Talk:Love jihad conspiracy theory/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also, they found no evidence of love jihad ([1], [2]). EvergreenFir (talk) 20:08, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

These instances should be incorporated into this Wikipedia

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

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

• One Aftab Poonawala murdered his Hindu girlfriend, Shraddha Walkar, cut her dead body into pieces and disposed of the parts in different parts of Delhi.^[1] In his statement to the Delhi police he said that he had absolutely no regrets about what he had done and he would be rewarded in “jannah” with 72 “hoors” smelling of ISIS indoctrination.^[2]
• A Hindu girl was chopped into pieces by her supposed lover, a Muslim.^[3]
• A tribal Christian girl was chopped into pieces by her Muslim lover.^[4]
• A Muslim man was arrested for murdering his Hindu wife in Mumbai and her kin claim it to be love jihad.^[5]
• The
  Vishwa Hindu Parishad released a list of four hundred cases and demanded a law against it by the Government of India.^[6]-2406:7400:98:395:A529:5B99:290D:3783 (talk
  ) 11:35, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: It could potentially be defamatory to insert these cases into Wikipedia as the motivation has not been proven in any of these cases (and indeed the media reports often don't even mention motivation, only factually the religions of the alleged perpetrators and victims). The mainspace article says it's about forced conversion, but it's unclear how these incidents of violence relate to conversion as opposed to simply intermarriage. Domestic violence is unfortunately a

WP:NCRIME) event in the world, and not necessarily notable. Lizthegrey (talk

) 20:38, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

WP:TOI EvergreenFir (talk)

03:50, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

WP:RS.-2406:7400:98:E812:4DAB:1A6:E0EB:10D6 (talk

) 04:21, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Church also claimed the sun revolves around the earth, and harassed those who stated the opposite is true. Solblaze (talk) 16:43, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

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

That statement is sourced to seven different sources, none of them a tandf source, though that material does need copying to the body somewhere so that it's not featured solely in the lead.

Iskandar323 (talk

) 17:58, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Secondary commentaries as in secondary sources? Everything is an opinion in that sense. But that is not the definition of opinion that we use here to differentiate reliable sources from opinion in the sense of editorial.

Iskandar323 (talk

) 13:28, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

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

Iskandar323 (talk

) 13:26, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

He also called scholarly sources false propaganda on a discussion about the Jammu massacres. He tends to get emotional and pull the Hindu victim card, to put it frankly. Solblaze (talk) 16:53, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

But, I hope, he will take a break from the screen and come back with a clear head. Solblaze (talk) 16:54, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

There are a lot of sources, and I do not have access to all of them, but this one substantiates the "patriachal notions" part. It's a source that can't be searched, but I imagine a thorough read will reveal more.

Iskandar323 (talk

) 14:23, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

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

The lead summarises the article and it highlights the most important points that are widely mentioned in reliable sources. And by reliable sources, we expect solid evidence-based research articles, not random commentaries. If you think there are important commentaries that should be included then, by all means, put them in the body and suitably

WP:SOAPBOXing. Look how awful this theory is, and how clever we are to dig up mud on it. This is quite ridiculous and completely unencyclopaedic. -- Kautilya3 (talk

) 15:43, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

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

"I don't care about that" means "that is not what I am objecting to". Did you see me objecting to it anywhere? You are simply repeating yourself ad infinitum, without even listening to the issue. This is hardly any kind of discussion!

I am objecting to the second paragraph where the nature of this "conspiracy theory" has been characterised in various ways. Almost all of thes are sourced to unsubstantiated opinions. Some even seem to be

WP:OR by the editors concerned. -- Kautilya3 (talk

) 16:37, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

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

Those who claim that the Holocaust happened do so with a sheer mountain of evidence, witnesses, and victims. Those who oppose it use their own opinion as their basis. In quite an irony, you have explained exactly why we shouldnt be including random opinions not based on fact en masse here. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 18:20, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Let's get this clear, are you suggesting we drop all the sources and not describe it as conspiracy theory because you think these are "random opinions"? Tayi Arajakate _Talk 18:55, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Uhhh.... what? How did you draw that inference? I said unsourced opinions arent the best for inclusion, and from that you got.... this?

Longer, more wordy reply - No. However, the point in this discussion is whether or not we should retain the second paragraph, which encompasses the opinion of certain commentators who seem to have made those comments with little to back up their claims. As such I dont think it deserves a place in the lead, and agree with Kautilya3 that it should be removed. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 20:35, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

You are responding to someone saying "Wikipedia represents what RS say, and RS blatantly regard "love jihad" as a conspiracy theory."

The sources in the second paragraph are of the same quality as those in the first one, many of them are in fact the very same sources, including those cited for the term "conspiracy theory". These are nearly all high quality peer reviewed academic works, they do not suddenly become "opinion of certain commentators" that are apparently not fact or research based because you (or anyone else) will(s) them to be. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 01:57, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

That's interesting. Let's say an academic in a reputed peer-reviewed journal arrives at a conclusion based on his/her opinions/philosophy, and another academic in the same journal arrives at the same/different conclusion through statistical/empirical evidence. In this hypothetical case, both sources will be considered equal and reliable by Wikipedia as we don't discriminate between sources on the basis of research quality. Probably it's a limitation? Mixmon (talk) 21:43, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Mixmon, this happens all the time and not just in the social sciences but also in the hard sciences. The relevant policies for dealing with sources that contradict each other are described in

WP:FRINGE. (BTW, it is not clear which thread you're replying to but this is a general answer so that's ok) RegentsPark (comment

) 22:07, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

It was just a casual observation. I am not participating in this discussion. Mixmon (talk) 22:12, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

And that person was responding to a comment about not including random summaries, where they brought in the holocaust to justify their argument. Do note an important part of the comment they replied to ; by reliable sources, we expect solid evidence-based research articles, not random commentaries. This would also be the reply to your comment.

I've edited the two points specifically called out by other editors - those being the direct comparison to world domination conspiracy theories and the line about women as possessions - these parts have been rewritten as tighter and hopefully less objectionable paraphrasings of (and a quote from) Cherian, 2020 and Gupta, 2009. The original language was a bit loose; should be better now.

Iskandar323 (talk

) 06:22, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello @Kautilya3. Could you please let me know how you obtained a copy of the book that failed verification? I cant seem to find it online. Googleguy007 (talk) 16:34, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

It is online for me. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:38, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Can you provide me with the link? Googleguy007 (talk) 16:41, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

If anyone needs a copy of the cited Cherian George article from the book, they can email me. Abecedare (talk) 01:48, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

I seem to have access to this one, I'd like to see Zimdars, McLeod 2020 however which is the source cited for the line that apparently fails verification. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 02:02, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

The article by Cherian George, Scourge of Disinformation-Assisted Hate Propaganda is Chapter 11 of the book Fake News edited by Zimdars and McLeod. So if you have access to the George article, that should suffice. Abecedare (talk) 02:10, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I misunderstood that, I don't have access to that. I thought you had meant Hate Spin: The Manufacture of Religious Offense and Its Threat to Democracy which is a book authored by Cherian George, which I have access to and is also used as a source in this article.

Can you email the article to me? And anyways since you have access to it can you confirm or deny whether the tagged line fails verification or not? Tayi Arajakate _Talk 02:21, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Emailed.

Not commenting on the {{

FV}} per se since the answer is not necessarily binary and I don't want to get involved with editorial discussions over if/how the wording should be changed since I have been acting in admin capacity with regards to this article. Abecedare (talk

) 02:36, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I see what you mean now.

So the article lists both "conspiracy theory about a Jewish plan for global domination" and "love jihad", among others as examples of "disinformation in hate campaigns". I don't see how one can straight away claim that it fails verification, though it can be argued that the sentence could be re-worded, and perhaps the focus should be on its charecterisation as a hate campaign that relies on disinformation. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 03:11, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

CapnJackSp, can you explain why you are edit warring to add random "failed verification" tags in the middle of this sentence? I have access to the source at the end of the sentence and I can tell the sentence is a pretty accurate summarisation of the cited pages. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 07:24, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Could you cite which sections/lines that are summarised? Too much of drawing inference from source is WP:OR, "summarisation" cant justify a statement unless the source actually makes that claim. "Demographic Fever Dreams: Fragile Masculinity and Population Politics in the Rise of the Global Right" has no mention of propaganda anywhere; "Hindu Nationalism in India and the Politics of Fear" has 6 mentions of propaganda, but none of them in the range cited and none of them in direct relation with the idea of Love Jihad. These citations seem based on

WP:SYNTH. As for the second tag, it seems to be a mis-quote - The only thing related to "charming" I saw was related to a single story where Muslim youth were said to use newly bought bikes to appear attractive. This is not the same as Hindutva publications commonly depicting Muslims as charming individuals. Those tags are placed in a good faith effort to give editors a chance to justify the text instead of wholesale deletion of text. Deleting them as "rv disruptive" was not helpful. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk

) 07:59, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't think you understand the policy that you're citing.

Synthesis

refers to combining multiple sources to come to a conclusion that is not supported by any single source. The sentence here cites only one source to begin with and the source supports the sentence.

It does not among other things mean that one must verbatim reproduce exact sentences or term used by a source. If anything this is discouraged so that it does not turn into close paraphrasing. Only the meaning of the material in the source must be accurately represented which is done here. In this case, there is a single sentence attempting to summarse a sub-chapter of about 7 pages; you can't verify it by trying to find some specific words through a search function, that isn't how articles are written, you need to read the sources and understand them.

If you really want exact terms, early on there is a sentence "...The Hindutva propaganda machinery is obsessed with the idea of a demographic conspiracy being waged against Hindu India, especially by Muslims...", the cited pages are a follow-on of it describing the who, what and how of it.

As for "charming individuals" if you don't believe it is accurate enough description, it could easily be changed to something like "attractive seducers", the cited pages are filled with such references and are quite clear of this being a common depiction of Muslim men as attractive, charming, seductive, etc; the very sub-chapter (Jihad by Seduction) is premised on this charecterisation. The bike story is given as one specific example of "stories concerning a disconcertingly common theme". Of particular note is the introductory sentence, "The handsome Muslim who is a master in the art of seduction ... all these images play upon each other as a danger for "innocent" Hindu females". Tayi Arajakate _Talk 08:42, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

SYNTH is not limited to combining multiple sources as you stated in your comment above. From the page,

Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source

I do really want exact terms.

You have provided a sentence about propaganda, but you have pulled it out of context. That paragraph states,

However, illegal infiltration is seen as less of a problem than the fourth and most pernicious mode of expansion— conscious overpopulation. The Hindutva propaganda machinery is obsessed with the idea of a demographic conspiracy being waged against Hindu India, especially by Muslims.

As you can clearly see, the propaganda being referred to here is in context of alleged intentional overpopulation, not in the context of Love Jihad. The book has only 6 mentions of propaganda, none of them in reference to Love Jihad - Combining a quote about overpopulation with commentary on Love Jihad is clear cut

WP:SYNTH

.

As for the second portion, I accept your proposal for changing the wording to align with the source. I have implemented it and added the quote for it. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 09:11, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

There is no policy basis for using "exact terms", one can use different terms to the one used in a source as long as the meaning is preserved,

summarising a source is not synthesis

.

The sentence sets an introductory premise before describing in depth a number of "demographic conspiracies", one of that is that of love jihad. The meaning couldn't be clearer here, the very sub-chapter about it makes this clear when it calls their narrations a "a coordinated conspiracy, within Hindutva to foster fear and paranoia", "mythmaking", etc. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 09:37, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

The WP:SYNTHNOTSUMMARY essay (not policy) is about summarising a logically following set of sentences into a lesser number of words. Propaganda is a loaded term, and it cannot be "summarised" out of text that doesnt call it propaganda. You may summarise well connected sections of sources, but not insert terminology, especially loaded terminology, not contained in them. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 09:45, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

It's a supplement to the policy in question and it's widely accepted. What's "loaded" or not is just your subjective opinion (its arguably less loaded than the way the source itself describes it), as I said there is no real policy basis for using "exact terms". The term accurately summarises what the sub-chapter says, if you have any alternatives that you think are better then feel free to bring them forward. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 10:07, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Calling something propaganda is obviously loaded. Im slighty more in favour with the version of the sentence in place now. I would have preferred a rewrite for a more natural sentence, but it is much better than the previous version as it does draw from the source. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 11:07, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

This is becoming a hair-splitting contest. To all, see

Iskandar323 (talk

) 10:10, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

What you are citing is not in the context of what the sentence is about. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 11:07, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Dude. "Conspiracy theory" is already one order of disinformation shit popsicle beyond propaganda. Propaganda is subtle stuff compared to the egregious abomination of misinformation that comprises a conspiracy theory, but hey, sure, we can just include 'propaganda' someplace else, where the context doesn't rub you up the wrong way.

Iskandar323 (talk

) 13:49, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

By the way, I may have replaced the word "propaganda" to satisfy him but if you see fit you can revert my edit and re-introduce it in the sentence. It'd have my support, I do think it's a better term than "myth-making" which has an air of idiosyncrasy to it and may not be as understandable. Despite what he says there is no real policy basis for this over-insistence, the sentence remains semantically consistent with the source neither does he have a consensus for a change nor does anyone have a compulsion to satisfy his requirements. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 15:41, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

I pointed out that the terminology you used is not supported by the source. There are two ways to resolve it - And neither of them involves adamantly pretending that all is good and you can attach labels per your own interpretation of the source. Either change the wording (which you did to some extent, still problematic but better) or you change the source. Either is acceptable. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 05:17, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

This is just denial of what the source describes and I wonder what you still find problematic once your personal criteria was fulfilled. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 07:26, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

The sentence is very weird. Instead of removing propaganda and rewriting, you tried to keep a similar meaning with "myth-making" which has left the sentence absurd. The reason I said it was much better was due to the fact that you dont seem to be willing to budge further and I am not invested enough on this page to spend even more time on it than I have just for minor semantic changes. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 08:08, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

You were asked to provide an alternative which you never did, just persistently insisted on removing the term which you are now describing as minor.

It is unclear what you're still unsatisfied with, "weird" and "absurd" aren't explainations. Would you want the sentence removed? Tayi Arajakate _Talk 08:37, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

CapnJackSp, 3 points are mentioned in this RfC above. The first is about adding instances of Love jihad, the second is about removing, "Islamophobic conspiracy theory" and the third is about adding a section or subsection to the, "Instances" section with the title, "In popular culture" and the movie, "The Kerala Story" being mentioned in it with a sentence or two about the movie with a link about the Wikipedia article about it. Please work on all 3 points.-1Firang (talk) 04:22, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Forced conversion of minority girls in Pakistan" above. There is an, "incidents" section in it. So please add a section in this article with the title, "Instances of Love jihad" with incidents of the same.-1Firang (talk

) 04:39, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Some instances can be read here. The Shraddha-Aftab case was really, "love jihad" but the sources I used in the RfC above were unacceptable (that is because I am inexperienced). However, I am sure that a more experienced editor can cite reliable sources and add it to the, "instances of love jihad" section when it is created.-1Firang (talk) 05:02, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

There are many more such instances if one cares to search online! I don't know what reliable sources are, so I will leave the addition of these instances to a more experienced editor/s.-1Firang (talk) 06:41, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Hmmm. Will have to go through these in order to see which have RS calling them Love Jihad, or at the very least alleged Love Jihad. Seems to be quite a long list, some might turn up. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 08:37, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

@1Firang: Could you add whatever incidents you want me to go through in the above list and ping me afterwards? Ill go through it then, it seems the list is still getting added to right now. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 08:41, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

I would recommend that you do not engage in promotion of fringe theories by collating an indiscriminate list of crime reports as "instances of love jihad" (alleged or otherwise), when academic sources which directly address the topic unanimously describe it as a hoax or conspiracy theory. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 08:55, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Was never my intention to, if you are concerned about any changes to the article in this regard. I have made it clear earlier as well that I did not think the article in its current state would fit such a list of "alleged instances", but I do not think sorting through these instances on the talk page could be of any harm, especially since they may be of value for future editors of the page. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 09:22, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

CapnJackSp, I don't know which of them can be cited, so I will leave it to you, Extorc and DaxServer to find and cite them. Please use real cases where there have been arrests and avoid the word, "alleged" - I want you to title the section where you add these instances, "Instances of Love jihad".-1Firang (talk) 10:07, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:Reliable sources, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:No original research. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:32, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Am I the only one uneasy with this? Saying "use cases with arrests, dont say alleged, and title it 'instances of Love jihad'" feels very much like trying to push the conspiracy theory, through using a few individual cases, against the vast weight of RS. Googleguy007 (talk) 12:52, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

No, you aren't the only one. We don't cite multiple qualified academic sources describing something unambiguously as a conspiracy theory and then trot out a list of tabloid clickbait cherry-picked to promote said theory. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:07, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, writing without alleged would be rather atrocious. anyway will see if this laundry list amounts to anything or not. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 14:27, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

CapnJackSp or anyone else searching for more instances can search with the words, "love jihad archives"; you will find a list of cases in the very first website of the search results. Then search for reliable sources for each of those instances and cite those reliable sources with a matching text that says the same thing and add it to this article. Thanks in advance!-1Firang (talk) 15:04, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

To clarify, I am not searching for more instances and am unsure how you arrived at such a belief. I am willing to help you as a new editor to sort through your sources, but not to join you in your little crusade. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 15:07, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Frankly, I think it highly unlikely that any source claiming that events took place as a consequence of a 'love jihad' would be considered reliable for such content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:23, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

You are correct - the first result (which he proudly parades) is

WP:RSPS. Solblaze (talk

) 16:59, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

What I am trying to convey is that we should search for instances on that website and then search for other reliable sources for the same.-1Firang (talk) 17:17, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

That

WP:BURDEN is yours EvergreenFir (talk)

04:41, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Note: User:1Firang has been blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:25, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

I have been unblocked now.-1Firang (talk) 01:30, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: If I mention instances of Love jihad here (on the talk page) with reliable sources, will you create a section with the title, "Instances of Love jihad" and add those instances in this article? If not, I will not waste time on it.-1Firang (talk) 18:23, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

This article is not going to contradict the multiple reliable sources it cites that state that the so-called 'love jihad' is a conspiracy theory by citing cherry-picked tabloid clickbait 'instances' attempting to prove the contrary. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:28, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump: After the release of the movie, "The Kerala Story, a lot of people are going to accuse Wikipedia of cherry picking the allegations of Love jihad being a conspiracy theory to create this article. Should we not have a section about the instances of Love jihad with reliable sources?-1Firang (talk) 18:55, 7 May 2023(UTC)

Go away and peddle your rabble-rousing idiot-fodder somewhere else. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:00, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

There are no 'reliable sources' supporting this absurd conspiracy theory. Any source suggesting that such a thing as a 'love jihad' exists clearly cannot comply with WP:RS policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:40, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

In addition to what AndyTheGrump said, please note that any supposed instances would need to be supported by sources that explicitly call the incidents "love jihad"; not just sources reporting allegations, or "victim" statements, or family statements, or police statements. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:21, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Oh for heavens sakes. No, we should not decide that there are 5 real cases. I agree with AndyTheGrump and Vanamonde, and strongly disagree with Kautilya3. Doug Weller talk 09:38, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

@

Forced conversion of minority girls in Pakistan". This, "Instances of Love jihad" section in this article will be similar. Wikipedia can't have different yardsticks for these 2 articles.-1Firang (talk

) 10:39, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

It looks like some editors and admins are suffering from denialism.-1Firang (talk) 10:45, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Are you accusing us of following the RS over a few nationalistic tabloids? If so, thank you! Googleguy007 (talk) 12:47, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

@1Firang Quote the policy or guideline. Read the essay Wikipedia:When to use or avoid "other stuff exists" arguments. Doug Weller talk 11:19, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

The, "other stuff" are the allegations of this being a conspiracy theory. If it is not supposed to be, "other stuff", you people should rename this article, "Criticism of Love jihad".-1Firang (talk) 14:09, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

As someone who has read the policy this comment/argument is literally incoherent, heck, even setting aside my knowledge of the policy it took me a few minutes of pondering your POV to understand it. (For any other editors, I think that this user believes that "other stuff" refers to things not directly related to the article, and they believe that because this article isnt titled something like "Love Jihad (conspiracy)" than coverage of it being a conspiracy is "other stuff" which should not be included). Googleguy007 (talk) 14:20, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

That article seems quite NPOV and appears (at first glance) to exist to convince readers that scary muslims are coming for their women. Googleguy007 (talk) 12:46, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Alleged instances of Love jihad

I am inexperienced and will need help with this list but here are some I could find:-

• Police arrested a Muslim man identified as Sheikh Jahid under the state’s anti-love jihad law for hiding his religious identity from a Hindu woman and raping her for over 7 years.^[1]
• In yet another case of love jihad, a 30-year-old man has been arrested in Uttar Pradesh’s Sitapur district for marrying a woman after posing as a Hindu and then harassing her.^[2]
• A Muslim man was arrested after an encounter for murdering his Hindu girlfriend for refusing to convert and marry him.^[3]
• Police has arrested the accused Sufiyan in Lucknow Love Jihad murder case. The accused was absconding since the murder took place. Sufiyan killed Nidhi for refusing marriage proposal with religion conversion.^[4]
• Another Hindu girl lost her life in Love Jihad, this time in Guwahati. The Guwahati Police on March 30 arrested Moidul Ali from the Hajo area for his involvement in the murder of Tulika Das in October 2022.
• Barpeta Police in Assam on Tuesday arrested one person on charges of being involved in love jihad. The accused, identified as Ritul Hussain was arrested by Barpeta Police from his own residence in Mandia village in the district.^[5]
• Love Jihad Kerala cops arrest Abdul Shuhaib after Hindu girl commits suicide^[6]
• Assistant Commissioner of Police Paresh Bhesania told the media that Kavyanjali (name changed) had filed a complaint against her husband Mohib Pathan, her in-laws and brother-in-law as after marriage she was forced to change her name, compelled to follow Islam, their son’s name was changed from Hindu to Muslim name.^[7]
• Love jihad accused identified as Irfan Qureshi, a resident of Mandla, had implicated the victim in love by pretending his identity as a Hindu youth, Rahul Dubey. Irfan forcibly converted her religion and married her^[8]
• Love jihad National shooter Tara Shahdeo's husband arrested^[9]
• A woman has accused a lawyer of forcibly marrying her by hiding his religion. The woman says that the accused first hid his religion and trapped her in the web of his love and then raped her.^[10]
• Love jihad case Another Love Jihad case in Madhya Pradesh, man arrested for allegedly raping Hindu woman pressurized her to change religion for marriage.^[11]
• A 39-year-old Muslim gym owner in Lucknow has been arrested for marrying a woman by allegedly concealing his identity and posing as a Hindu man, Police said.^[12]
• Gujarat registers first case of Love jihad The accused arrested is a Muslim man who introduced himself as Sam Martin – a Christian to a Hindu girl to marry her. According to the complaint, Vadodara’s Gotri police registered an FIR and arrested a man named Sameer Qureshi under the Gujarat Independence (Amendment) Act 2021. The Hindu woman has complained that she was lured into a relationship through Instagram by Samir, who said that he was a Christian, Sam Martin. She has complained that the accused had forced her into physical relationship and had photographed the moments. And he threatened her with making them viral if she did not marry him. They married in 2019^[13]
• Mandya Love Jihad case: A man has been arrested in Karnataka's Mandya district for allegedly raping a minor and then blackmailing her to convert to Islam. The Nagamanla Police has arrested a person identified as Yunus Pasha for rape and blackmailing and charged him under under the anti-conversion law and POCSO.^[14]
• Doctor arrested in Love Jihad case^[15]
• Gym trainer Mustafa poses as Gabbar. Hindu girl lodges complaint of Love jihad when identity card produced.^[16]

@Kautilya3: Can some of these instances be added to this article?-1Firang (talk) 06:56, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Beware of canvassing. This seems like you have identified an editor who agrees with you so you are pinging them instead of making a proper edit request. Googleguy007 (talk) 12:44, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

One obvious thing these so-called 'cases' all have in common (beyond being tabloid trash cherry-picked for using the phrase 'love jihad') is they refer to arrests. Not convictions. Arrests. It would be a gross violation of Wikipedia policy to include them in any article as 'evidence' for anything at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:15, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

In that case these are convictions:-

1

2

3

Found 3 online.

-1Firang (talk) 15:09, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

• This is an excellent list for demonstrating why we don't include these in the articles as examples. The "incidents" involve people hiding their faith; people committing sexual assault; forcible conversion; kidnapping; other forms of abuse; and allegations without more substance. Is there a single case of someone faking love for the express purpose of a non-forcible religious conversion? I don't see it. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:52, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

  It is about faking love followed by forcible conversion.-1Firang (talk) 16:27, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

From the second source: Although the Act nowhere used the term 'love jihad', the BJP leaders have maintained that it is a law to prevent what they allege rising cases of Hindu girls being lured through fraudulent ways into marriage by Muslim youths. A law was apparently broken. The existence of any 'jihad' is unproven. We already know that BJP supporters make rabble-rousing and inflammatory claims.

As for the first source, there again seems to have been no evidence presented that any 'jihad' was involved. No systematic plot by Muslims to entrap Hindu women. Just another example of the same-old story that's been going on everywhere, for millennia. Relationships (often in circumstances of uneven power, and frequently involving underage people) go bad. Add a little communal strife, and it can get very nasty, very quickly. Shakespeare wrote a rather good play about this sort of thing... AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:53, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

It's ironic that people start to link incidences of femicide and violence against women with "Love Jihad", even when the outcome of the incident runs counter the claimed agenda of "Love Jihad" (a sneaky mass change of demographics). But not really surprising for something built on the thin air of an orchestrated panic. –Austronesier (talk) 16:32, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories and the slightest semblance of logic are rarely found together... AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:48, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

There is a state sanctioned aspect to this as well, the rule of law is not in good shape so convictions are possible and need critical analysis. The law mentioned here was in fact introduced by the BJP with the express purpose of being an "anti-love jihad" law. All the 3 links are about the same case though and this case appears to be the only one ever with a conviction for the time being. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 18:55, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

The first and third links are to exactly the same article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:59, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

As I was writing a previous comment I realized that "Love Jihad (Conspiracy Theory)" may be a better and more descriptive title than it is currently. Does this have general support? Googleguy007 (talk) 14:30, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Support as it better reflects RS and the articles content. Googleguy007 (talk) 14:31, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

It is a conspiracy theory, not a conspiracy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:32, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, Conspiracy theory is what I meant, conspiracy has serious implications,Googleguy007 (talk) 14:37, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't think the brackets are necessary. 'Love jihad conspiracy theory' would be fine. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:42, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I support that Googleguy007 (talk) 15:00, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Support as per User:Googleguy007.-1Firang (talk) 14:54, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Oppose Definitely without brackets. We only add brackets for disambiguiation. Disambiguiation implies that apart from the conspiracy theory, there is another form of Love Jihad (like the "real" one, y'know), which is obviously not what we want to convey here, since there is nothing else to it but the conspiracy theory (which links unrelated incidents perceived to be driven by an imagined single agenda and agency, dubbed "Love Jihad" by its believers/promoters). And usually, we don't add qualifers to the common name of a phenomenon, regardless of whether it exists in real or only in people's heads (e.g. "Manifest destiny", "Alien abduction" etc.). It's an option when leaving out "conspiracy theory" might lend credence to it, which is why we have Pizzagate conspiracy theory. –Austronesier (talk) 16:24, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

@Austronesier: So do you support it being moved to, "Love jihad conspiracy theory"?-1Firang (talk) 16:37, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

No. –Austronesier (talk) 16:55, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

To be clear, you dont support moving the page title, but believe that if it is moved it shouldnt have brackets? Googleguy007 (talk) 16:58, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, "Love jihad (conspiracy theory)" is not really an option for the reasons I have outlined above (unless we believe there is a primary topic "Love jihad" that is not the conspiracy theory). I don't support "Love jihad conspiracy theory" either, but do not oppose it categorically. My main reason: while it is still aptly described as a conspiracy theory with sufficient support by reliable sources, the public disource of "Love jihad" has become intellectually so impoverished (as can be witnessed "live" in the section "3 points" above) that it has sunk to a low even under the level of a conspiracy theory. It has become a sensationalist catch-all term for all kinds of incidents from tragic events of interfaith couples facing communal hatred to atrocious cases of violence against women, cherry-picked for the communal background of perpetrator and victim. –Austronesier (talk) 17:47, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Your points are valid and serious, and I broadly agree with them, due to the seeming general consensus I am going to make the page move, but remain very open to making another move if a more appropriate descriptor/title can be found. IMHO even if "conspiracy theory" is somewhat lacking, it is still a much better option than having no qualifiers or descriptors at all. Googleguy007 (talk) 18:03, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Oppose parentheses, support addition of conspiracy theory Austronesier is correct regarding the parentheses. Given that Pizzagate conspiracy theory, Chemtrail conspiracy theory, Reptilian conspiracy theory, and Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory exists, I support moving to Love jihad conspiracy theory. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:52, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Support for 'Love jihad conspiracy theory', no parentheses: Given that some readers appear to be arriving at this page still under the distinct misapprehension that this is not a conspiracy theory, it may indeed be worth the clarity for the sake of precision, if not concision. The full name is supported in news sources [4], [5], [6], [7] and scholarly descriptions [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]

Iskandar323 (talk

) 18:14, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Done. I have executed the move in accordance with TP consensus. Googleguy007 (talk) 18:21, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

You need to move its talk sub-pages too, bunch of templates are broken at present. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 18:32, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

 Fixed -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:04, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Just to avoid any misunderstanding

For the benefit of avoiding any misunderstanding, it should be noted that moving this article to the title 'Love jihad conspiracy theory' or something similar does not then present an opportunity for another article to be created on the topic, presenting the so-called 'jihad' as anything other than a conspiracy theory. Wikipedia does not permit

Absolutely. If the page is moved, the redirect "Love Jihad" should permanently be fully locked. –Austronesier (talk) 16:54, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

@

ECP on it to match this article. (That level of protection wouldn't prevent a move back if someone objects to the informality of the above discussion.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed}

] (she|they|xe) 20:01, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for clearly enunciating this, I was a little worried about POV forking when I saw a user who generally seems to believe that Love Jihad is currently happening support the move. Googleguy007 (talk) 18:04, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: Generally, move discussions last more than a few hours before action is taken. Not every interested editor comes to Wikipedia daily, they may not check their Watchlists every time they edit and we are a global community. This decision was made when many editors were probably asleep. If there are future move discussions, please hold an RFC that runs at least a week (7 days, not 7 hours) before it is closed by an uninvolved editor or uninvolved administrator who hasn't voiced an opinion about their page title preference. We don't want a title change to result in a move war and this decision is less than conclusive. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:55, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Given a lot of the content on this page in recent days (which, if I may speculate, seem to be inspired by a recently released

I don't think this is in any form is a Conspiracy Theory. There are hundreds of instances. Where these cases really occur, including Many Killings as well DevastatorOfficial (talk) 16:07, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Reminding everyone involved of wikipedia's policies against

) 19:15, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Love Jihad is not a Conspiracy Theory

I have TBANned Dev0745, who had been given a logged warning in the past for similar behavior. OP DevastatorOfficial is advised to find something better to edit about. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 19:17, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
i request to the Administrators that Please change the Title of this Page to 'Love Jihad' and remove the Word Conspiracy from everywhere in this Page. I don't know why this is being considered as a "Conspiracy Theory". I have read various reports regarding it and I believe the Page should be changed to Give the Audience the Proper knowledge  DevastatorOfficial (talk) 16:12, 10 May 2023 (UTC Definitely, In Kerala, there are organization running religious conversion factory and conducting marriages of converted girls to muslim men for demographic change in Kerala and make it Islamic state. [13] So I was oppose article's name change from Love Jihad to Love Jihad conspiracy theory as It is well known fact that Organisation like Popular Front of India are involved in conversion racket to make Kerala Islamic state. Dev0745 (talk) 17:00, 10 May 2023 (UTC) Wikipedia bases content on relevant published reliable sources, and amongst those best qualified to comment - academic social scientists etc - the consensus is clear that the so-called 'love jihad' is a conspiracy theory. Absurd claims by sections of the Indian mass media about Kerela (where Hindus outnumber Muslims 3 to 1, it should be noted) aren't going to change that. Wikipedia is not a platform for the propagation of religious bigotry. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:12, 10 May 2023 (UTC) PFI is banned for that reason which is involved in conversion racket and terrorist activities. But PFI never acknowledged it publicly. There is conversion racket and Islamic terrorism. But Islamist and left parties try to deny it as it's strengthen hindu right wing. Dev0745 (talk) 18:15, 10 May 2023 (UTC) WP:NOTFORUM. AndyTheGrump (talk ) 18:17, 10 May 2023 (UTC) I am stated the fact. Dev0745 (talk) 18:21, 10 May 2023 (UTC) The relevant fact here is that it is not permitted to use Wikipedia talk pages as a forum for the propagation of religious bigotry. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:26, 10 May 2023 (UTC) @Dev0745 Would you like to declare DevastatirOfficial as an account operated by you? Googleguy007 (talk) 19:08, 10 May 2023 (UTC) No I don't have any other account. Probably you have any other account. Dev0745 (talk) 19:12, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 May 2023

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

Change the name of the topic to Love jihad. Most part of the article has no recognised citations. 49.207.202.12 (talk) 18:25, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:00, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

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

change Love jihad conspiracy theory to Love jihad 240B:10:B380:2B00:477:173:E58D:4974 (talk) 07:57, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. There is relevant discussion about this just above. Actualcpscm (talk) 08:41, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

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

60.242.73.156 (talk) 02:35, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

https://m.timesofindia.com/videos/toi-original/lucknow-up-police-officer-caught-harassing-a-schoolgirl-video-goes-viral/videoshow/99966314.cms

 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 a reliable source if appropriate. The provided link appears to have nothing to do with the subject of the article. lizthegrey (talk

) 02:48, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

On 8th May a discussion was opened by Googleguy007 and on the same day it was moved by the same editor. This is a controversial and contentious requested move and hence it should be done after a Requested move

Liz (talk · contribs) rightly told Googleguy in his talk page

Love jihad conspiracy theory Hello, Googleguy007, Usually title changes on contentious articles like this one are decided through running an RFC. There is a process designed to do this. RFCs run for at least 7 days, not a few hours, and they are closed by an editor or administrator who has been uninvolved in the discussion. If this page move is contested, please move to doing an RFC about what the title should be for this article. If you are unfamiliar with how an RFC is organized, please ask a more experienced editor or bring your questions to the Teahouse and someone who has organized an RFC can either help you or point you to the proper policy page. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 20:11, 8 May 2023 (UTC) Tigerrises (talk) 13:22, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

The article has been under its present title for almost four weeks now, without further serious discussion, so clearly it wouldn't be appropriate to move it back unilaterally. And Liz's comments seem not to be suggesting that it actually required reverting. It would of course be open to anyone to start a formally-structured RfC on the question, after taking careful account of what Wikipedia policy has to say on article titling. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:59, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Please see WP:RGW
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This edit request to Love jihad conspiracy theory has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. "Love jihad or Romeo jihad,[5] is an Islamophobic[11] conspiracy theory[22] developed by proponents of the Hindutva ideology" is wrong, the term was first used by Kerala's Syro-Malabar Church. I think this page must be taken down first, think rationaly over the issue. The editor must realise that there are hundreds of case where Islamic Fundamentalist and terrorist have brainwashed young woomen, radicalised them and used them in wars in Syria, Libya and Afganisthan. Most of the sources listed below are "opinion" articles, whataboutry and does not look in the real issue of Islamic radicalisation. One also need to understand that fundamentalist's motivation for pursuing Non-Muslim women, under Islamic law, a child born to a Muslim man and Non Muslim woman, the child MUST be brought up as Muslim and is a Muslim. This is domintaly used by radicals to fulfill the so said Allah directive of "increasing Muslim population", take away women from a community and no one is there to give birth to them and "Heaven bound" if you convert people to islam, the reward: the convertor and their family will go to heaven. Its an uncomfortable read but that does not mean we will not speak the truth and cower behind emotions and feelings, that will just drive things from bad to worse. Hypocritewarrior (talk) 13:18, 6 June 2023 (UTC)  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. In addition, please read the FAQ and establish WP:Consensus. ARandomName123 (talk) 13:26, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Revert unsourced propaganda changes by Varoon2542. SaySerious (talk) 05:53, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

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

The conspiracy theory purports that Muslim men target Hindu women for conversion to Islam by means such as...

Change Hindu women to non Muslim/kafir woman.

Sources:

https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/12/12/1083

https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/kerala/bishop-warns-christians-in-kerala-against-love-and-narcotics-jihad/article36377244.ece

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/toi-editorials/divide-and-rue-kerala-churchs-love-jihad-obsession-widely-and-negatively-impacted-states-and-nations-body-politic/

https://organiser.org/2023/04/11/168762/analysis/uk-rise-of-islamist-forces-and-growing-grooming-gangs-jihad/

150.129.164.195 (talk) 08:41, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. M.Bitton (talk) 09:06, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

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

Love jihad is getting non Muslims girls fall in love with Muslim boys which is practiced by Islam followers in India to convert the religion of girls and in return the boys are financially rewarded. The high court of Kerala in its judgement had acknowledged it in its verdict of 2009. Prashantshet74 (talk) 04:51, 15 July 2023 (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 a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk

) 05:29, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 July 2023

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

Please remove the unsourced information at reverse love jihad section? There are discrepancies between the text there and the report being used to support it (e.g. the report says '389 cases of underage girls missing or kidnapped', the number repeated again later in the report under "MISSING GIRLS IN KUSHINAGAR", but the wikipedia article claims the figure to be for Muslim girls only, a claim which I don’t find in the report). Yudransh (talk) 14:10, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done I've removed "Muslim" since the two sources don't directly mention that.RegentsPark (comment) 23:27, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Attribution needs to be stronger in that entire section I think, the news report lends less credibility to it than we seem to be doing here. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 06:46, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

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

Missing "and": please change "Marriage between Muslim women Hindu men (including Sikh, Jaina and Buddhist) is legal civil marriage under The Special Marriage Act of 1954." to "Marriage between Muslim women and Hindu men (including Sikh, Jaina and Buddhist) is legal civil marriage under The Special Marriage Act of 1954. Bear of Tomato (talk) 05:11, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done Nice catch. lizthegrey (talk) 07:31, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

The sentence is uncited so is difficult to evaluate but is this even accurate? Are Buddhists generally consider Hindu in India? Also does this mean Christian men (or any men not consider Hindu in India) cannot marry Muslim women under The Special Marriage Act of 1954? I would expect the more likely situation and a better sentence is something like "marriage between Muslim women and non-Muslim men (including Hindu)"..... This would include Christian men and any other non-Muslim, non-Hindu men (as defined in India) who I suspect can marry Muslim women in India, just like Hindu men can. While technically it should be obvious Hindu comes under non-Muslim, I can see it useful to specify Hindu here as the conspiracy theory primary claims Hindus are being converted this way. But there's no reason to specify Sikh, Jaina and Buddhist since they're not the primary target of the conspiracy theory. (There's a single mention of Sikh and Jain in the article relating to India. And a mention of Buddhist and Sikh outside India.) However without a source I have no idea if this is correct. Nil Einne (talk) 00:34, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Actually I wonder if we should re-word it to make it clear it's either direction which I'm fairly sure is the case. I.E. you can get a civil marriage regardless of the religion or for that matter irreligion of either partner.

As I understand it, and this article also seems to support this, Muslim men cannot unconverted marry Hindu women under many common interpretations of Islam, so they might not be able to get an Islamic marriage. But they can get a civil marriage. Muslim men can generally marry Christian women without conversion in an Islamic marriage (as Christians are well accepted as "

people of the book") if they wish. Under many interpretations of Islam, Muslim women can only marry Muslim men (i.e. not even Christians) but again any Muslim women can marry non-Muslim men (including Christian and Hindu men) via a civil marriage even if they cannot get an Islamic marriage.

One of the suggestions of the conspiracy theory is because a Hindu can only marry a Muslim in an Islamic marriage, then they must be converting so they can get married. The reality of course is civil marriage is generally possible if the partners are opposite sexes, so they can marry without conversion regardless of anyone's religion or irreligion which seems to be what the sentence is trying to say, but IMO poorly.

So perhaps something like "marriage between Muslim women/men and non-Muslim men/women (including Hindu)". While a minor issue, we should be clear that same-sex marriage isn't allowed in India so the spouses needs to be opposite sexes (as defined in India) but the religions don't matter which I strongly suspect is the case.

(Note that this also only really considers the Islamic side of marriage. Wouldn't it also potentially be possible for the couple to get married under Hindu tenets if one of the partners is Hindu? Or in a Christian/church marriage, assuming the church allows it if one of the partners is Christian. I know even Roman Catholicism outside India at least, generally would allow such marriages where only one partner is Catholic if certain conditions are met especially surrounding raising the children as Catholics. And this applies regardless of whether the putative Catholic spouse is male or female, although definitely always the opposite sex of the other spouse.)

Nil Einne (talk

) 01:12, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 August 2023

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

This page makes all sorts of assertions and is completely biased. It is also factually wrong.

Unbelievable that you allow such prejudiced views. 87.200.87.169 (talk) 22:46, 17 August 2023 (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 a reliable source if appropriate. lizthegrey (talk

) 22:54, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

i agree Invalid 01 (talk) 17:54, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

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

Change 'Love jihad (or Romeo jihad) is an Islamophobic conspiracy theory promoted by right-wing Hindutva activists.The conspiracy theory purports that Muslim men target Hindu women for conversion to Islam by means such as seduction,feigning love, deception,kidnapping,and marriage,as part of a broader demographic "war" by Muslims against India,and an organised international conspiracy,for domination through demographic growth and replacement.'

to 'love jihad initially propagated as an Islamophobic conspiracy theory promoted by right-wing Hindutva activists by the Congress and other left wing political parties,media groups and foreign news outlets. Has recently turned out as true and has been going on for quite some time now, it's when Muslim men target Hindu women for conversion to Islam by means such as seduction,feigning love, deception,kidnapping,and marriage,as part of a broader demographic "war" by Muslims against India,and an organised international conspiracy,for domination through demographic growth and replacement.'

Plz also change 'Created in 2009[50] as part of a campaign to foster fear and paranoia, the conspiracy theory ' to 'spoken about in 2009 as part of a campaign to foster awareness, love jihad' Invalid 01 (talk) 17:53, 30 November 2023 (UTC) ^[1]

Wikipedia bases article content on published reliable sources, and a single contradictory claim from a political party that has been promoting the conspiracy theory for years doesn't override such sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:57, 30 November 2023 (UTC)