev) 01:27, 27 October 2009 59.165.93.2 (talk | block) (11,902 bytes) (→History) (undo)
  150. (cur) (prev) 01:27, 27 October 2009 203.180.31.95 (talk | block) (12,847 bytes) (undo)
  151. (cur) (prev) 01:26, 27 October 2009 203.180.31.95 (talk | block) (7,734 bytes) (undo)
  152. (cur) (prev) 01:25, 27 October 2009 203.180.31.95 (talk | block) (7,671 bytes) (undo)
  153. (cur) (prev) 01:25, 27 October 2009 203.180.31.95 (talk | block) (7,687 bytes) (undo) (Tag: references removed)
  154. (cur) (prev) 01:25, 27 October 2009 203.180.31.95 (talk | block) (7,801 bytes) (undo) (Tag: references removed)
  155. (cur) (prev) 01:24, 27 October 2009 203.180.31.95 (talk | block) (8,068 bytes) (undo)
  156. (cur) (prev) 23:50, 26 October 2009 Zencv (talk | contribs | block) m (8,066 bytes) (undo)
  157. (cur) (prev) 23:45, 26 October 2009 Zencv (talk | contribs | block) (8,068 bytes) (→Police report: added more) (undo)
  158. (cur) (prev) 23:34, 26 October 2009 Zencv (talk | contribs | block) (7,801 bytes) (added source for lead) (undo)
  159. (cur) (prev) 23:30, 26 October 2009 Zencv (talk | contribs | block) m (7,687 bytes) (undo)
  160. (cur) (prev) 23:29, 26 October 2009 Zencv (talk | contribs | block) (7,671 bytes) (Add appropriate refernce to lead sentence) (undo)
  161. (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)
  162. (cur) (prev) 19:15, 26 October 2009 Yusuf.Abdullah (talk | contribs | block) (12,847 bytes) (→Modus Operandi) (undo)
  163. (cur) (prev) 19:04, 26 October 2009 Yusuf.Abdullah (talk | contribs | block) (12,795 bytes) (→History) (undo)
  164. (cur) (prev) 18:55, 26 October 2009 Yusuf.Abdullah (talk | contribs | block) (11,851 bytes) (→Communal Effects) (undo)
  165. (cur) (prev) 18:32, 26 October 2009 Yusuf.Abdullah (talk | contribs | block) (11,838 bytes) (→Modus Operandi) (undo)
  166. (cur) (prev) 18:29, 26 October 2009 Yusuf.Abdullah (talk | contribs | block) (11,772 bytes) (→Modus Operandi) (undo)
  167. (cur) (prev) 17:50, 26 October 2009 Yusuf.Abdullah (talk | contribs | block) (11,701 bytes) (→Similar Incidents) (undo)
  168. (cur) (prev) 17:45, 26 October 2009 Yusuf.Abdullah (talk | contribs | block) (11,619 bytes) (→Similar Incidents) (undo)
  169. (cur) (prev) 17:40, 26 October 2009 Yusuf.Abdullah (talk | contribs | block) (11,562 bytes) (→Similar Incidents) (undo)
  170. (cur) (prev) 17:39, 26 October 2009 Yusuf.Abdullah (talk | contribs | block) (11,545 bytes) (→Similar Incidents) (undo)
  171. (cur) (prev) 17:28, 26 October 2009 Yusuf.Abdullah (talk | contribs | block) (11,377 bytes) (→Similar Incidents) (undo)
  172. (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)
  173. (cur) (prev) 15:31, 26 October 2009 Yusuf.Abdullah (talk | contribs | block) (11,408 bytes) (→Similar Incidents) (undo)
  174. (cur) (prev) 15:27, 26 October 2009 Yusuf.Abdullah (talk | contribs | block) (11,297 bytes) (→Similar Incidents) (undo)
  175. (cur) (prev) 15:17, 26 October 2009 Yusuf.Abdullah (talk | contribs | block) (11,225 bytes) (→Similar Incidents) (undo)
  176. (cur) (prev) 15:16, 26 October 2009 Yusuf.Abdullah (talk | contribs | block) (11,195 bytes) (→Similar Incidents) (undo)
  177. (cur) (prev) 15:10, 26 October 2009 Yusuf.Abdullah (talk | contribs | block) (10,658 bytes) (→References) (undo)
  178. (cur) (prev) 15:08, 26 October 2009 Yusuf.Abdullah (talk | contribs | block) (10,406 bytes) (→Modus Operandi) (undo)
  179. (cur) (prev) 15:05, 26 October 2009 Yusuf.Abdullah (talk | contribs | block) (10,392 bytes) (→Modus Operandi) (undo)
  180. (cur) (prev) 15:04, 26 October 2009 Yusuf.Abdullah (talk | contribs | block) (10,372 bytes) (→Modus Operandi) (undo)
  181. (cur) (prev) 14:44, 26 October 2009 Yusuf.Abdullah (talk | contribs | block) (9,008 bytes) (→Police report) (undo)
  182. (cur) (prev) 14:37, 26 October 2009 Yusuf.Abdullah (talk | contribs | block) (8,854 bytes) (→Modus Operandi) (undo)
  183. (cur) (prev) 14:37, 26 October 2009 Yusuf.Abdullah (talk | contribs | block) (8,798 bytes) (→Modus Operandi) (undo)
  184. (cur) (prev) 14:23, 26 October 2009 Yusuf.Abdullah (talk | contribs | block) (8,655 bytes) (→Modus Operandi) (undo)
  185. (cur) (prev) 14:21, 26 October 2009 Yusuf.Abdullah (talk | contribs | block) (7,985 bytes) (→Communal Effects) (undo)
  186. (cur) (prev) 14:19, 26 October 2009 Yusuf.Abdullah (talk | contribs | block) (8,495 bytes) (→Communal Effects) (undo)
  187. (cur) (prev) 14:17, 26 October 2009 Yusuf.Abdullah (talk | contribs | block) (8,496 bytes) (→Communal Effects) (undo)
  188. (cur) (prev) 14:14, 26 October 2009 Yusuf.Abdullah (talk | contribs | block) (8,418 bytes) (undo)
  189. (cur) (prev) 14:11, 26 October 2009 Yusuf.Abdullah (talk | contribs | block) (8,318 bytes) (undo)
  190. (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)
  191. (cur) (prev) 22:09, 25 October 2009 Zencv (talk | contribs | block) (7,734 bytes) (→Police report) (undo)
  192. (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)
  193. (cur) (prev) 21:56, 25 October 2009 Zencv (talk | contribs | block) (7,233 bytes) (→Communal Effects: rm unreferenced) (undo)
  194. (cur) (prev) 21:53, 25 October 2009 Zencv (talk | contribs | block) (7,366 bytes) (→Communal Effects: rm non neutral WL) (undo)
  195. (cur) (prev) 18:31, 24 October 2009 117.194.196.5 (talk | block) (7,334 bytes) (→Communal Effects: rm repeat) (undo)
  196. (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)
  197. (cur) (prev) 18:21, 24 October 2009 117.194.196.5 (talk | block) (6,729 bytes) (→Communal Effects) (undo)
  198. (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)
  199. (cur) (prev) 14:06, 24 October 2009 122.162.4.110 (talk | block) (4,510 bytes) (undo)
  200. (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)
  201. (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)
  202. (cur) (prev) 11:23, 23 October 2009 121.241.67.226 (talk | block) (6,861 bytes) (undo)
  203. (cur) (prev) 21:19, 22 October 2009 Zencv (talk | contribs | block) (6,407 bytes) (allegations) (undo)
  204. (cur) (prev) 05:09, 22 October 2009 Porsched sgools (talk | contribs | block) (6,394 bytes) (add info) (undo)
  205. (cur) (prev) 09:46, 21 October 2009 Porsched sgools (talk | contribs | block) (6,183 bytes) (add info about mangalore) (undo)
  206. (cur) (prev) 03:03, 20 October 2009 RussBot (talk | contribs | block) m (5,817 bytes) (Robot: fix links to disambiguation page English) (undo)
  207. (cur) (prev) 01:54, 20 October 2009 Purger.kl (talk | contribs | block) (5,766 bytes) (undo)
  208. (cur) (prev) 17:34, 18 October 2009 Triplestop (talk | contribs | block) (4,591 bytes) (reword) (undo)
  209. (cur) (prev) 17:33, 18 October 2009 Triplestop (talk | contribs | block) (4,616 bytes) (added per source) (undo)
  210. (cur) (prev) 10:28, 18 October 2009 UltraMagnus (talk | contribs | block) m (4,578 bytes) (undo)
  211. (cur) (prev) 05:06, 18 October 2009 117.206.37.186 (talk | block) (4,567 bytes) (→Communal Effects) (undo)
  212. (cur) (prev) 04:48, 18 October 2009 117.206.37.186 (talk | block) (3,625 bytes) (undo)
  213. (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)
  214. (cur) (prev) 19:36, 17 October 2009 SmackBot (talk | contribs | block) m (2,517 bytes) (Date maintenance tags and general fixes) (undo)
  215. (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)
  216. (cur) (prev) 08:59, 17 October 2009 Zencv (talk | contribs | block) (2,324 bytes) (see talk page) (undo)
  217. (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)
  218. (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)
  219. (cur) (prev) 05:59, 17 October 2009 117.206.41.237 (talk | block) (2,655 bytes) (undo)
  220. (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)
  221. (cur) (prev) 14:07, 16 October 2009 Zencv (talk | contribs | block) (2,150 bytes) (Proposing article for deletion per WP:PROD. (TW)) (undo)
  222. (cur) (prev) 00:35, 14 October 2009 Numbo3-bot (talk | contribs | block) m (1,703 bytes) (robot Adding: ml:ലൗ ജിഹാദ്) (undo)
  223. (cur) (prev) 04:07, 13 October 2009 Porsched sgools (talk | contribs | block) (1,669 bytes) (undo)
  224. (cur) (prev) 03:54, 13 October 2009 Porsched sgools (talk | contribs | block) (1,645 bytes) (undo)
  225. (cur) (prev) 03:54, 13 October 2009 Porsched sgools (talk | contribs | block) (1,606 bytes) (add) (undo)
  226. (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)


Lot of new analysis and reports on Love Jihad in main news sources. Will add them after due consideration.[edit]

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Few more links,

--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 19:53, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I think I got the interview. :) There are tons of news stories just from the last day! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:03, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Here is a very touching (and alarming) story. [6] Kautilya3 (talk) 15:52, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Few more links (recent statement of UP Govt. in court),

--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 18:37, 16 September 2014 (UTC) Few more links (Meerut 'love jihad' victim retracts her claim),

--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 11:01, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Recent update[edit]

I'm taking a stab at it. There are a few things I'm not sure what to do with, and I'm going to track them here for ease. I plan to keep adding to this as (or if) I find things I'm not sure about.

  • In [7], we see "Reacting to Gupta's comments, SSP Shalabh Mathur said the term "love jihad" had been coined only to create fear and divide society along communal lines." What does SSP mean? Is that a person whose opinion is worth individually calling out?

--Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:00, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

@Moonriddengirl: SSP means Senior Superintendent of Police, for details you may look into List of police ranks in India & Superintendent of police (India). The rank is equal to "Deputy Commissioner of Police" and is one of the high ranking posts who supervises big/important districts.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 18:14, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you! :) I'll put that in, then. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:15, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Those were some great sources. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:00, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 22 September 2014[edit]

Muslim may marry "People of the Book", interpreted by most to include Jews and Christians, with the inclusion of Hindus disputed.No gender inequalities 125.22.43.16 (talk) 06:50, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 07:15, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

By which or under which?[edit]

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

removal of section[edit]

A section of this article was removed today here by reason that "News papers are WP:RS for only news, not commentary." I'm restoring pending more information on this. WP:IRS says that commentary in newspapers "are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author" - what we have here is precisely that: statements explicitly attributed to the editor or author. I believe we need more information to remove this material in this context. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:50, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I remember complaining about it when it first got inserted. I think it is totally over the top. Even assuming that we can use news commentary with in-text attribution, why would we want to do it? What do we know about this reporter that makes his opinion so important to go into an encyclopedia? Do we have corroboration from any other source, preferably a scholarly source, that goes even remotely near his theory? And, why do we need to give an entire section to a random opinion of a random reporter? What about WP:WEIGHT? Kautilya3 (talk) 22:23, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
As the article notes, Kautilya3, his piece was run in one paper and picked up by another. The author is a widely published journalist ([8]) who has been cited in a number of books ([9]). It's not an entire section, but a subsection. I have no issue with merging those with the other sections, but the current divisions seem helpful structurally. I'm open to feedback from others here, just as I was when you mentioned your concerns last time. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:46, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Most of those are false hits. He has only a handful of citations, probably owing to some coverage of Glen Beck. He doesn't show any expertise in India or South Asia. I would say the right amount of weight is one sentence, that too only if we are discussing the views of a number of scholars. Remember that Wikipedia is supposed to represent scholarly consensus, not any one scholar's views. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 23:16, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
How many citations are a handful? I see writing for The Atlantic, Foreign Policy, Mother Jones, Washington Monthly, Salon, The Las Angelas Review of Books, Reuters, and the New Reublic, among others. That's without touching the books where he's cited. And, again, this particular article was picked up and run by a second publication at least. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:14, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Removal of the word "alleged"[edit]

The word "alleged" has been removed from two sentences in this article. I have restored the status quo pending consensus. The second time it was removed with the notation: "it specifically notes that cases have been prosecuted against people who committed rape jihad". I see nothing in this article about any individual being convicted of love jihad. User:BeastBoy3395, can you please point out any such convictions? I note that in November 2014 this reliable source was still referring to it as an unproven, alleged activity. (It's important to note that the question is not whether forced conversion exists; it's a question of whether people are feigning love to trick women into converting - that is, practicing "love jihad" to reach this conversion.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:13, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I have a problem with keeping the word "alleged" in; I just think it's dubious since, as the article lower down states:In October 2009, the Karnataka government announced its intentions to counter "Love Jihad", which "appeared to be a serious issue".[57] A week after the announcement, the government ordered a probe into the situation by the CID to determine if an organised effort existed to convert these girls and, if so, by whom it was being funded.[58] One woman whose conversion to Islam came under scrutiny as a result of the probe was temporarily ordered to the custody of her parents, but eventually permitted to return to her new husband after she appeared in court, denying pressure to convert.[59][60] In April 2010, police used the term to characterize the alleged kidnapping, forced conversion and marriage of a 17-year-old college girl in Mysore.[61]
I mean, come on. Are we supposed to believe that these police officers are lying? BeastBoy3395 (talk) 13:04, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
That question doesn't merit an answer. A charge is an allegation until it is proved in a court. It can't be reported as a fact until scholarly sources acknowledge it so. Wikipedia reports scholarly consensus. - Kautilya3 (talk) 13:09, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Kautilya3. "appeared to be" is by no means proof of activity, and the rest of that section makes quite clear that official investigations - including the probe that was ordered - have found no substantiation. Until there is such proof, this remains an allegation. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:13, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
I've googled this, and multiple sources show that love jihad is real, and that people have been convicted of it. As such, I have added it back. BeastBoy3395 (talk) 13:58, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
If you want to claim that's a reliable source, you should re-read WP:IRS. Even if that source were reliable, it doesn't say people have been convicted of "love jihad". Huon (talk) 15:13, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't change the fact that they were convicted, now does it? It also does describe love jihad, as its described here, sexual misconduct by Muslims to seduce girls for sexual purposes. Also, here's another source. The Guardian is very reliable. BeastBoy3395 (talk) 15:20, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
I've removed it again. BeastBoy3395, please show where in any reliable article there is verification that anyone has been convicted of love jihad. Specific quotations. What Vijaykant Chauhan believes is immaterial. Besides being unreliable, the other link you provide has nothing to do with love jihad, which, again, is about pretending you love somebody to trick them into conversion. Kidnapping a teenage girl and forcing her into sexual slavery is horrible, but it's an entirely different situation. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:32, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
I fully agree with Moonriddengirl. The Guardian does not in any way claim love jihad is real but rather profiles someone who says so - for context it cites this paper by a historian which explicitly say the "love jihad" campaign is a "hate campaign of Hindu organisations" and calls the claim that there is a love jihad "fake". Quote the Guardian: "Since then [a similar campaign in the 1920s detailed by the historian], the idea has periodically regained currency when purveyors such as Chauhan are granted a fleeting moment of relevance." Huon (talk) 16:05, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
I am adding to this 2015 discussion in 2017. The article still overuses the term "alleged". High court has recently passed the verdict to annul a marriage based on the proven "love jihad". Based on the NIA's investigation and evidence, the supreme court found it alarming enough in 2017 to order a widespread inquiry of all such reported cases. Article needs clean up, see these latest sources here, 1, 2, 3 and 4.
222.165.9.81 (talk) 20:41, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Love Jihad in Israel section[edit]

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

Europe and USA[edit]

What about sexual jihad in Europe? E.g. this and many other . ones. Zezen (talk) 10:04, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

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

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Love Jihad. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

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

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Love Jihad. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

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

Singling out Muslims[edit]

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

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

And why is the following report relevant?

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

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

And this source is clearly biased.

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Only Allah Knows Best

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

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

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Love Jihad. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

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

Removing unsourced claims[edit]

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

Issues with the article: Do not bite me, collaborate instead[edit]

I am here with good intent to collaborate in a constructive manner. The article has several issues.

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

222.165.9.81 (talk) 19:56, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I myself expanded it. I have pointed out where the police has stated that they haven't fpund evidence. While you are talking to me about teh rules, you yourself don't know about them.

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

This is a warning to both of you to not to edit-war, disrupt or impose your own versions. Discuss first. I have been blocked in the past for exceeding limits even when I didn't know. So I advise you to refrain from making edit first. I suggest you to talk first. I shall request temporary semi-protection as it is clearly a controversial issue where editors do what they think is right. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 01:55, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Please see my discussion above on my talk page. I am directly taking it with the other editor point-by-point and I have already invited others for discussion on the talk page of the Love Jihad and my this is what I created there multiple issues with article and unsourced claims. I am doing everything to avoid edit wars and to build consensus. This is not a fair allegation or warning. Since the other editor started to revert, I created discussion points on the article talk page, and subsequent to that I have temporarily stopped making changes to his edits (even before you arrived here) and am encouraging him to engaging in discussion as you can see above. If you check the edit history, you will notice that to avoid edit-warring I have stopped making changes to the contentious ones and any latest edits made to those contentious ones are by other editors and not me. I have instead resorted to creating the discussion on the talk page for the resolution. I will create point-by-point issue discussion below for breaking the problem down into solvable components. I also request you to please review the issues and points of discussion, and provide your third party view. You are welcome to directly edit the article, if it is faster for you. Thanks. 222.165.9.81 (talk) 07:59, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

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

Please Help: Point-by-point resolution of pending issues[edit]

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

A. Proposed rephrasing of "Love Jihad" definition[edit]

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

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

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

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

B. Please reference again in the lead to avoid contention[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

C. Half-truth in the lead[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(vi) Court found DGP statements not valid, DGP statements should not be in the lead. In this case, the court subsequently (December 2009, Justice K.T. Sankaran of Kerala High Court) found indications of forceful conversions. He stated that from police reports it was clear there was a "concerted effort" to convert women with "blessings of some outfits".(based on source2). This clearly refutes the DGP's statements, and hence DGP statements should not be in the lead, it can be kept in the main body. Article lead should have the "proven verifiable evidence conclusions".

(v) Keeping the key point of the source is misleading The Source2 has the prominently heading "Kerala HC asks govt to frame laws to stop ‘love jihad’." While secondary logic from the source has been used but this more important point it totally kept out of the edit. This should be highlighted.

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

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


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

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

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

Point-by-point rebuttal of 222.165.9.81[edit]

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

I can harp on similar rebuttal of reverts. But it will not take the discussion forward, hence I will not do it. Lets us please just stop this. Can we please instead focus on the resolution instead of "he said this and I said this". Please suggest your solution (and/or rephrasing) for the issues as they stand, so we can proceed further by agreeing or making additional collaborative suggestions. Thanks. 222.165.9.81 (talk) 14:37, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
To take it forward, my suggested agreement for other issues:I am also happy to go with some of the other suggestions you made earlier. For example, about the use of the term "allowed" (court allowed NIA to investigate love jihad) and I had changed it to "ordered", based on your clarification (those sources were not sufficient, I had to do additional research, I found a new source that clarifies the point, please see and feel free to use it court "allowed NIA), I am clear that you were correct that court "allowed" NIA to investigate love jihad, court did not order so on its own, court ordered only after NIA (based on their then-current evidence) asked court to investigate love jihad further under the guidance of court appointed retired justice as the representative of the court. Please feel free to rephrase and include the additional source. please condense in the lead and keep the details only in the main body. Thanks. 222.165.9.81 (talk) 15:02, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Please say whatever you want to about any rebut, if you want to. No one is stopping you The "resolution" is already there if you follow the rules. About your other statement, you talked about misleading summaries, but yourself misquoted sources in your edit. Also your source court seems dead. Keeps redirecting to the main site. Please give one that works. 117.225.31.174 (talk) 18:32, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

"Love Jihad" definition[edit]

First of all the NIA is still investigating into reports of love jihad whether women are being targeted as well as the marriage which had been worried the Kerala High Court and has been called a "love jihad", [10]. The article doesn't refer to it as "alleged" anyway. The term "said to reportedly" doesn't mean an allegation, it's how others define and report it regardless of it being false or true. This isn't our definition. Regardless, it isn't important. While removing allegedly it was you who made it look not as definition of others. So I won't mind the rewriting by removing "said to reportedly". 59.96.134.21 (talk) 17:41, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

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

Unsourced claims[edit]

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

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

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

Calling statements "half-truth"[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regarding our point-(i), We are in disagreement because we both have different understanding of where the article begins in the source-1 (inserted earlier by you or other editor). Once we agree on where the article begins, rest is easy to sort out. Your understanding is the article begins from the bold paragraph (that para is the first para and hence its a quote atttibuted to DGP, "There is no organisation in Kerala whose members lure girls by feigning love with the intention of converting them into Islam, according to Director-General of Police Jacob Punnoose."). I get your point, but my understanding is that the bold para is news article subheading (not the main body of the article, article begins after the bold para, the first para is "The DGP told the high court on Wednesday that only three of the 18 reports he received on the matter from superintendents of police from different parts of the state expressed some doubts about such a tendency." and the bold para is news subhead or news lead, it is reporters summary, rephrsased by the reporter as a suheading, hence can not be taken as quote of the DGP). Please review this point again, see what you think. Let us look at some additional sources on this for the better clarity. I am happy with the progress we are making on previous two points. The source you mentioned that "judge stayed the love jihad investigation", DNA to include the complete truth please include the other key point in your synthesis that "justice KT Shankaran noted that there were indications of forced religious conversion in the name of love. He even said there had been 3,000-4,000 cases of ‘love jihad’ in Kerala in the past four years. Shankaran had refused to accept DGP Jacob Punnoose’s report, which ruled out an organised conversion movement in Kerala." You please have a first attempt at phrasing it, I can review it, if is makes you feel more comfortable. Thanks. 222.165.9.81 (talk) 15:53, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
It is a statement. There is no disputing that. Do you have any proof that it isn't? Assuming this limg para as a title is your own thinking. Also please read what I actually said While talking about complete truth, don't forget you said "Court found DGP statements not valid" in point (vi) of Half-truth in the lead. The only source there in Economic Times.
DNA states the investigations were criticised. You seem somewhat right about it containing Justice Shankaran's statements (not a verdict though), even if you didn't use it in your earlier point-by-point statements and didn't mention the earlier statement A bench of the high court had earlier taken another view and recommended that the government enact a law to counter such “deceptive” acts. Regardless, I cannot include such a long statement, but yes I can include a shortened statement properly summarising it. I have an idea but you can suggest one. 117.225.31.174 (talk) 19:06, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

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

Advice[edit]

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

okay boss, your wish is our command. We are making progress. Breaking things down into smaller issues, makes it solvable and we are making progress towards consensus. Initially it needed proper explanation. You are throwing an additional challenge to keep ti short. It is a nice challenge to have. Will try, See how far we succeed. You can keep the auto-protection on until we resolve all. Thanks for pitching in with patience. In case we have a deadlock, might ask you for a second opinion. For now, let us two do it directly. Since we both are likely to keep working on it, this will also force us to learn to work with each other by understanding each others style, We are already getting there. Once we are both finally satisfied with all the changes, is there any forum where we can list this article to request a third party experienced editor to "rewrite, clean up, review, punch holes (me and the other guy can try to fix, he is keenly engaged as I am), etc". Cheers! 222.165.9.81 (talk) 16:01, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
There is no need. You can do it yourselves as long as it is within the compromise reached. No one minds. And if there is contention over something, it is better to discuss first in future. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 13:26, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

31st August 2017 Court Developments[edit]

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

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

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

Removal of sentences from the introduction[edit]

@PaleoNeonate: you moved some sentences from the lead. Now, it doesn't seem to be NPOV, so please do something about it. I don't know how to do it unless those sentences you removed are restored. Thanks!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:5788:a42f:454e:39e2:d83e:b833 (talk) 14:38, 4 December 2017‎ (UTC)

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

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I believe removing those sentences from the lead was the correct call. The lede needs work, but using it to spotlight an ongoing investigation does not make a rebuttal nor even evidence that the act occurred. It's undue balance. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:23, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

@Sitush, Utcursch, Capitals00, Geunineart, and Ykraps: it looks like this article has dismissed Love Jihad as something imaginary - the lead especially seems to be one sided. Can you make it more NPOV? Thanks!-2405:204:578D:FF6B:92D:3D44:EC86:BB23 (talk) 11:25, 21 December 2017 (UTC)