Talk:Love jihad conspiracy theory

Attribution history

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

Full history

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

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

Love Jihad is not a "conspiracy theory"

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

Also, respected author Nassim Taleb describes in his book Skin in The Game (Book 3, Chapter 2: The Most Intolerant Wins: The Dominance of the Stubborn Minority) how Egypt became Muslim (it used to be "Coptic Christian"). Islam prohibits converting out of Islam. So, when non-Muslims married Muslims, it was more convenient for the non-Muslim to convert, than for the Muslim to convert. A version of that chapter is freely available in this artcile: https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dictatorship-of-the-small-minority-3f1f83ce4e15 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.159.196.139 (talk) 19:31, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

An opinion piece by Swaminathan Gurumurthy, a Hindu nationalist affiliated with the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, is not a reliable source for factual claims. Your Medium link does not mention "Love Jihad" at all. — Newslinger talk 14:28, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Cherry-picking an author (also a journalist) you do not like out of the multiple that have been cited only shows your bias. Not to mention, you commit ad hominem and association fallacy. Your opinion of the author has no bearing on facts. The article provides sources and clearly points out that there are legitimate claims. Our job here is to provide information on the topic, stating the viewpoints, not favor any specific side and call others as invalid. Also, while the phrase has origin in India, the book chapter describes the same phenomenon across time and geography, as cross referenced in other articles on the topic. Wikihc (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:08, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Nonsense. @Newslinger: is right. An opinion piece by a religious extremist who is not an expert on the subject would violate WP:RS. It doesn't matter if he's a journalist, anyone can be one. It's the same reason we don't allow creationists to edit articles on evolution. Either prove the conspiracy to be true or move along. NarSakSasLee (talk) 20:38, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

You start with a presumption of it being a conspiracy theory. Which is a biased view. Like in other articles on such terminology, we have to be balanced. And the comparison with evolution is such a non-sequitur. This is an article on a social phenomenon, not a scientific concept. Different social groups but obviously view it differently. Like in other article we just need to state the views, and that critics of the term label it as a conspiracy and propaganda (take the case of the article on sexual jihad). Not to mention, your contention with the author again is based on an ad hominem you ascribe to him. Specifically being a religion related phenomenon, different views will be present. It must be noted that the use of the term is not limited to a single organization like RSS, nor by a single religion (buddhists, christians etc), nor by a linguistic group. Not to mention the term has been used in context of ISIS too. Even the National Commission of Minorities has acknowledged the phenomenon. Labelling it as a conspiracy in the first sentence violates WP:NPOV Wikihc (talk) 01:48, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

There are currently 13 cited reliable sources (Special:Permalink/998456836 § cite note-15), including multiple high-quality academic sources, that describe "Love Jihad" as a conspiracy theory. On the other hand, Swaminathan Gurumurthy is not a subject-matter expert, and his opinion has no bearing on a factual claim (i.e. the conspiracy theory descriptor), especially when contradicted by reliable sources. — Newslinger talk 02:39, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Currently, as we know, the article is not neutral. And several of the 13 sources are also articles written by journalists (which you stated earlier - "anyone can be"), and are not experts. Meanwhile other high quality academic sources describe the phenomenon to be present, thus contradicting the claim of it being a "conspiracy". WK:NPOV necessitates that we present this difference in viewpoint of experts, and label the "conspiracy" tag as a critical view of the term. In any case, "NPOV policy means presenting all significant points of view. This means providing not only the points of view of different groups today, but also different groups in the past, and not only points of view you share, but also points of view with which you disagree." Wikihc (talk) 03:35, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

The article is not neutral because it does not provide sufficient weight to academic sources, which are the highest-quality sources available. I never said that "anyone can be" a journalist. As WP:NPOV states, "Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship." The article cites multiple high-quality academic sources that describe "Love Jihad" as a conspiracy theory. Without high-quality academic sources stating the opposite, the academic consensus supports the conspiracy theory descriptor in this article. — Newslinger talk 03:45, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I should probably clarify. My comment that "anyone can be a journalist" was in reference to people self-publishing, not those with editorial oversight. Furthermore Wikihc, I would advise you to stop misapplying wikipolicy. The source you're trying to push violates both WP:FRINGE and WP:SYNTH. Furthermore the other sources you've provided make no mention of "love jihad". NarSakSasLee (talk) 11:17, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

My response addressed both of the sources mentioned in the original comment: an opinion piece by the non-expert Hindu nationalist Swaminathan Gurumurthy is not a reliable source for factual claims, and the linked Medium website does not mention "Love Jihad". — Newslinger talk 21:26, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

The book chapter (reproduced on medium) argues that "a small rate of asymmetric inter-faith marriages" ("Love Jihad" is a term describing this) can lead to "a small Islamic group" becoming the majority, and therefore is relevant. It states - "The two asymmetric rules are as follows. First, under Islamic law, if a non-Muslim marries a Muslim woman, he needs to convert to Islam – and if either parent of the child happens to be Muslim, the child will be Muslim. Second, becoming Muslim is irreversible, as apostasy is the heaviest crime in the religion, sanctioned by the death penalty..." and gives a historical example from Egypt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikihc (talk • contribs) 02:25, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

That contains no mention of "Love Jihad". — Newslinger talk 02:39, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm in agreement. This contains no mention of "love jihad". Furthermore it sounds like a tinfoil hat theory the more we read it. The source is talking about religious conversion through marriage and claims Muslims cannot leave Islam? It's a religion. Of course people can leave it. I'm not sure if you know this Wikihc, but there are plenty of people who have left Islam. NarSakSasLee (talk) 11:17, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Your opinion of whether it is a "tinfoil hat theory", is irrelevant. It is a book chapter by a distinguished professor. Nonetheless, the author is talking about the asymmetry in the islamic law according to which one must convert to marry a muslim, and it is not allowed to forgo the religion. Moreover, there is countless literature that shows how such punishments have made it nigh impossible for an average follower to leave , despite the exceptions who made it out. Wikihc (talk) 02:13, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

The book needs to actually refer to "Love Jihad" to even be considered for a claim about "Love Jihad". If the book does not mention "Love Jihad", then it cannot be used for a claim about "Love Jihad" because such usage would constitute original research. — Newslinger talk 02:30, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikihc you're synthisizing two different things to form an original opinion. The author does not even mention love jihad in the book. Furthermore it's talking about voluntary religious conversion through marriage, which is not unique to Islam (see Catholicism or Judaism for instance where the spouses are expected to convert). Furthermore Love Jihad is about faking love. The author of your source does not mention faking love to convert people. NarSakSasLee (talk) 03:58, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

No problem! Furthermore should add Medium has no editorial oversight. It's a self published source, much like Google Blogs. NarSakSasLee (talk) 22:41, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

The chapter of the book has been reproduced on medium. Is a book chapter similar to a google blog? Wikihc (talk) 01:48, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if it's been copied and pasted elsewhere. It's still by a WP:FRINGE author who is both a Hindu extremist and a person with an obvious political agenda. He is not neutral and furthermore not an expert in the area. Additionally, his claims are very tinfoil. NarSakSasLee (talk) 11:25, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

So Nassim Nicholas Taleb, the author of the book, "is both a Hindu extremist and a person with an obvious political agenda"? He is not even a Hindu, at least publicly, just so you know. Just because you opine he is a WP:FRINGE author, doesn't make him one. No wonder this article is not neutral and violates WP:NPOV. Seems irredeemable. Wikihc (talk) 02:13, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Also, WP:FRINGE has nothing to do with politics or opinions. Wikihc (talk) 02:36, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

NarSakSasLee, are you accidentally mixing up Nassim Nicholas Taleb (the author of Skin in the Game, a chapter of which was republished in the Medium link) and Swaminathan Gurumurthy (the author of the opinion piece) by any chance? I don't see any problems with Skin in the Game or Taleb in general. However, the book is not an appropriate source on whether "Love Jihad" is a conspiracy theory, because a search on Google Books reveals that it does not mention "Love Jihad" at all. Additionally, sociology and religion are both outside Taleb's area of expertise (mathematics), so even if the book did mention "Love Jihad", it would be an inferior source on this topic compared to the high-quality academic publications currently cited in the article. — Newslinger talk 02:48, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

@Newslinger I thought we were talking about including Swaminathan Gurumurthy? He's the Hindu extremist I was talking about that shouldn't even be in the article. Wikihc's responses have been a little confusing so I may have gotten confused as to who he was referring to. Anyway, I'm in agreement with you Newslinger. It's not his area of expertise. It would be nonsensical to include him as any sort of authority on the subject (a subject which you have noted he doesn't even mention). NarSakSasLee (talk) 03:58, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

NarSakSasLee, just to clarify, is "No problem" referring to the thanks I gave for your previous comment? I'm asking this because it might be misinterpreted as support for the comment by 209.159.196.139. — Newslinger talk 22:54, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

It was addressing you, not the IP, Newslinger. NarSakSasLee (talk) 01:09, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Wikihc, NarSakSasLee & Newslinger. So, I was reading this discussion and have attempted to address issues being raised here. There are still a lot of problems with the body of the article but I went ahead and revamped the lead while primarily using academic sources and a more diverse variety of them to hopefully represent a better understanding of the topic. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 00:54, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

It certainly reads much better than before. I'm impressed. Well done. NarSakSasLee (talk) 01:30, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

This new lead section is very well-written, and incorporates 8 of the 9 academic sources from Talk:Love Jihad/Archive 2 § Academic sources. Excellent work. — Newslinger talk 01:48, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Minor style concern: "...feigning love, seduction, deception, kidnapping, and marriage, ..." can be misread as a list of things that the verb feigning applies to. Is there a way to make this less ambiguous without disrupting the flow of the sentence? — Newslinger talk 02:20, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Newslinger, I see that, could "pretending to be in love" work as a replacement for "feigning love" that clears the ambiguity? Tayi Arajakate _Talk 14:21, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Tayi Arajakate Just going to add my opinion here too, most definitely that would work I think. It's more precise and representative. NarSakSasLee (talk) 14:33, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I went ahead and made the change. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 14:41, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I've made a few grammar changes so that the change you made makes the led flow well. NarSakSasLee (talk) 15:02, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

NarSakSasLee, changing it to "by pretending to be in love through seduction, deception, kiddnapping..." from "by pretending to be in love, seduction, deception, kiddnapping..." causes a different problem. It gives the impression that the latter list of things is a means of "pretending to be in love", which isn't a necessary condition even though the term Love Jihad derives its name from it. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 15:19, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Tayi Arajakate Change it to however you so wish. I was just worried about the grammar. NarSakSasLee (talk) 19:58, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

The current phrasing "by means such as seduction, feigning love, deception, kidnapping, and marriage" is great. I don't think there's any way to read it incorrectly. — Newslinger talk 09:43, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I too think that it isn't just a conspiracy theory but a harsh reality. Iam adityarajput (talk) 01:47, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Do you have reliable academic sourcing to support that position? — Newslinger talk 09:06, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm surprised by the amount of people here claiming it to be true by saying "I think". No one cares what "you" think. We care about what reliable sources think. That's the harsh reality. @Newslinger: is right. What sources do you have to prove your claims? NarSakSasLee (talk) 18:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

There's always the possibility that we've encountered the case where Wikipedia's methodology for determining the "truth' is just broken. And fundamentally, the truth is what we actually care about. The "methodology" is just a means to arbitrate what is accepted as truth on Wikipedia. Fundamental principles matter. Fabrickator (talk) 14:17, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. — Newslinger talk 15:49, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Verifiability is the criteria, not the goal. Truth is the goal (notwithstanding WP:!TRUTHFINDERS). Fabrickator (talk) 17:14, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Whose truth? Eg, all religions claim the truth is theirs. Good link, and there's no "not withstanding". Doug Weller talk 20:00, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

There is "no notwithstanding"? How about "notwithstanding" the fact that WP:!TRUTHFINDERS is 'not' a "policy or guideline", regardless of the number of times said page may be cited as though it were policy? But setting that aside, the apparent implication in WP:!TRUTHFINDERS that "truth doesn't matter" is belied by other statements, such that editors are "encouraged to add material that is verifiable and true", and why have a section of said page on the meaning of "truth" in different subject areas if truth doesn't matter? It would be more appropriate to say that you can't select one version of the truth and just ignore the reliable sources that disagree with your purported truth. As to your question about "religious truths", religious scriptures have been deemed to be "not reliable" according to WP:Perennial sources. Fabrickator (talk) 00:54, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

There are currently over 20 high-quality academic sources cited in the lead section alone, making the lead section of this article one of the most well-sourced among all Wikipedia articles. This constitutes a strong academic consensus that Love Jihad is a conspiracy theory. If you have high-quality academic sources suggesting the contrary, feel free to share them. Otherwise, it looks like the lead section reflects the "truth" quite accurately. — Newslinger talk 07:31, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I was responding to the observation that many people have said "I think" (that the truth is different from what the article states), and I have simply made the point (to reiterate) that while verifiability is the criteria for determining what can be posted, the real goal is to have true content. Furthermore, I did not suggest that we should toss that rule, notwithstanding the possibility that the rule has actually failed in this instance. It is sort of like the world view being (once upon a time) that the earth was the center of the universe, and somebody making an observation to the contrary. That doesn't make this observation false, it just makes such an observation as "not accepted".

If that's the case in this situation, then our "verifiability" criteria has failed us. I don't expect that criteria to change, I expect that good people (e.g. experienced WP editors) can recognize this possibility, and that if they have some insight, they will understand that we can accept the possibility that the rule of verifiability might have failed us in this instance.

Now maybe it has failed us and maybe it hasn't. A declaration of what one thinks is true is not expected to convince anybody who equates verifiability with actual truth of this possibility, but these "good people" should recognize that the rule is no guarantee of truth. Assuming you recognize that, then you would also recognize that your response was not on point. Fabrickator (talk) 15:29, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

If your opinion differs from the academic consensus, you are welcome to conduct research and submit your findings to a reputable academic publisher. If your submission gets accepted, peer-reviewed, and published, it may be eligible to be cited into this article. This is the standard that all 20+ of the high-quality academic sources cited in the lead section meet. If you are unwilling or unable to do this, the article will remain as is. — Newslinger talk 06:57, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

You seem to feel compelled to argue against something I'm not suggesting, i.e. that we should ignore the verifiability requirement without adequate consensus that the verifiability requirement ought to be modified or otherwise adjusted in some way. I shall repeat the point that truth is the goal and verifiability is merely the criteria for determining what may be published. You seem to feel that re-stating the verifiability requirement is a proper response to any claim that, notwithstanding the verifiability requirement, truth is nevertheless the underlying goal.

If you feel that it's necessary to dispute my assertion that truth is the goal, that's an opinion you're free to hold, though I would suggest it's not a very sensible one, and I would infer that your understanding of the principles underlying Wikipedia's verifiability requirement is flawed. Fabrickator (talk) 09:22, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

If you want to weaken the verifiability policy to accommodate the promotion of conspiracy theories like "Love Jihad", feel free to make a proposal at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability. Such a proposal is highly unlikely to gain acceptance from the Wikipedia community. — Newslinger talk 09:46, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Ha ha! So you can't admit to the possibility of there being any improvement to (your interpretation of) the existing verifiability policy that would provide a better way of establishing the truth of a claim. It's definitely comforting to know about the certainty with which you are able to determine the facts. Fabrickator (talk) 14:26, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

When 20+ high-quality academic sources agree with the lead section of the article, and you disagree without citing evidence, the article is going to remain as is. If you want to publish conspiracy theories without proper evidence, you are free to do so on a personal website or blog. If you want to propose a change to the policy, you can do so at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability. But unless you are able to present high-quality academic sources to support your position on "Love Jihad", you are simply wasting your time on this talk page. — Newslinger talk 14:51, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I am merely asserting that "truth" is the underlying goal that is the basis of the verifiability policy. An implication of this is that the verifiability policy is not set in stone, it is but a method that is designed to help attain that goal. I am not attempting to address whether your interpretation is correct or incorrect in this instance.

However, you keep failing to address my statement about "truth" being the underlying goal, while just reiterating your point that there are a lot of academic citations supporting the claim that "love jihad" is a conspiracy theory, and when you do that, you can expect that if you merely repeat your claim about all the highly-regarded citations, I will be likely to reiterate my point that you have not addressed my claim about the relationship between "verifiability" and "truth" with regard to WP policy. Fabrickator (talk) 19:53, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Article talk pages are for discussing changes to articles, and not the epistemology of Wikipedia. — Newslinger talk 21:33, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive editing
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Newslinger clearly has very biased views and obvious hatred towards a particular religion, please wikipedia, you are better than this, don't foster an environment for these separatists to come in and spew hatred and political propaganda towards other religions and communities, spreading false information and political propaganda. Like this wikipedia might start losing credibility and will be a breeding hroinf for such people to radicalize readers and spread hatred and propaganda. Uhhibi (talk) 17:51, 17 February 2021 (UTC) Personal attacks are prohibited on Wikipedia, and your allegations are incorrect. See Special:Diff/1007351944. — Newslinger talk 18:10, 17 February 2021 (UTC) 1. What about communal and religious attacks and defamation that you are clearly ensuing on a particular community and religion? 2. I was not personally attacking, I'm sorry you misinterpreted it that way. 3.You cannot just state my allegations are incorrect, since you are not an authority on what is write or wrong here. Because I can say your allegation on my allegation being incorrect is false and that your allegations are incorrect. 4. Also Wikipedia does not allow threatening of editors on this platform as you do so here. Uhhibi (talk) 18:21, 17 February 2021 (UTC) Please click on the footnotes in the article and review the cited sources. All of the content in this article is based on the content in the cited sources, and the lead section of this article is supported by 20+ high-quality academic sources. If you disagree with any of the sources, feel free to contact the respective authors for clarification. — Newslinger talk 18:24, 17 February 2021 (UTC) I do not understand why you're deflecting my question, not once did I question the authenticity of the information cited, my question again: Yes, I want to know why the tone of the article is so ANTI - HINDU and EXTREMELY biased? Uhhibi (talk) 18:32, 17 February 2021 (UTC) The tone of this article is not "ANTI - HINDU and EXTREMELY biased". Neutrality on Wikipedia entails "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". High-quality academic sources agree that "Love Jihad" is a conspiracy theory, and this article neutrally and accurately reflects the academic consensus. — Newslinger talk 18:32, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Biased views, targeting a community and hurting religious sentiments.

Disruptive editing
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Newslinger clearly has very biased views and obvious hatred towards a particular religion, please wikipedia, you are better than this, don't foster an environment for these separatists to come in and spew hatred and political propaganda towards other religions and communities, spreading false information and political propaganda. Like this wikipedia might start losing credibility and will be a breeding hroinf for such people to radicalize readers and spread hatred and propaganda. Uhhibi (talk) 17:53, 17 February 2021 (UTC) I mean just look at newlinger's history and previous talks/discussions and its very clear that he/she has extremist, racist and discriminatory views! Uhhibi (talk) 17:55, 17 February 2021 (UTC) Personal attacks are prohibited on Wikipedia, and your allegations are incorrect. The content in the lead section of this article is reliably sourced to 20+ high-quality academic sources. Wikipedia is not censored and will not remove reliably sourced information because it offends a reader. — Newslinger talk 18:06, 17 February 2021 (UTC) 1. What about communal and religious attacks and defamation that you are clearly ensuing on a particular community and religion? 2. I was not personally attacking, I'm sorry you misinterpreted it that way. 3.You cannot just state my allegations are incorrect, since you are not an authority on what is write or wrong here. Because I can say your allegation on my allegation being incorrect is false and that your allegations are incorrect. 4. Also Wikipedia does not allow threatening of editors on this platform as you do so here. 5. It does not offend a reader, it HURTS religious sentiments of a certain religion and community. 6. Your edits also encourages violence, hatred and discrimination against a religion. Which is a violent threat to the wellbeing of UP citizens. Uhhibi (talk) 18:24, 17 February 2021 (UTC) Again, Wikipedia is not censored. The content of this article reflects the content in reliable sources, including high-quality academic sources. If you have any questions about the content in the cited sources, you are free to contact the relevant authors or publishers. — Newslinger talk 18:27, 17 February 2021 (UTC) Yes, I want to know why the tone of the article is so ANTI - HINDU and EXTREMELY biased? Uhhibi (talk) 18:30, 17 February 2021 (UTC) The tone of this article is not "ANTI - HINDU and EXTREMELY biased". Neutrality on Wikipedia entails "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". High-quality academic sources agree that "Love Jihad" is a conspiracy theory, and this article neutrally and accurately reflects the academic consensus. — Newslinger talk 18:32, 17 February 2021 (UTC) You talk about neutrality and censorship, WHY DID YOU DELETE MY DISCUSSION AS SOON AS YOU'RE PROPAGANDA WAS BEING REVEALED? I wrote a lengthy answer citing academic sources and links to provide proof for my arguement, which you conveniently deleted, this is CYBERBULLYING! Uhhibi (talk) 18:43, 17 February 2021 (UTC) I did not delete any of your comments. Check the page history. — Newslinger talk 18:44, 17 February 2021 (UTC) The fact that you had to delete my discussion takes away my right to free speech! And that you were guilty conscious! Uhhibi (talk) 18:45, 17 February 2021 (UTC) All of your edits on Wikipedia are listed at Special:Contributions/Uhhibi, and not a single one contains any academic sources. I have not deleted any of your comments. — Newslinger talk 18:46, 17 February 2021 (UTC) Oh my god, are you serious, where is my discussion, '‎Biased views, targeting a community and hurting religious sentiments', then? Uhhibi (talk) 18:56, 17 February 2021 (UTC) The title of this subsection is called "Biased views, targeting a community and hurting religious sentiments." All of your comments are still on this page. If you are having difficulty with the mobile web version of Wikipedia, you can switch to the desktop version by tapping "Desktop" at the bottom of the page. — Newslinger talk 18:58, 17 February 2021 (UTC) What you have done is clearly visible in my history, unless there is a second 'NEWSLINGER' on here that I'm unaware of? Uhhibi (talk) 18:57, 17 February 2021 (UTC) In Special:Diff/1007356104, I merged the "Biased views, targeting a community and hurting religious sentiments" discussion into a subsection of the "Love Jihad is not a 'conspiracy theory'" discussion, because you were duplicating your comments in both discussions. No comments were removed in the merge, and your duplicate comments are still there. In any case, you have yet to submit any edits containing any links or academic sources. — Newslinger talk 19:01, 17 February 2021 (UTC) Again you're lying, I have screenshots of the fact that you had my discussion deleted. It is nowhere to be seen here, and also who gave you the authority to merge that discussion with this one? This is CYBERBULLYING! Uhhibi (talk) 19:07, 17 February 2021 (UTC) According to WP:SECTIONHEADINGOWN, threads are shared by multiple editors and it is permissible to merge redundant sections. I did not delete any of your comments, as the page history shows. — Newslinger talk 19:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC) I listed numerous arguements, citations and links to show how you're sweing hatred and propaganda to hurt religious sentiments of a religion while spreading misinformation and a biased opinion, while i gave many examples for the same! Which obviously you deleted so you wouldn't have to face the consequences! Uhhibi (talk) 19:10, 17 February 2021 (UTC) A rather cheap tactic indeed! If someone questions you, just take away their freedom of speech right? Uhhibi (talk) 19:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC) According to WP:SECTIONHEADINGOWN, threads are shared by multiple editors and it is permissible to merge redundant sections. I did not delete any of your comments, as the page history shows. — Newslinger talk 19:12, 17 February 2021 (UTC) And finally, if you do have any academic sources to support your view of the "Love Jihad" conspiracy theory, feel free to share them. — Newslinger talk 19:35, 17 February 2021 (UTC) Hey look, you're clearly not one person, an organization or bot of some kind, so I'm gonna stop arguing now since you're obviously paid to spread false propaganda and hatred, so please go ahead, but just for the record to any human who reads this, I had an entire another discussion that NEWSLINGER had removed. In which, i cited academic proofs, links, examples and arguments. Honestly such cyberbullies really bring down authentic journalism and freedom of speech, only having their malice intentions at heart! I felt really disheartened when i wrote an extremely lengthy answer detailing and supporting my arguements as to why the article is Hinduphobic and hurts religious and communal sentiments while being largely based on biased opinions and misinformation to try and incite violence in Indian states; but of course newslinger silenced me when it couldn't counterargue... Anyways I've said what i had to say, you can go on say wjat you want, bot or group of people or who ever is being paid for this sad job of spreading hatred!! Uhhibi (talk) 20:06, 17 February 2021 (UTC) In response to "I felt really disheartened when i wrote an extremely lengthy answer detailing and supporting my arguements": no, you did not. Among all of the edits you have made so far, which are listed in Special:Contributions/Uhhibi, your longest comment is the one you just made at 20:06, 17 February 2021. To date, you have never supported any of your baseless allegations with any links, academic sources, or valid arguments. Most of your comments are loaded with personal attacks and unsubstantiated claims, and none of your comments are supported by any kind of evidence whatsoever. — Newslinger talk 21:32, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2021

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

 Done. Thank you for submitting this edit request. — Newslinger talk 20:09, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 January 2021

France is also trying to control Love Jihad according to this. Please form a sentence and add it to this article. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.7.143.205 (talk) 09:35, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Not supported by the provided source. The source is an opinion piece that only briefly mentions "Love Jihad" in a sentence:

Hence, a Muslim citizen — in India, as much as in France — is defined by her Muslimness more than her Indian-ness or French-ness. Once such a hyphenated identity is put in place, a form of apriori criminalisation is often attached to a community, and the rights of citizens who belong to it are gradually trammelled — whether by a law to “protect liberal values” or prevent “love jihad”.

The source does not actually claim that France is "trying to control Love Jihad", since the context of the sentence is ambiguous and can also refer to India. The article also describes "Love Jihad" as "a form of apriori criminalisation". — Newslinger talk 12:00, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Newslinger, I saw that you are an admin and will know better, so can you add a sentence using that source mentioning France (even if you use "apriori criminalisation")? I am trying to find reliable sources for what the UK and Russia say also and will ask you to add the same soon.

This, this and this are about love jihad in the UK.

This and this are about Russia (and France) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.99.247.42 (talk) 02:41, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

This "fear" is everywhere — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.99.247.42 (talk) 02:55, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

What about this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.99.247.42 (talk) 08:00, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

High-quality academic sources, including the ones cited in Special:Diff/1006606028 § cite note-13, confirm that Love Jihad is a conspiracy theory, and not a real phenomenon. Again, the sentence from the article in the first comment of this discussion is phrased so ambiguously that it cannot be used to claim a relationship between "Love Jihad" and France; it is also an opinion piece written by a non-expert, which is not an appropriate source for this type of claim. All of the articles you have linked are off-topic (i.e. does not mention "Love Jihad"), undue weight (i.e. written by non-expert opinion columnists), or superseded by the high-quality academic sources. Unless you have high-quality academic sources that describe "Love Jihad" as something other than a conspiracy theory or fabricated claim, the currently cited academic sources take precedence. — Newslinger talk 13:59, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: I've taken a brief look and concur with Newslinger. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:25, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

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

All content on Wikipedia must be verifiable to reliable sources. Do any high-quality academic sources support your allegations? — Newslinger talk 18:42, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

@Newslinger: I see you have your hands full with these conspiracy theorists. I just wanted to chime in and say that the same arguments are propping up time and time again so would it not be better to introduce a special warning on this talk page about this continuous disruptive editing? It's getting rather strange seeing people repeatedly mob this talk page with half-baked news articles and lazy journalism. It seems like these people aren't understanding that they can't replace reliable peer reviewed sources with their own spurious sources of information. Otherwise I think some temporary blocks are necessary. NarSakSasLee (talk) 12:27, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

​I've added an FAQ at Talk:Love Jihad/FAQ, which is now displayed at the top of the page. Unfortunately, due to the way the template for talk page boxes are set up, editors who are using the mobile website for Wikipedia cannot see the FAQ. Desktop and laptop users will see the notice when they load this page. — Newslinger talk 12:34, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Ah. Excellent. I actually didn't see the FAQ myself and I'm currently using desktop. Would it be possible to make it look more distinct? Perhaps colour the box around it red? NarSakSasLee (talk) 12:38, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Possibly, but not with the default {{FAQ}} template. I'm not sure how effective this would be, since many of the edits are tagged with Mobile edit, Mobile web edit. ​Talk:One America News Network does use a red template, but the proportion of smartphone web users in America is lower than in India, and I'm not sure if it's directly comparable. — Newslinger talk 13:15, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

In India, mobile service providers give everyone Mobile data services of 1 to 2 GB per day at cheap rates but please don't block us, we do contribute positively — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4071:2009:2EE:0:0:BA6:E8A1 (talk) 22:46, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

These templates do not block anyone. They just display messages that are only visible to editors who are using the Desktop view of Wikipedia. Smartphone and some tablet users are on the Mobile view by default, which does not show these templates. — Newslinger talk 03:55, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 February 2021

Hi, I'm a wikipedia reader as well as a writer I write professionally in Wordpress and in Quora and many other such websites. Please help me improve this page by making the content more crisp and in clarity.

}} Mb 9702 (talk) 07:28, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Semi-protected edit request on 22 February 2021 (2)

Hi, I'm new to Wikipedia and a part time writer I feel that the top line should be changed as it appears misconstrued. Mb 9702 (talk) 07:31, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

• Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide reliable sources that support the new content. • Gene93k (talk) 10:20, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Request for Edit

Biased view against a religion that is Hinduism being presented in this page and the wrong information cant be edited. Please help to edit this page. Mb 9702 (talk) 07:33, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

• duplicate request answered above. • Gene93k (talk) 10:20, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Edit request

Hello,please help me edit this page as it has published misconstrued information. Mb 9702 (talk) 07:40, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

• duplicate request answered above. • Gene93k (talk) 10:20, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2021

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2021

This is very wrong information published in this page against a community and humanity. Please help us edit this page for the sake of improvement. Mb 9702 (talk) 09:31, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Newslinger talk 09:52, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

This is the 8th time this user has requested the same thing. I removed his two previous requests because he refuses to engage in good faith discussion. At some point a block will be necessary. NarSakSasLee (talk) 12:37, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Love Jihad

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