Misplaced Pages

Talk:Love jihad conspiracy theory: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 15:20, 10 May 2015 editBeastBoy3395 (talk | contribs)155 edits →Removal of the word "alleged": another source← Previous edit Revision as of 15:32, 10 May 2015 edit undoMoonriddengirl (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators135,072 edits →Removal of the word "alleged": no evidence.Next edit →
Line 147: Line 147:


: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, . The Guardian is very reliable. ] (]) 15:20, 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, . The Guardian is very reliable. ] (]) 15:20, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
::I've removed it again. ], 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. --] <sup>]</sup> 15:32, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 15:32, 10 May 2015

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconIslam Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconIndia Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
More information:
/ 
Note icon
This article has been marked as needing an infobox.
Note icon
This article was last assessed in May 2012.
Note icon
An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.
WikiProject iconFamily and relationships (defunct)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Family and relationships, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Family and relationshipsWikipedia:WikiProject Family and relationshipsTemplate:WikiProject Family and relationshipsFamily and relationships
Articles for deletionThis article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

Archives 
/Archive 1, /Archive 2

Text and/or other creative content from a previous page was copied to Love Jihad. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists.

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
  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) (Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages's policy. --Moonriddengirl 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.

Only collapsing to help keep clear what hasn't been used yet - see below

Three sample new and unique analysis/cases:

--AmritasyaPutra✍ 08:53, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Please, keep in mind the policies like Identifying and using primary and secondary and reliable sources. Better to put the content you are planning to put here on talk page and have consensus, once decide that can be moved to article space.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidercs 11:02, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I will keep policies in mind. Thank you. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 11:29, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Here is one more analysis from UK:http://www.hindustantimes.com/punjab/amritsar/love-jihad-exploitation-of-uk-sikh-girls-by-pak-youths-worries-akal-takht/article1-1177246.aspx Most definitely a secondary reliable source. I could find it indexed in Questia also. Thank you. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 14:49, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Two more:
All the six references provided so far here are reliable sources and each one has Love Jihad in the article title itself. They are from six different independent publishers. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 06:34, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Some of these, I think, are more usable than others. To break it down, is an opinion piece - it's not vetted in accordance with WP:IRS, as its disclaimer says, "Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in this article are the author's personal opinions. Information, facts or opinions shared by the Author do not reflect the views of Niti Central and Niti Central is not responsible or liable for the same. The Author is responsible for accuracy, completeness, suitability and validity of any information in this article." Hence, it falls under WP:NEWSBLOG and is only usable to say "This writer says that...." Per WP:UNDUE, that may be an issue (I'm not familiar with the author). The India Today and BIHAR-JHARKHAND pieces seem usable to support that two individuals said they were a victim of Love Jihad, but that has to be carefully managed as well - maybe in a statement like "allegations of Love Jihad were made in 2014 in and " or something. may support a statement that concerns are spreading into other groups. This is really, really horrific, but refers to what happened as "suspicious" - it does, however, very clearly support that "Amid intense debate over Muslim boy and Hindu girl relationships, many cases have been reported on 'Love Jihad' and the number of cases are increasing rapidly." How is this love jihad? There doesn't seem to have been any effort to convert the poor girl. :/ I think that what we're seeing is evidence that concerns about Love Jihad are spreading rapidly. We have yet to see a conviction or proof of any conspiracy, although it looks like Love Jihad may be undergoing a shift of meaning to any kind of sexually related crime committed against non-Muslim women by Muslim men. --Moonriddengirl 10:35, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the inputs! As you have suggested I will not use the NitiCentral newsblog and keep as close to source as possible. About the article from deshgujarat, the opening sentence reads "victim of Love Jihad", so I kept it in the list and it surely is not irrelevant. There are news about Love Jihad in independent verifiable sources spread over years. I will not rush and wait for any further immediate info on these reports/incidents to come. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 10:53, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Okay, a few more stories of interest - , , . --Moonriddengirl 21:29, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for those Moonriddengirl! I was searching with articles starting with the phrase 'Love Jihad'. One more here. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 04:32, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
And, I have few here,
“ NO EVIDENCE OF CONSPIRACY

Earlier this month a national-level rifle shooter Tara Shahdeo complained of being a "Love Jihad" victim, saying her Muslim husband hid his religion when they married in the eastern city of Ranchi.

In response, hardline Hindu outfits rampaged through the town and declared a day-long strike. Other violent protests have broken out in recent days close to New Delhi.

A pamphlet named "Love Jihad" is being widely circulated by members of RSS at Hindu weddings, festivals and outside colleges across the country.

Written in 2011, it links the concept of "Love Jihad" to the rule of Muslim Mughals in India centuries ago - a popular theme with Hindu nationalists who feel Hinduism was weakened by foreign rule.

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.

"In most cases we found that a Hindu girl and Muslim boy were in love and had married against their parents' will," state police chief A.L. Banerjee told Reuters. "These are cases of love marriages and not Love Jihad."

”
And, here is an third-party academic sources,
Hope above links will be beneficial. Thanks.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidercs 07:29, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
A lot of good sources there. :) I can't see any of the content from the book (although I'm sure others can; Google varies that), but there's plenty of reliable news sources. This one looks like a "he said/she said" opinion column but the columnists seem like they might be notable enough to call out by name, as per WP:NEWSBLOG, but it will have to be carefully balanced for weight. I'm not familiar with some of the sources - is twocircles.net reliable? I only glanced at the articles, since I don't personally have time to start working on this right now, but thought at a glance that http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2014/09/04/hindu_nationalists_exploitation_of_love_jihad_Modi_BJP looked promising. I notice it has "blog" in the title, though, and I'm not familiar with that source, either, so I wasn't sure if it was also a WP:NEWSBLOG situation. However, when I went back to evaluate it, they wouldn't let me look at the article again unless I register for an account, which isn't happening. :/
Anyway, it seems like the article is going to need some overhaul in light of all the new sources discussing the theory. I'm traveling next week and might not get to pitch in before then (although maybe over the weekend), but I'll try, unless somebody else does it first. --Moonriddengirl 10:20, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider! twocircle is not exactly reliable source. blog.foreignpolicy article is a newsblog. Others look fine! Regards. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 12:50, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't know how you have concluded that twocircle.net not to be reliable becuase in the archive link you have provided nothing is concluded.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidercs
It looks like a pretty strong leaning, though, Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider. :/ We've got one person who says no, two people who say they are reliable only for citing opinion, one person who doesn't outright say no but finds it questionable, and one person who says yes. (Another, the person who raised the question, seems to go back and forth a bit.) Maybe it's worth raising the question again? Meanwhile, we've probably got plenty to go on. That Reuter's article, for instance, seems very strong. --Moonriddengirl 22:17, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
I Agree with you Moonriddengirl!--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidercs 22:56, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Few more links,

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

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

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

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

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

Recent update

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 , 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 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 Haidercs 18:14, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you! :) I'll put that in, then. --Moonriddengirl 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 20:00, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

@Moonriddengirl:  Thanks for all the effort.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidercs 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 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 12:58, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 September 2014

This edit request to Love Jihad has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)

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?

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

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 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 () who has been cited in a number of books (). 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 00:14, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Removal of the word "alleged"

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 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". 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. 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. 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.
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. Misplaced Pages 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 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. --Moonriddengirl 15:32, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Categories: