Talk:2022 Karnataka hijab row

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by Narutolovehinata5 (talk) 10:05, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
The nomination has been open for over a month and the neutrality and stability concerns have remained unaddressed. The article talk page has also raised multiple concerns about the article and many remain unresolved. The article was given a fair chance at stabilization (several weeks), but as it appears that stability remains elusive at this time there does not appear to be a path forward for the article right now. There is no prejudice against the article being renominated for DYK if it is brought to GA status and I would highly suggest that an effort to do so be done once things have settled down to ensure that, if the article is renominated for DYK, the nomination is more likely to be successful.

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that denial of entry into schools for students wearing Hijab led to the Hijab row in Karnataka? Source: "Local media reported last week that several schools in Karnataka had denied entry to Muslim girls wearing the hijab citing an education ministry order, prompting protests from parents and students." Reuters
  • Reviewed: Exempt
  • Comment:

Created by Venkat TL (talk) and Ainty Painty (talk). Nominated by Venkat TL (talk) at 13:46, 10 February 2022 (UTC).

• New enough and long enough. QPQ not needed (3 credits). The article does need editing: I see a {{by whom}} tag and a {{excessive citations}} tag that is unacceptable for an article being highlighted on the Main Page, and I'd also like to see the references use citation templates (though this is not a DYK requirement). I can't say I like the construction of the hook, with "Hijab" twice in five words. Can I suggest some options, Venkat TL and Ainty Painty? Please ping me when this is done. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 07:08, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

• ALT1: ... that 2022 Karnataka hijab row over the wearing of hijab escalated into a three-day closure of high schools and colleges in Karnataka, India?

• I would not normally do this, but after further review (and some off-wiki gathering of advice from fellow editors), and having followed this article's development in recent days, I am going to decline this nomination (WP:IAR) because it is eminently clear at this time that the page is not stable enough for DYK and that the current conflicts surrounding it are of high stakes. This is not your fault, Venkat TL and Ainty Painty.

It is unfortunate that neither the DYK rules near the DYK supplementary rules reference stability in the same way that the good article criteria do. However, this page would not qualify. It is about a current event in a field with discretionary sanctions. There have been more than 100 edits in five days. And there has been a lot of discussion on the talk page, including several people who expressed concerns about the stability of the page at DYK. At Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, there is an open thread pertaining to conduct of editors on this exact page.

Because of the volume of edits and developments, it may be the case that if this were approved, it may not meet DYK standards, especially in areas such as NPOV, by the time it was placed on the Main Page. One in five references has been added after my last edit, for instance.

The topic area means that there is already quite high exposure to this page. The article is gathering a median of 1,780 views a day. Giving it more exposure at this stage may not be salubrious for its development, especially an unstable page and in a topic with inherent sectarian tensions.

I don't do this lightly, but I do it because of the delicate nature of the topic area and because the rapid pace of edits to this page vis-a-vis DYK may mean that something reaches the Main Page without being appropriately neutral. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:20, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@Sammi Brie: why not just wait until this article has stabilized? Assuming a DYK nom has been done in a timely order (within 7 days of creation), is there a limit to how long we can wait to resolve potential issues? VR _talk 05:40, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Based on what Sammi said another possible issue isn't just stability but also neutrality. Even if the article stabilized, if the tone was still decisively POV, it wouldn't be approved for POV. It doesn't help that the topic in question is already a POV magnet even outside Wikipedia. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:33, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

May I request everyone including @Narutolovehinata5 and Sammi Brie: to be patient and wait for few weeks for the article to stabilize. This is a current ongoing event. Patience is needed.Venkat TL (talk) 12:44, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

• Hi, it's been more than two weeks. While page views have stabilized at a steady level, many of my concerns linger. The article has multiple talk page discussions, is the subject of a fairly decent daily edit load, and some of the editors on the talk page are worried about NPOV or missing aspects of the topic. (There is also a paragraph needing an inline citation to end it.) I don't think this DYK nomination can go forward but encourage the editors to work toward improving the page with citation templates, increasing POV scrutiny, and adding citations where appropriate. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 07:46, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Why not just wait and let the article improve and stabilize before deciding? VR _talk 05:05, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
    • Neutrality is one of the main DYK criteria, and if it cannot be expected to be resolved within a reasonable timeframe, a nomination can be failed. To answer your earlier question, while technically there is no deadline, there is a reasonable expectation that DYK nominations be completed as soon as possible, and if reviewers agree that issues cannot be addressed within a reasonable timeframe, then it doesn't have a path forward. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:41, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
      • What is a reasonable time for one topic won't be reasonable for another. For example, an article about a controversial historical event should come to neutrality in a shorter time than an article about a controversial current event. Given that this topic had a significant development just 3 days ago (a court decision), it is not unreasonable that NPOV issues still need to be worked out.VR _talk 13:06, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
        • The fact that the case is still ongoing and the article remains unstable and appears likely to be that way for the foreseeable future is probably a point against the article running on DYK anytime soon. I would probably suggest that, once everything has settled down, the article be brought to GA status (which also takes into account things such as stability and neutrality) so that next time we'll be sure that the article is ready for DYK. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:42, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
      • Clearly there is an unwritten deadline that these regulars at DYK are following. They will quote WP:NODEADLINE and yet claim 7 days and 30 days to close DYK and mark it as fail. Irrespective of the author asking time. I dont understand what pressure they are facing if the DYK exists unclosed. I have stopped arguing with them, no matter what you say, they will do their thing. It appears there is a sadistic pleasure in closing the DYKs and trimming the DYK list. If the intention is to keep the DYK backlog in order, why not just unlist it till it is ready for review, why follow an unwritten deadline to close and mark it as fail? In the case of this article Hijab, the article is still getting improvements and updates. But as I said there seems to be an un-written DEADLINE to be followed. Venkat TL (talk) 13:15, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
        • Venkat TL, DYK was designed for newly created and newly expanded articles: to highlight them on the main page. Note the purpose: new. If you look at the page that describes DYK, the word "new" appears with great frequency. There is an expectation that articles submitted will be actively worked on if they aren't quite ready at the time of submission or the review finds issues that need fixing, keeping in mind that newness is part of DYK's DNA, and that nominations that don't make progress after a couple of weeks (with leniency sometimes extended to as much as a month) are liable to be closed, something you continue to ignore even when you're told that your time is running out. You have quoted WP:NODEADLINE more than once, but don't seem to realize that NODEADLINE is not an official Wikipedia policy, it's an essay that doesn't really apply to things like DYK or GAN or other review processes. Back to DYK, we don't unlist and later relist precisely because of the newness criteria. As for your statement It appears there is a sadistic pleasure in closing the DYKs and trimming the DYK list, that's about as stunning a failure to assume good faith that I've seen here at DYK. I strongly recommend you apologize and strike it. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:22, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
          • I stand by my observations. Coming to the topic, the number of edits per day has reduced greatly and the article has stabilized. I suggest a review after 7 days. Venkat TL (talk) 07:21, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
            • The nomination has already been open for over a month, and was given two weeks to stabilize. The article has already been given its fair chance. It's fair to close it for stability issues given how much time has been given without the concerns still being addressed. I don't see how another seven day wait would change anything. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:07, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
              • Most of the issues have been addressed already. If you see existing ones, please point them. A review after 7 days will find a more stable article. Till then please focus on other DYKs. Venkat TL (talk) 10:14, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Oppose Since this links back to the article, cannot be approved till article stabilises. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 15:40, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

@CapnJackSp. Relax. It takes several weeks and months. Venkat TL (talk) 15:46, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

No issues, just placed for now. If it stabilises (as it will eventually), I will be more than willing to strike my comment and allow this through. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 15:49, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Your oppose is irrelevent. The WP:DYK reviewer will check the recent page history regardless. Your comment is of no consequence. Venkat TL (talk) 15:54, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Nevertheless, I feel it is pertinent to inform the reviewer of such, in case it missed their notice. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 18:34, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Oppose It is a completely wishy washy page so far with practically no content. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:21, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

• Wait. I think this article is developing and that process should be allowed to stabilize. I look forward to that and hope it will be featured in the DYK section soon.VR _talk 06:12, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Banning of Hijab by Karnataka BJP Government

Hi CapJackSparow, Please see MOS:LEAD The lead does need to include extraneous and unnecessary details. Only relevant info in summarized format should be added. Please do not remove the bit about banning hijab from the lead. It is reliably sourced. Venkat TL (talk) 14:39, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

@Rockcodder: By mistake you have restored WP:CLOP violation added by CapJackSp. Please see the comment above. Lets discuss this before changing the lead. WP:EDITWAR is not appreciated. Venkat TL (talk) 14:45, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Because the hijab was not banned by the government, the "ban" refers to the individual actions of the educational institutes. Kindly see WP:CITATIONS, Controversial statements must be cited. Kindly provide a source for the government enforcing the ban and not just uniform, else self revert. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 14:47, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

@CapnJackSp. The order effectively banned the hijab. Agree or disagree? What are the WP:RS saying about this. Are they hiding the bit that BJP govt, banned Hijab? Venkat TL (talk) 14:49, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

"Local media reported last week that several schools in Karnataka had denied entry to Muslim girls wearing the hijab citing an education ministry order, prompting protests from parents and students." Reuters Venkat TL (talk) 14:51, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

No, in all institutes that allow the hijab, it did nothing. Leaving it up to the institute is a world of a difference from banning it. I would encourage you to revert your disruptive edits 12, as your assertion of effectively banning is WP:OR. Several is not a ban. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 14:56, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

@CapnJackSp all right. I understand your concern better now. I am willing to modify that bit. Please propose a draft version below. That should cover both the points and sourced by RS. Venkat TL (talk) 14:57, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Why not the actual part that you removed? The issue can be expanded in the body, as "decided by the state government in government schools, and by the school management in private schools, which led to many girls being barred from entry to colleges which did not allow the wearing of the hijab as a part of the uniform." Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 15:13, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

@CapnJackSp, which source is this cited from? Please sign your comment. Venkat TL (talk) 15:06, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Signed it, had forgotten. This is taken from the karnataka GO and the sentence you quoted. IDK if this is an RS, but if not we can just as easily take it from karnataka gov site."Invoking 133 (2) of the Karnataka Education Act-1983, which says a uniform style of clothes has to be worn compulsorily. The private school administration can choose a uniform of their choice"1Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 15:13, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

@CapnJackSp, Primary sources (Govt site/order here) should not be used in controversial topics like this. I am sure we can find Secondary RS for the same. Please see WP:PSTS Venkat TL (talk) 15:17, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Do you consider the source I provided as unreliable for this purpose? If not, it can be used. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 15:21, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I am saying we should use a secondary source. due to WP:PSTS Venkat TL (talk) 15:25, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I understand that policy, and have attached a secondary source with my previous answer. Check it out. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 15:33, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

@Venkat TL: For the lead: Later, on 5 February 2022, the Karnataka government issued an order to make uniforms compulsory in educational institutions.
For the 'Incidents' section: Later, on 5 February 2022, the Bharatiya Janata Party led Karnataka government issued an order to make uniforms (decided by the state government in government schools, and by the school management in private schools) mandatory, while also stating that in the absence of a dress code, students can wear "the dress which will not affect equality, integrity and law & order". The order effectively banned the hijab in educational institutions which did not allow the wearing of the hijab as a part of the uniform or dress code.
Or at least something along these lines. Rockcodder (talk) 15:26, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

References

Im fine with this version. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 15:31, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. This is much better. Some more tweaks. See below version. Venkat TL (talk) 15:32, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Proposal 2

“ For the lead:

Later, on 5 February 2022, the Karnataka government issued an order to make uniforms compulsory in educational institutions. Several schools cited this order and denied entry to Muslim girls wearing the hijab.

For the 'Incidents' section:

Later, on 5 February 2022, the Bharatiya Janata Party led Karnataka government issued an order to make uniforms mandatory, while also stating that in the absence of a dress code, students can wear "the dress which will not affect equality, integrity and law & order". The order mentioned that the uniform were to be decided by the state government in government schools, and by the school management in private schools. Several schools cited this order and denied entry to Muslim girls wearing the hijab.

Source: Reuters and ABP

”

Venkat TL (talk) 15:32, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Slight change,

Proposal 3

Later, on 5 February 2022, the Karnataka government issued an order to make uniforms compulsory in educational institutions. According to local media, several schools cited this order and denied entry to Muslim girls wearing the hijab.
OR
Later, on 5 February 2022, the Karnataka government issued an order to make uniforms compulsory in educational institutions. Reportedly, several schools cited this order and denied entry to Muslim girls wearing the hijab.

For the 'Incidents' section:
Later, on 5 February 2022, the Bharatiya Janata Party led Karnataka government issued an order to make uniforms mandatory, while also stating that in the absence of a dress code, students can wear "the dress which will not affect equality, integrity and law & order". The order mentioned that the uniform were to be decided by the state government in government schools, and by the school management in private schools. Several schools cited this order and denied entry to Muslim girls wearing the hijab.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 15:50, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

CapnJack I object to your proposal. This is unnecessary. According to local reports will apply to every line in the article. Unless absolutely necessary It is not included. I dont see the necessity here. It is not disputed by anyone. Rockcodder your thoughts on Proposal 2 by me above? Venkat TL (talk) 15:50, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Sure, I was just using the language of the source you provided yourself. If you could quote an article that says what you wrote, I have no issues.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 15:52, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

The reuters article I linked and ABP article by Rock codder is the source. Venkat TL (talk) 15:56, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

The ABP one does not mention what happened after the order, and reuters is what I wrote. If you have a source which words it the way you wanted to represent it, do share it. In that case I will not have an issue. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 15:59, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

@CapnJackSp your objections is not clear. You have agreed with Proposal 1. I have only added stuff from Reuters in Proposal 2 and some copy edits. What is your problem with? Venkat TL (talk) 16:07, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

@Venkat TL: Can you change that to "refused to allow students wearing the hijab unless they removed them". Please do mention the schools not allowing students with saffron shawls as well. Rockcodder (talk) 16:11, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Also, you did add "Several schools cited this order and denied entry to Muslim girls wearing the hijab" Which is the contested part. I cant find that being said in the sources, reuters attributes to local media.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 16:15, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

@Rockcodder It is understood. Moreover neither of the 2 sources we have cited says that. so adding it will be WP:SYNTH. If you have no other objections. then I am adding Proposal 2 into the article. Captain Jack Sparrow read the green font in this page. --Venkat TL (talk) 16:18, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

@Venkat TL: You have not adressed my issues. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 16:21, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

CapnJackSp your objection whatever that is, is incoherent. Venkat TL (talk) 16:23, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Ill assume in good faith you did not notice my previous comment, restating. You added "Several schools cited this order and denied entry to Muslim girls wearing the hijab" Which is the contested part. I cant find that being said in the sources, reuters attributes the statement to local media, and if we go by it we must also maintain AttributePOV. If you can give source saying the same thing without attribution, then quote that source and you can go with proposal 2 else whichever version of proposal 3 is acceptable to you. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 16:30, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Everyword is from local media. What is your real problem? are you saying the school did not do what is reported? Venkat TL (talk) 16:42, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

What "real problem"? I just want you to stick to edits according to policy, and stop making incorrect claims. I have been giving you a lot of leeway here, you are being unnecessarily agressive. Again, unless you can provide a source that says the above without attributing it to unknown sources, yopu may enter this into the article, else the objection stands. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 16:52, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

There is no incorrect claim. Sources are given already. Venkat TL (talk) 17:07, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

@Venkat TL: Btw, "the uniform were to be decided by the state government in government schools, and by the school management in private schools" is wrong in my opinions since I interpreted said statement in the order as "uniforms in use in govt schools (which were decided by state gov) and private schools (which were decided by school management)".
And here are the sources for 'schools not allowing saffron shawls
https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Mangalore/kundapur-college-students-march-wearing-saffron-shawls/article38386142.ece
https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/karnataka/principal-asks-boys-to-remove-saffron-shawl-before-attending-classes/article38379162.ece
https://www.deccanherald.com/state/karnataka-districts/hijab-row-students-in-saffron-shawls-take-out-processions-1078328.html
And even sources which say that students agreed to remove said shawls.
https://www.firstpost.com/politics/hijab-saffron-shawl-controversy-continues-to-linger-in-karnataka-colleges-10355081.html
https://www.businesstoday.in/latest/story/hijab-saffron-shawl-controversy-continues-in-karnataka-colleges-321743-2022-02-07
Rockcodder (talk) 16:35, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

@Rockcodder Ok. So use Proposal 2 and create a Proposal 4 from it. It is not clear what changes you want be made in Proposal 2. Venkat TL (talk) 16:40, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

@Rockcodder do note that proposal 2 is disputed, and venkat has yet to answer my issues with it. Kindly use proposal1 if you wish, else wait till the conflict is resolved. Cheers. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 16:55, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Rockcodder has added the content into the article. Marked this as resolved. Venkat TL (talk) 19:00, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Resolved

Line from CNN

@Rockcodder: By mistake you have restored WP:CLOP violation added by CapJackSp. Please see the comment above. Lets discuss this before changing the lead. WP:EDITWAR is not appreciated. Venkat TL (talk) 14:45, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

@Venkat TL: Which parts violate WP:CLOP? 'decided by the state government in government schools, and by the school management in private schools'? If that is is only statement violating WP:CLOP, I don't mind it being removed before that version is restored. Rockcodder (talk) 14:59, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

@Rockcodder You can refer to my edit summary with the word WP:CLOP. Instead of reverting to a version. lets propose the draft below and reach a consensus. I agree that I am not entirely right. Venkat TL (talk) 15:01, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

@Venkat TL: I think you missed my edit with the edit summary 'self revert'. Said edit removed the statement violating WP:CLOP. Rockcodder (talk) 15:04, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

If the CLOP bit is still there please remove it. If it is not there, then well lets discuss the topic of the thread above on banning Hijab. Venkat TL (talk) 15:06, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Mark resolved --Venkat TL (talk) 18:59, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Resolved

Background

Where is the background coming from? The CNN article cited only says this follows a string of online attacks against Muslim women in India, but those are not the causations of this one. I don't see any references to the elections either? (ping @Kautilya3) — DaxServer (t · c) 17:01, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

background does not necessarily need to be causation. Articles on events use this section to give an idea of concurrent and related events. See Gorge Floyd related pages. Venkat TL (talk) 17:05, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Do note that WP:OTHERCONTENT style arguments are not considered proper. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 17:08, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

And how are they related events despite being concurrent? (Replying from mobile, indent might be wierd) — DaxServer (t · c) 17:16, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

A few more references added. Venkat TL (talk) 18:09, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

What exactly do they say that establishes any "background"? WP:CITEKILL doesn't get you WP:CONSENSUS. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:11, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Overcite fixed by bundle. Please spend the time checking the refs first instead of first arguing here. Some more were added. Venkat TL (talk) 18:13, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

“ The row intensified before the state legislative assembly elections in 5 states.Next Karnataka Legislative Assembly election are expected to be held a year later in 2023. In late 2021, several prominent Muslim women were victimized in the Bulli Bai case. ”

References

Copying the content here for reference. Venkat TL (talk) 19:11, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

"Intensified" and elections that will occur sometime in the future do not suggest a "background". "Background" refers to what happened in the past which creates the context for these events. At the moment, we don't have any decent sources. Everybody is running around like chickens without actually knowing what is happening.

The right background for this article should cover the history of uniforms in Karnataka, what regulations exist and what the school & college policies there have been, and what objections might have been raised in the past etc. But nobody has any of this information yet. So, no "background" as far as I am concerned. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:31, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

From the quoted references

1. CNN doesn't verify (see quote at the top of the section)
2. BBC quotes Karnataka Education Minister B. C. Nagesh about elections
3. Deccan Herald is opinion article WP:RSEDITORIAL
4. Firstpost is opinion article
5. India Today is opinion article
6. Times of India (WP:TOI, this is a joke- quotes "an academician", former BJP MLA, "those familiar with...", "some frustrated students")
7. ABP Live says "Ahead of the assembly elections in five states ... the war of words has erupted among the politicians"

None of the citations provide any background into the elections. I agree with Kautilya's last para. — DaxServer (t · c) 19:48, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

@DaxServer These references from reputed newspapers clearly mention the ongoing elections show the relevance and link between the ongoing elections and this sectarian dispute. CNN article mentions election 2 times. BBC too clearly mentions the link. This is getting into the ridiculous territory. I have raised this at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#2022_hijab_row_in_Karnataka. Venkat TL (talk) 20:20, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

• I added some background here. I think background is necessary, this incident did not happen in a vacuum. An upcoming elections can certainly constitute background, as parties are in campaign mode.VR _talk 21:23, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, it didn't happen in vacuum. Like Kautilya said, a "background" refers to what happened in the past that led to this incident. And right now, we don't have sources to add elections as background. Only how this is changing the elections and campaigning. — DaxServer (t · c) 22:09, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

  We do have sources, like this article in France24. The upcoming elections were scheduled to occur in the past, and RS tell us that this schedule is influencing political behavior.VR _talk 22:16, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

  France24, WP, Al Jazeera hardly has a base in India (CNN has CNN-News18). They are WP:TERTIARY sources. We need good WP:SECONDARY sources, who actually study Indian politics and the likes. — DaxServer (t · c) 06:44, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

  I think these sources are WP:SECONDARY, not WP:TERTIARY. But even if they were tertiary, that's good enough for wikipedia. If you still disagree, we can take this up at WP:RSN.VR _talk 23:44, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Removal of any instance of students wearing saffron.

@Venkat TL: You have removed any reference to the protests and/or actions of other students, including those which wore saffron as a sign of protest. As far as Im aware, multiple sources have been given for these on the talk page. Any reason? Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 17:53, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I had removed it as @Rockcodder: had added it violating WP:SYNTH. If it is added it needs to be added separately, with reliable source. Without creeping any False equivalence. Due to these issues it was removed. Venkat TL (talk) 17:56, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Sure, Ill add it back with the relevant citations.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 17:58, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

@CapnJackSp Since it was added once and removed once already. Please folow WP:BRD and discuss the draft here, to get consensus before adding. Venkat TL (talk) 18:00, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, sure. No issues, no need to cite policy every time you make a request, its fine.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 18:02, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

@Venkat TL: you might also want to respond to the section above, seems relevant.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 18:04, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

@CapnJackSp, If you know WP:BRD already why then did you say that you will add it back? Your comment necessitated the mention of the Link. Venkat TL (talk) 18:11, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

There were counter protests by students against allowing students wearing the hijab to enter the college. These students marched to the college wearing saffron shawls. However, authorities stopped them from entering the premises, and asked the students to remove the shawls. The students were allowed in only after they complied with the request.

References

@CapnJackSp, Needs date when this happened. Once you include date. It can be added. Venkat TL (talk) 18:22, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

CapnJackSp has added the dates and included into the article. Marked as resolved. Venkat TL (talk) 18:58, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Resolved

Government order

The very first sentence of the Indian Express explainer says: "An order issued by the Karnataka government’s Department for Pre-University Education on February 5 has not made uniforms compulsory in pre-university colleges." Our page cotradicts that squarely! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:13, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

References

Kautilya3 (talk) 18:13, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

@Kautilya3 Ok. This was added by @Rockcodder who used the unreliable source ABP news after discussion in #Banning of Hijab by Karnataka BJP Government Since this is a source conflict, we should follow Express. How do you suggest we fix this issue? Venkat TL (talk) 18:16, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I will fit it later in the night when things calm down a bit. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:53, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

@Venkat TL: This RSN discussion mentioned ABP news as a reliable source.
@Kautilya3:, please take a look at these.
"Last week, the government had issued an order to make uniforms prescribed by it or management of private institutions mandatory for its students at schools and pre-university colleges across the state." Financial Express is the business news imprint of Indian Express.
". . . the order by Padmini SN of the education department (pre-university) stated that students will have to wear the dress chosen . . . a uniform style of clothes has to be worn compulsorily."
"The Karnataka government on Saturday issued an order making it compulsory for students to wear only such uniforms as prescribed by the government, or their respective school or college managements."

References

Rockcodder (talk) 19:40, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

The reason confusion exists is precisely why the Indian Express published an explainer. The order hasn't made a "new rule" to make the uniforms compulsory, but merely reiterated the existing practice and ruled out any exceptions for hijab. The IE's explainer tells you all the details, and I think it trumps all other half-baked news reports. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:25, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for clarifying it. I wasn't able to read the explainer completely since it requires a premium subscription. Rockcodder (talk) 05:19, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

The facts of the situation seem to be that uniforms are compulsory in all government schools in Karnataka (probably since 1983). Pre-University colleges can make their own rules. Private schools/colleges can make their own rules. So it is pretty much the norm throughout the state. Hijabs have not been allowed generally, except for some kind-hearted institutions that might have made exceptions for them and perhaps Muslim-run private institutions.

The dispute is arising now because institutions have reopened classes after a long hiatus due to Covid. It has also arisen in pre-University colleges, where the protesting students are encountering the situation for the first time. (They probably studied in Muslim schools earlier. It is also possible that their parents have allowed them to attend mixed colleges with the expectation that they would be allowed to wear hijab, apparently wrongly.) PFI is obviously backing them with the demand that it is their constitutional right to wear hijab. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:55, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

PS: I have driven through Karnataka a couple of times and remember being struck by the ubiquity of school uniforms everywhere. It is not so in other states. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:01, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

It's more complicated than this, but the statement that hijabs have not been allowed generally is inaccurate. Most Muslims who attend mixed PUCs and colleges didn't wear it but some did and that wasn't seen as contradictory to the mandated uniform. They just wore it on top of their uniform, it isn't much different from a headscarf. For a similar context, they were treated as Sikh turbans would be. Those who attended Muslim schools would generally wear the full burkha particularly if you go to the urban areas, which would be disallowed in mixed schools. If it matters, I have done my schooling from the coastal Karnataka belt.

By the way, Pre-University College in Karnataka refers to +2 or senior/higher secondary schools and not actual colleges, where uniforms are ubiquitous in most parts of India. From what I understand, the dispute is arising now because for whatever reason some schools have started asserting that the hijab isn't a part of the uniform after the pandemic. CFI/PFI is of course involved, they have become particularly strong in the area in last few years and are possibly pushing the Muslims towards more conservative attitudes which contributes to this. The antagonism towards them from the Hindu Jagarana Vedike and the RSS universe doesn't help either.

ThePrint has published a good investigative piece (after a long time) on it which can attest to some of the above. In any case, it would be quite useful for the article. I might look into revamping/expanding it if I get some time. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 01:59, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, new information is coming to light. According to an apparently competent article in the New Indian Expresss, the Udupi college was one of the "few colleges" that had disallowed hijab.[1] The controversy generated there created a dominoe effect leading to tighter controls in other places and now statewide ruling. Ghazala Wahab also seems to think so.[2] -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:09, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Two petitions?

The lead says "two petitions" have been filed in the High Court, without a citation. Some random citations appear in the body, which also don't describe "two petitions". Nor is there any detail on who filed the two petitions and on what grounds. I find WP:OR galore in the existing content. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:02, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: I have removed mentions of 'two petitions' in the article. Btw, the first mention of 'two petitions' can be seen in this version of the article (diff), published by the creator of the article, Ainty Painty, along with other edits published immediately after the creation of the article. These initial edits added original research content to the article. For some reason, said user also placed the article under the 'Violence against Muslims' category, without adding any sources that show that physical force was used against Muslims. Rockcodder (talk) 17:17, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Mandya incident

The BBC article [3] gives the full typology of the Muslim women's attires, but still calls the Muskan Khan's garb a "hijab", whereas she herself called it a "burqa" [4].

It is a bit amusing how the media sensationalised the incident. From the moment she parked her scooter, she was being watched over (and photographed on video) by the college staff. Kautilya3 (talk) 23:52, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

What she was wearing would be a half burqa with a hijab (a body covering with a headscraf on top and the face left open) per the BBC article's typology which is what she might be referring to as a burqa. The NDTV article where her comment is sourced from, itself calls it a hijab in its own voice. Note that she also states that "We used to wear the burqa and hijab all the time. I wore the hijab in class and used to remove the burqa", i.e she would take off the body covering. We shouldn't be coming to our own conclusions and just state what the sources themselves say. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 02:14, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

The situation is complicated by the fact that everyone is wearing covid masks. Burqa can imply a dress that also covers the face, and Muskan was covering her face, but I'm not sure if her face covering was due to religious reasons or covid safety. A closeup of her mask shows it looks more like a well-fitted covid mask, as opposed to the loose face veil Muslim women sometimes wear.VR _talk 21:19, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Tayi Arajakate is right that she was wearing a "half burqa" and a hijab. She has described it very clearly to NDTV. If people are not comfortable with leaving it as it is, I can add a footnote clarifying. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:40, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I think we should just stick to the sources per WP:NOR. BBC and NDTV just calls it a hijab, CNN goes into a bit more detail and states "Khan had covered her head with a hijab, an Islamic headscarf, and was wearing a religious dress" so we should either use "hijab" or "hijab with a religious dress". Tayi Arajakate _Talk 04:18, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

POV statement

The article currently says "CFI and SDPI emerge as key instigators of the dispute." That's a pretty POV thing to state in wikipedia's voice. It is obviously the opinion of someone and thus requires attribution.VR _talk 21:31, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

That is occurring in a paragraph that describes "investigations". So I think it is attributed in that way. Do you have suggestions for some other wording? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:28, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Well who is making this accusation? One of the sources cited[5], says "According to him[Prakash Kukkehalli, Mangaluru unit general secretary of the Hindu Jagaran Vedike], the PFI, SDPI, and other Muslim organisations were provoking students for political benefit." If a left-wing political party is being accused by its right-wing opponents, we should clearly attribute this allegation. The second source[6] is an op-ed by "Ghazala Wahab" and I have no idea why her opinion is important here. But at least this should be attributed as "According to Ghazala Wahab, X and Y, ..."VR _talk 23:13, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

It is also the opinion of the Welfare Party of India district president.

“It (controversy) started after the results of the urban local bodies elections in December. (Now) it is being used to polarise voters,” said Abdul Azeez Udyavar, organising secretary of Udupi District Muslim Okkutta [Federation], also district president of the Welfare Party of India. “If hijab was an issue for students, I am sure parents would have brought it to our notice. It could have been solved without much hype.” Udyavar maintained that CFI has “used these students for their benefit”, an accusation Sadiq Jaaratthar, Karnataka unit secretary of CFI, denied.

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:32, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

References

The paragraph immediately preceding the one you posted says

In a way, keeping the issue, and the resulting polarisation, alive is also seen to help BJP, which is trying to hold on to its influence in Udupi, having swept the seats in 2018 elections. Party MLA for Udupi, K Raghupathi Bhat, who is also head of the college development council, however, denied making any efforts to drive political gain from the polarisation caused by the protests.

So it would appear that both CFI and BJP are being accused of political exploitation, an allegation both are denying. This is important information to include. Also, a different Indian Express article points out that "...the Welfare Party of India that has contested state and local polls in Karnataka without much success..." So once again allegations are coming from political opponents. We can't pass this off simply as "investigations".VR _talk 23:54, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

And Ghazala Wahab is the author of Born a Muslim, the best-selling book on the situation of Muslims in India that has received rave reviews from practically everybody. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:41, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I suggest you read the Ghazala Wahab's article, which gives the entire sequence of events. If there was something that Bhat had done that instigated the dispute, I would happily include it. But I am not doing a witch hunt. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:02, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

There are two policy violations here:

• opinions that blame CFI are being stated without sufficient attribution, thus it appears to be said in wikipedia's voice. This is especially problematic since most (but not all) of those who make this allegation are CFI's political opponents.
• both CFI and BJP have been blamed for the controversy in RS, yet the article only covers allegations against CFI. I'll cover this point in more detail in a section below.VR _talk 00:27, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

It looks like we are going in circles. This is my last post on the subject.

The 6 students knew the institution's rules when they accepted admission to it. They attended an entire year of classes following the instiution's rules. This year, when the classes opened, they said they needed to keep their hijab. They took advice from CFI in formulating their stategies. Neither they nor CFI have denied any of this. CFI and SDPI also threatened to stage protests. The parents of some of the students themselves were members of SDPI. To any neutral observer it is perfectly clear that the CFI, SDPI, the students and their parents are working together. Ghazala Wahab comments:

Clearly, they had no problem attending the college without one [hijab]. The principal had no problem in their wearing hijab to the college, his only condition was that it should be removed in class. This is neither unique nor a big deal. If the CFI had not meddled clumsily, this is what the girls may have done.

She is not any kind of "opponent". She is a journalist and one that cares deeply about the welfare of Muslims.

There is nothing comparable that the "BJP" or the MLA is supposed to have done. He may have had a hand in disallowing hijab in the first place, but that was before these girls even entered the door. But it wasn't just his decision. The Principal himself is opposed to allowing hijab. He says it is a problem of "identification" (I suppose he means being able to identify the students). When the numbers were fewer, it may have been less of a problem. But they have 60 Muslim students now. And he thinks they can't handle it with these numbers. In any case, all this was in the past. There was no change in the policy for these students and there is nothing that the college or the "BJP" has done to the development of this dispute. (The 5 February announcement is a different matter.)

As for attribution, I have said that it is part of the "investigations". I asked for any alternative wording you might suggest. And you haven't produced any. The two sources cited state in their own voice the responsibility of CFI/SDPI in the dispute.

I am afraid you are just engaging in WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I suggest you use a WP:DR. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:33, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

I did suggest alternative wording at the top of this section[7]: "According to ..." Do you oppose that? Also please focus on the content and refrain from casting WP:ASPERSIONs.VR _talk 01:46, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

No, you merely quoted something from the source. I can also quote:

A source from the CFI who did not wish to be named told ThePrint that the ABVP protest incident had outraged the organisation. It therefore started encouraging Muslim women to refuse to join ABVP events and to fight for their right to wear hijabs in the classroom. The women’s parents also took these demands to the college.

Don't expect me to be your cherry-picking partner! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:57, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

• I went ahead and implemented the solution that I proposed twice above. I'm amenable to different wordings, as long as they are stated as allegations and not facts.VR _talk 23:53, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Given that Kautilya3 reverted this, I think WP:DR is the next step.VR _talk 00:40, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
• I've removed the sentence. "Meddle" and "encourage" in no way imply they were key instigators. Kautilya3, per WP:BRD and your own statements elsewhere, when an inclusion is questioned, it falls upon the adding editor to get consensus. Don't just revert to your preferred version. Hemantha (talk) 15:36, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

CapnJackSp Instead of reverting again and again, please engage here. Neither source makes any strong statements to back PFI being "primary instigators". Hemantha (talk) 17:07, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

@Hemantha:Thanks, will explain. Though "again and again" might be a bit misleading.

If you read my edit, as well as the edit summary, note that I removed the statements that were challenged by you. Nowhere in my edit do I call them "instigators". If you read through the Print report, which is attached as the source, it references actions by PFI and CFI multiple times and does refer to the protests being organised, supported and protected by them, which is also supported by what the parents of the students say. Unless you say that the report is unreliable, the material introduced by me was perfectly valid. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 17:50, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Wings

I see that Hemantha has been a busy man. But I was bemused by this comment:

No need for separate sentences for every PFI wing protest threat.

If the ABVP, BJP and the RSS were to be involved in some affair, would you name each of them, or would just call them "wings" of RSS?

Why are we suddenly batting for PFI, by the way? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:55, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Form

Regarding this revert where I was pinged, thanks to CapnJackSp for preserving my text in some form. I also like the BBC article by the way (which I didn't run into earlier). It nicely corroborates Gazala Wahab who talked about an "undertaking" by the parents. Here it says they signed a form, which is much clearer. I don't mind stating the students' argument in their voice. Hemantha's text distorted it quite a bit.

I am a bit busy in RL at the moment. So I will comment on Hemantha's edits of my text later in the week. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 03:50, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

There are multiple threads about that revert; I've replied below under #What was the previous uniform policy? where CapnJackSp first replied. Rest of your aspersions don't merit any reply. Hemantha (talk) 04:07, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Banned on campus too?

There are several sources that the college (Udupi's Government Women's PU) initially banned the hijab in the classroom, but not on campus. But NYT says it was later banned on campus too:

They continued to wear the hijab after the school, Government Women’s PU, moved in January to ban it on campus, saying it violated the school’s dress code. The school issued the prohibition after meeting with a local lawmaker from Mr. Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party, or B.J.P. “Then the issue started blowing up,” Mr. Tahir said. “Whenever students would go in hijab, they wouldn’t be allowed inside the compound, too, let alone the classroom.”

Was this a later development?VR _talk 22:27, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

There are many colleges that have been described as being in "Udupi". I doubt if NYT can tell them apart. Can you get the full citation please? I get pay-walled otherwise. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:34, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

The text in the quote above is directly from NYT. I don't think I can copy and paste the entire article here without being sanctioned for copyright vio. (Someone once asked me to copy paste a couple of pages from a book into wikipedia, and an admin warned me not to do that). It clearly identifies "Government Women’s PU", as opposed to referring to a generic college in Udupi.VR _talk 23:03, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I am asking for a WP:Full citation. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:20, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Suhasini Raj and Emily Schmall (2022-02-11). "No Hijabs for Now, Indian Court Tells Muslim Students". New York Times. Does that help? Also, I'm curious as to how a full citation helps you get around a paywall? I sometimes use outline.com but it doesn't work for most sites. Do you have a better way? VR _talk 23:33, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! If I have the title (which sometimes matches with the print version) and date, I can look for it in libraries.

This article is dated yesterday, and is making claims about what happened last September, December and January, based on what the petitioiners and their lawyer have said. It can hardly trump the ground reports that appeared in the newspapers at the time. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:50, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Is it possible that the policy evolved over time? The NYT article seems to indicate that when it says "Then the issue started blowing up".VR _talk 01:19, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

I did a thorough search of all the January newsreports and nothing "blew up". It started blowing up only in February, especially after the government order of 5 February. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:07, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

What was the previous uniform policy?

The article currently states twice that hijab was banned in the past:

a government-run pre-University college at Udupi that had prohibited the wearing of hijab in the past

The protesting students had apparently attended the previous year of college following its rules of removing hijab inside classrooms.

But sources, including one used as a citation in the above text, say something else:

• Principals of at least three colleges in Kundapur told ThePrint that while some Muslim students had always worn the hijab to classes, the number had increased ever since the row took off in January. “There is no explicit rule that bans hijab in the college, but there is no rule that permits it either,” Naveen Shetty, principal of R.N. Shetty College, said. ThePrint

It might be that some colleges had banned it and some allowed it? But the following source seems to indicate there was a state wide policy to allow the hijabs.

• former Karnataka education minister has said that when uniforms were introduced in the 1980s, the Ramakrishna Hegde-led government had decided to allow Muslim students to wear a headscarf, a move the BJP had supported. Deccan Herald

Interviews with female Muslim students done by The Guardian[8][9] and New York Times[10] also indicate that students report being allowed to wear the hijab in the past (I've added this to the article recently). VR _talk 01:19, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Every college sets its own policy via its 'College Development Council', which has some staff, some parents and some local bigwigs. Not all colleges have uniforms but the majority do. (We are only talking about PU colleges here.) For women, the uniform policies generally state the colours of salwar, kameez and the duppatta. Nothing else is supposed to be worn. But, unofficially, it turns out, most colleges have been allowing hijab in the same colour as the duppatta. (Tayi Arajakate mentioned this somewhere above.) But the Government ordre of 5 February, which said "the uniforms must be worn compulsorily" (or something to that effect) have put a stop to these unofficial concessions. This meant that the students that have been attending classes with hijab suddenly find that they are being blocked. (This to me is the most unfair thing in the whole saga, and I wrote "tearful pleas fell on deaf ears".) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:52, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

As for politician claims about what they did 40 years ago, let them produce what they have instituted in the rules. You will find nothing. As far as I can see, all allowances have been unofficial. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:05, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

I added that claim with attribution, not as fact or in wikipedia's voice.VR _talk 06:18, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

@Hemantha: I have removed the OR and modified the previous statement here [1]. Your message was an allegation, stated in wikivoice. And it is conflicting with Indian sources, which I would hold to be more accurate than foreign sources in Indian matters.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 18:04, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

The text you've restored is again factually wrong. What is the source for the phrases I've bolded - Later it was revealed that the protesting students had apparently attended the previous year of college following its rules of removing hijab inside classrooms? If 'previous year' is meant to imply 2021, note that colleges had only opened in Sep 2021. If even the earliest reports include the principal's statement However, since past three days, six students ... are arriving to the college wearing Hijab, what exactly was 'revealed later'? It was clear from the beginning that this was a new demand. Hemantha (talk) 04:03, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I can correct it to had been for many years attending the college, following its rules..... The "Later" npart comes in due to the fact that these details were not available originally, and have been only recently published. The "revealed" part was that the students had initially complied with the rules, but later protested when their parents objected to the rules. Neither of the two sources you have provided speak of it.

The material you introduced was essentially an allegation by a student, which was stated as fact, which cannot be allowed. Im wiling to include that under a section "Conflicting Accounts" to cover the different "origin stories" given by the protestors. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 05:26, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

BJP role

As I was discussing with Kautilya3 in a section above, the article mentioned CFI's role in the row, but does not elaborate on the extent of BJP's role. There are several RS that point this out:

• "The BJP state chief in Karnataka, Nalin Kumar Kateel, has said banning the hijab would ensure that classrooms did not become “Taliban-like”. The Guardian
• "Government Women’s PU, moved in January to ban it on campus, saying it violated the school’s dress code. The school issued the prohibition after meeting with a local lawmaker from Mr. Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party, or BJP." New York Times
• "Some experts say the BJP is deliberately igniting the issue for political gains...Cynthia Stephen, a social policy researcher in Karnataka, said the BJP "could have nipped the issue in the bud" much earlier." Deutsche Welle
• "However, the governing BJP defended the hijab ban, arguing that it violates rules on uniform [quoting BJP spokesperson Ganesh Karnik]" Al-Jazeera
• "Basanagouda Patil Yatnal [BJP Minister] told reporters that madrasas (Islamic religious schools) should be banned too." SCMP
• "...the hijab row in southern India’s only BJP-ruled state is linked to the Hindu right-wing party’s national electoral strategy." France24
• "The state government, led by the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), has backed the discriminatory ban, passing a directive last week saying, “clothes which disturb equality, integrity, and public law and order should not be worn.” HRW
• "Many perceive these efforts by the local BJP leaders to foment trouble as a springboard for the party as it prepares for elections in Karnataka state next year...Taking a cue from Karnataka, the BJP ruled states of Haryana and Madhya Pradesh are also mulling the enforcement of a hijab ban."The Diplomat
• "Last week, other colleges in the state began to enforce bans after some Hindu students, backed by rightwing Hindu groups, protested that if hijabs were allowed in classrooms, they should be allowed to wear saffron shawls. The Guardian

Thus this should be covered in the article.VR _talk 01:48, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Some of these criticisms can probably go in the 5th February Government Order, which hasn't been written yet in any detail. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:00, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

There's indications in sources that the hijab ban was the supported by a local BJP politician (see NYT source above and sources below) well before the Feb 5 announcement. Colleges were also pressured into expelling Muslim girls by right wing organizations like ABVP.

• A state-run college in Karnataka’s Chikkamagaluru district on Monday asked Muslim girls wearing headscarves to take them off once they enter the classroom, apparently under pressure from another group of students that came to campus wearing saffron scarves to demand enforcement of the stipulated dress code. TOI (not a great
• [BJP] MLA Raghupathi Bhat who met the principal on Saturday reportedly declared that if the Hijab was allowed boys will wear saffron shawls. Deccan Herald, Jan 1
• K Raghupati Bhat, a local BJP legislator who also heads a committee at Udupi, told the parents of the students in a meeting that the college would continue with its uniform code, irrespective of the religious preferences of the students. After the controversy erupted in Udupi, students in at least two other colleges in the state, including members of the right-wing Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP), held protests as they donned saffron scarves inside the colleges, demanding a ban on the hijab. ABVP is a student group affiliated with the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), the far-right ideological mentor of the BJP with millions of members across India dedicated to their aim of creating an ethnic Hindu state in India. Al-Jazeera, Jan 18
• BJP MLA asks students not to enter college campus in Hijab Siasat, Feb 1.
• Hindu students sporting saffron scarves to protest against Muslim students wearing headscarves...He added that their protest had the backing of organisations like the ABVP, the VHP (Vishwa Hindu Parishad) and the Bajrang Dal. The Print, Jan 7

VR _talk 04:05, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you @Vice regent for digging this out. The cat is out of the bag. Now I request you to see #Background where some IP user along with other blanked a relevant section entirely, even though it was reliably sourced. Venkat TL (talk) 08:46, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

We also have this from the Indian Express:

BJP’s Bhat said had the issue come to his, or the college’s notice, “we would have solved it by allowing hijab without making much noise”. But, “it has now gone out of our hands. There is a good amount of Muslim population in Uchila village, in Kaup, Padubidre and Katapadi, and they want to make the best of it.”

Of course, I won't say that this is decisive in any way. But ThePrint article describes the various efforts made at resolution during January and the politicisation of the issues that brought them to a breaking point. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:30, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

References

Attention to detail please!

On 3 February, Dr BB Hegde College near Udupi barred entry to 9 female Muslim students. One student said she'd worn the hijab for three years at the school without issue.

References

But if you check the source, you would notice that the college did not bar entry on 3 February ("Thursday"). Rather they were blocked by the saffron crowd. The next day, 4 February, the Principal cited the "government order" to disallow hijab. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:07, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake, fixed it.VR _talk 19:26, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Rearranging

Kautilya3 can you explain this rearranging? You put a view at the top of the section about the practice of uniforms in Karnataka. Then I put an alternative view, which has also been covered by RS. I made sure to put this view immediately below the view you put. But you then moved that view even lower into a paragraph that is not about uniforms. Do you not think that alternative views are WP:DUE? VR _talk 18:41, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

The first paragraph is dealing with the background on uniforms. The second paragraph is dealing with Muslim issues. It should have been obvious. It doesn't make sense to first talk about hijab and then go back to saying 13% Muslim population etc. That would be doing things backwards. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:14, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

The content that you moved is talking about uniforms. Take a look:

Several colleges in Karnataka reported that a small number of Muslim students have "always" worn the hijab in classroom. M Raghupathy, who was Karnataka's education minister in a Janata Party government in the 1980s, said that the government's uniform mandates had allowed both the hijab and the Christian nun's habit. He said that the Bharatiya Janata Party had not objected to hijab back then.

Alternatively, we should start the section with well known neutral facts, 13% Muslim population etc, and then get into uniforms. But once we get into uniforms, we have to cover all significant viewpoints. The view that the uniform policy did not previously restrict the hijab has been reported by RS, hence is significant.VR _talk 20:17, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

"Neutral"? What is non-neutral about uniforms?

The disputes here are in the context of school uniforms. That is the first context that needs to be covered.-- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:24, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

There are disputing narratives whether hijab has been allowed as part of the uniforms or not. WP:NPOV requires us to cover all POVs. WP:DUE requires us to give them due prominence.VR _talk 23:39, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

There are no serious disputes. I am afraid you are mistaken. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:21, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I literally quoted multiple reliable sources saying the hijab had not been restricted in the past.VR _talk 00:44, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, they were allowed certainly. But no information is available as to whethehr they were "part of the uniforms". As far as I can see, it has been an informal concession, rarely written down, just dependent on the involved officials' goodwill and interpretation. When secular parties were in power, everybody would have assumed that it is the right thing to do. But now that a Hindu nationalist party is in power and the issue has blown up in the most spectacular way, everybody would go by the book. And the book says nothing about hijab. That means that it is not part of the uniform. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:31, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Again, the former minister of education says otherwise: "former Karnataka education minister has said that when uniforms were introduced in the 1980s, the Ramakrishna Hegde-led government had decided to allow Muslim students to wear a headscarf, a move the BJP had supported." [11] This is relevant to the issue of uniforms. VR _talk 02:31, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

References

Again, it is an allegation. And what use is citing 40 year old regulations in the present context?Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 05:29, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Separate classrooms

Kautilya3 you removed the following content:

The college later allowed hijab wearing students to enter, but forced them to sit in separate classrooms. Muslim students accused the college of religious segregation.

The college separating students because of their religious practice was widely reported. I used a reliable source (Toronto Star) and more sources can be provided (NDTV, Deccan Herald, etc). Because this happened chronologically later, I made sure to put it later in the paragraph.VR _talk 18:47, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

You were using a February news report to cover January events, and completely mixing up things. That section is devoted to the Udupi PU College events that occurred in January. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:19, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Please make it a point to read the edit summaries. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:30, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

So you could have moved the content? Instead you chose to re-move the content. Do you have a good reason why it doesn't belong? Otherwise, I'll re-instate it.VR _talk 23:40, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

This source is so imprecise, so full of weasel wording and so lacking in necessarily detail, that one can't be sure what it is talking about at all. It is not reliable. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:19, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Which of the three sources I gave above is unreliable? Or all three are unreliabl? VR _talk 00:43, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I am talking about the source you have displayed above. I don't know what other sources you are talking about. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:47, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

My very first comment in this section gives 3 sources: Toronto Star, NDTV and Deccan Herald.VR _talk 02:16, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

You mean the NDTV and Deccan Herald? They are talking about the Kundapur college, not Udupi. Can you see the utter confusion you are mired in? And wasting your time as well as mine? We need to put a stop to this. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:52, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

The NDTV source says "the Government Junior PU college in Kundapur in Udipi district". "Udipi" is an alternative spelling for Udupi (see redirect Udipi). Please be respectful.VR _talk 02:16, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

The Govt clarified that the students themselves sat in a separate classroom. What do you think about that? Extorc (talk) 01:54, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

References

Reorganisation

I have reorganised the material in this edit, by integrating the "Government reaction" into the Incidents/Events section.

The reason is that it has become apparent that the government was not an outside observer. It intervened actively and influenced the events. The government order of 4 February intensified the banning of hijab by the institutions. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:01, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

• Why did you remove these Government reactions? I'm fine if you want to reorganize into chronological order. But if you want to remove it entirely, you need to justify it.VR _talk 23:41, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

No. The WP:ONUS to justify is always on those who want to include particular content. As an encyclopaedia, our objective is to provide information. Certain amount of rhetoric can always be included to give a gist of the way the players are thinking. But that is not the end-all. We can't go overboard. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:45, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

The justification is that these are notable reactions that have been covered in numerous reliable sources (more sources cover these reactions than cover some of the reactions you insisted on covering at #POV_statement).VR _talk 02:27, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Removal of political role early in the dispute

Kautilya3 removed this content, saying it is a WP:POV edit. How is this edit a violation of POV? Kautily3 also said "Raghupati Bhat is covered in a later paragraph". While Bhat is indeed covered in a later paragraph his actions early on are not covered in a later paragraph. Why was this removed? VR _talk 23:36, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

It is POV first of all because it is omitting the important information that Bhat is a responsible official for the college. Secondly, it cherry-picks a line from the second source which is covering CFI to a large degree. Did you fail to notice that the CFI was demanding the suspension of the principal? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:42, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

The content in question consists of two sentences:

According to the New York Times, the college banned the hijab after consultation with a BJP politician.[12]

On Jan 1, BJP MLA Raghupathi Bhat said if hijab was allowed then boys will wear saffron shawls.[13]

I take it you object to the second sentence. Do you also object to the first one? Do you have an alternative wording for the second sentence? There is already material blaming CFI in the article, and if you want to put more, be my guest (just do so without violating WP:NPOV). But I don't understand why are you removing text critical of the BJP from this article? VR _talk 23:49, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

I have already rejected the NYT information a few days ago in the section #Banned on campus too?. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:07, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

That above section was different information. That above section talked about whether hijab was later banned on campus. The current sentence is whether the ban in the classroom was done in consultation with a BJP politician. Or are you saying all information from NYT on this topic is to be rejected? If that is your position, then lets take this to WP:RSN.VR _talk 00:13, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, all information from NYT about the so-called "ban on hijab" at Udupi is to be rejected because NYT didn't go to Udupi and check anything. The information they give is contradicted by numerous local sources. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:28, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Can you give me any local sources that contradict "the college banned the hijab after consultation with a BJP politician"?VR _talk 00:42, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

The NYT says the college "banned" hijab in January. But the very first sentence of Udupi dispute and the citation #1, says it was "banned" earlier.

Ahmed, Udupi district president of the Karnataka Rakshana Vedike, a voluntary organisation that works to protect the Kannada language and culture, told The Telegraph that the college had earlier too barred some other hijab-clad students from their classes.

The NYT is merely reproducing what the petitioners or their lawyer said. I pointed this out earlier. That can't be stated as fact, even if it happened to be true. We need a source that has independently verified it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:10, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

The earlier banning has nothing to do with the information in question. NYT is clearly talking about the January banning. Also, I didn't state it as fact, I qualified it with "According to New York Times..." I have referred this to RSN. I'll accept whatever consensus is achieved there.VR _talk 02:04, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Also regarding second sentence, I still don't understand your objection. Is it that the sentence fails to mention Bhat's responsibilities? If so, how would you add this information? VR _talk 00:42, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

It is a misrepresentation of the sum total of the information given in this source. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:10, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I disagree, but anyway how would you phrase it differently? I'm open to rewording.VR _talk 02:04, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: I am here from RSN. What exactly is the misrepresentation of the NYT article? I don't understand the objection to using attribution. Pious Brother (talk) 03:09, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

He hasnt replied, Ill fill in. Essentially, the decision was taken by the CDC, which is the body which decides the dress code among other things. The MLA was a member of the committee. The NYT article makes it look like the college held some random meeting with the politician, whereas it was the due process being followed. Some other discrepancies as well, such as the order of events and dates that do not match those in local reliable sources .@Kautilya3: if you have anything to add, please do. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 04:43, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah I don't get it either. It's not an extraordinary claim neither does it need attribution when NYT isn't the only that has reported it. Regardless of whether the school had disallowed hijabs previously, the MLA still held a meeting with the principal and decided that hijabs shouldn't be allowed. He himself doesn't deny that he stated that hijabs shouldn't be allowed, instead he has tried to defend it. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 04:57, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Pious Brother, the objection as stated in the edit summary is that the information about Raghupati Bhat (the "BJP politician") is covered in a later paragaph. I also called it WP:POV because the prominence being given to the BJP politician is NYT's own point of view. Other sources talk rather of the "college development committee" (CDC) of which he was the chairman. It is very well possible that the "BJP politician" was the driving force behind the whole decision, but how on earth does NYT know? Given that another part of the same sentence is demonstrably false (as I stated at WP:RSN), I don't fancy giving much weight to NYT.

If anybody wants to argue that NYT is the prevailing authority on this controversy, and should trump all other sources, please go right ahead. The WP:ONUS rests on you to argue for its inclusion. It is not my problem. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:28, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Raghupati Bhat is on this TV programme starting at 4:45. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:06, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

The CDC 'decision' was a long time ago. For Bhat's early involvement (in his capacity as MLA, not CDC chairman) the early stages of this specific flareup, see [14] and [15], both from Jan 2. Hemantha (talk) 04:23, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Kautilya3 thanks for the explanation. Vice regent do you think there is a nuance that might have been missed by NYT? CapnJackSp's explanation makes it seem so. Pious Brother (talk) 05:35, 16 February 2022 (UTC)