Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Education Start‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EducationWikipedia:WikiProject EducationTemplate:WikiProject Educationeducation articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Human rights Start‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Islam: Islam and Controversy Start‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Islam and Controversy task force. India: Karnataka / History / Politics Start‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Karnataka (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by the Indian history workgroup. This article is supported by the Indian politics workgroup. Schools Start‑class Low‑importance This article is related to WikiProject Schools, a collaborative effort to write quality articles about schools around the world. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.SchoolsWikipedia:WikiProject SchoolsTemplate:WikiProject Schoolsschool articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Women Start‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Daily pageviews of this article A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived.

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

@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".^[1] 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)[reply]

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

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

Proposal 2

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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

Resolved

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Resolved

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

@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)[reply]

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.^{[1][2][3][4][5]}

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

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

Resolved

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."^[1] Our page cotradicts that squarely! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:13, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

@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)[reply]

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

@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."^[1] 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."^[2]
"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."^[3]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.^[1]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Kautilya3: The articles bellow talk about a direct connection between this row and an anti-rape protest conductuted by the ABVP in October of last year. There is no mention of said connection in the article. Would it be possible for you to go through these and add information about said connection to the article? Thanks in advance.
https://theprint.in/india/viral-photos-bruised-egos-radical-student-groups-inside-story-of-karnatakas-hijab-crisis/827262/
https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/karnataka-hijab-protest-muslim-students-anti-rape-agitation-udupi-abvp-1911853-2022-02-11
https://indianexpress.com/article/india/karnataka-before-hijab-standoff-an-anti-rape-protest-faith-political-rivalry-7766869/
Rockcodder (talk) 14:43, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
  • Given that Kautilya3 reverted this, I think WP:DR is the next step.VR _talk 00:40, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Did you read my reply? You seem to be repeating same things, so let me point out again - even earliest reports include the principal's statement - However, since past three days, six students ... are arriving to the college wearing Hijab. Please also read the Hindu article I linked to as well, headlined College in Udupi decides to continue with dress code and which says The six students on Friday said that they were not allowed to attend classes for the last several days as they went to college wearing hijab. Another ANI report from Jan 2 - "Everything was fine before we started wearing the hijab but now we are being discriminated in this manner," said another student. There's been enough clarity from the beginning that students were removing hijab earlier to December, but had refused to do so in the last week of December. So clearly your statement The "revealed" part was that the students had initially complied with the rules is baseless.

Another point: That there were rules to be followed itself is 1. unsourced 2. contradicted by this article which says the state did not have any rule until the government issued an order on February 5, mandating uniforms stipulated by the colleges.

Your proposed correction many years.. is even more wrong - PU is only two years. Hemantha (talk) 11:51, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No contadiction. The state did not impose a rule. The college did. But it was still a rule, as far as the students are concerned.

Agree that we shouldn't say "many years". Something like, "prior to this" should work.

The newsreports may not have been accurate when they wrote the students "started wearing hijab to college". They were probably wearing it while going to campus and removing it for the purpose of classes. (That would explain why the parents didn't know that this was happening.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:16, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The newsreports may not have been accurate - that'd be valid only if you point to the wikipedia policy that allows "experienced editors" to second guess Hindu. Anyway there's a specific quote from a student as well in the ANI report. Hemantha (talk) 03:26, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.”^[1]

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)[reply]

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.^[1]

References

1. ^ "Violent clashes over hijab ban in southern India force schools to close". The Guardian. 2022-02-09.

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.^[1] 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.^[2] He said that the Bharatiya Janata Party had not objected to hijab back then.^[2]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Kautilya3 you removed the following content:

The college later allowed hijab wearing students to enter, but forced them to sit in separate classrooms.^[1] Muslim students accused the college of religious segregation.^[1]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The Govt clarified that the students themselves sat in a separate classroom. What do you think about that? ^[2]Extorc (talk) 01:54, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, if the editor insists on including the line, it can be inserted as "The students were allowed into the campus, but were not allowed to attend classes while wearing the hijab per the college policy. The students chose to sit in a separate classroom as a sign of protest." Unless any student said they wee forced to sit separate?Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 13:59, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

The statement "in his capacity as MLA, not CDC chairman" is either a WP:OR or WP:SYNTH violation, since the sources mentioned by you say that 'MLA Raghupati Bhat' met with student leaders, but don't say anything about it being 'in his capacity as MLA, not CDC chairman'. Rockcodder (talk) 06:37, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's neither, that's not part of a proposed text for inclusion in the article. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 07:09, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but the argument cant be made with OR either, can it? Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 10:06, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest that you read the policy page if you think so. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 15:36, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. I meant it in the sense that if included in the article it would violate said policies. Anyways, thanks for the clarification. Rockcodder (talk) 07:55, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Kautilya3, what is demonstrably false? Do you not realise that rejecting the NYT source on the basis of soundbytes of a "earlier ban" from the protesting girls is untenable. If you think it's inconsistent with the fact that Bhat met the principal afterwards and affirmed a prohibition, it's not. There is nothing in ThePrint or The Indian Express investigations (which you keeping waving around) that directly contradicts it. One can integrate both the CFI/PFI involvement as well the Bhatt's involvement in the Udupi dispute if they wanted to using all of these sources. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 07:21, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Affirming a prohibition is not referred to as "banning it". That phrasing is used in normal discourse when a ban comes into place for the first time. NYT's wording is quite specific, "issued the prohibition". It doesn't say "continued" the prohibition, like The Hindu says,^[1] and most normal people would say. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:26, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The phrasing can refer to affirming a disputed instruction, strengthening an inconsistently implemented one, formalising it or any other number of things. The Hindu piece mostly quotes the PUC administration and says that the uniform code would be continued not that a hijab prohibition is being continued. The students have largely given conflicting statements and I'd expect the journalists at NYT to be competent enough to not make such mistakes. You are looking for inconsistencies where one doesn't exist, the source is weighty enough to be included, the information directly relates to the topic of their article and it's not our job to act as a fact checker. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 15:35, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hemantha is correct in saying that the CDC decision was a "long time ago". But his contention that Bhat was acting in his capacity as the MLA rather than the chairman of the committee has no basis. During December, the students' parents made three representations to the principal. The students wrote to the Government on 14 December, complaining about the college. The students had refused to remove the hijab for classes (like they used to do earlier). CFI and SDPI threatened protests. Under this situation, Ragahupati Bhat would be entitled to get involved in the affair wearing all his hats. But his role has been only to reiterate and affirm the policy. Nothing new was decided in January. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:43, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is it your point that CDC chairman and MLA positions are unrelated? The new thing that was decided was to uphold an informal guidance very strictly. There were no mandatory rules till Feb 5 and MLA played a decisive role in that enforcement. Hemantha (talk) 11:54, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The government has empowered the college CDCs to make mandatory rules. It seems like this was done in the 1980s under a Janata Party government. This particular college had this rule since then. But I don't have specific information about whether the no-hijab policy has always been part of it. The principal implies that it was. The students don't seem to think so. Nobody has investigated the issue further. But certainly, for this batch of students, for the last 1.5 years, it had been the policy. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:34, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There were no classes for much of the last 1.5 years and they would have begun recently only (in a regular manner) so even if there was a "policy" which itself is unclear since its derived from a soundbyte from a student, the policy would have to have been implemented recently. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 15:39, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please Kautilya3, give us the source for the claim The government has empowered the college CDCs to make mandatory rules. It seems like this was done in the 1980s, as well as for your certainty that it was 'policy' for the latest batch. College guidances were explicitly not mandatory and even against the PU department policy when they mandated uniforms (per the IE article added by you). Hemantha (talk) 07:29, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I admit that the language of "empowered" comes from this government.^[2] The Minister says that it was introduced during the Siddramaiah-led Congress government. I have seen the NIE article^[3] (not "IE article"). But I have no idea what is meant by uniforms are "mandatory" or "not mandatory". All I can figure out is that, from the government's point of view, it is not mandatory for an institution to have a uniform code. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:29, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And, there is nothing extraordinary about that. I myself have studied at some schools that had uniforms and others that didn't, all government schools, though not in Karnataka. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:34, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, but the minister's statements there appear so wrong and contradictory. Since you've added it in wiki-voice, I'll address them in a separate section.

To bring this back to original issue of college banning hijab, can it be said that your claim - Nothing new was decided in January - was based solely on an involved minister's (political?) pronouncements after the new circular? Hemantha (talk) 13:13, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kautilya3:, This is still unresolved, but I see you're mentioning NYT down below in another section. Do you wish to continue it there?

To recap, your objection to NYT text on "college banning hijab after meeting Bhat" was founded on the understanding that Nothing new was decided in January. That understanding was driven by the involved minister's statement on Feb 5 (which completely contradicts his own dept's earlier clarifications). So in light of all this, do you have objection to restore the text the college banned the hijab after consultation with a BJP politician referencing NYT or whatever local source you prefer? Hemantha (talk) 04:15, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We can also replace "banned" with "refused to allow" to satisfy Kautilya's objection.VR _talk 04:43, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hemantha: From your comments on the "agreed the uniform is not mandatory, but said that colleges have made it mandatory" statement and the "(which completely contradicts his own dept's earlier clarifications)" part of the above reply, I believe that you have misunderstood the government's position on the matter. My understanding is that the Karnataka government/PU dept. has not made uniforms mandatory, but has left it to the discretion of the educational institutions themselves. This then lead some institutes to use this power to impose uniforms and/or implement a dress code. Rockcodder (talk) 05:06, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

government/PU dept. has not made uniforms mandatory, but has left it to the discretion of the educational institutions This is what the minister has claimed on Feb 4 just before the new circular which codified this. There is no reliable source for this from before. Hemantha (talk) 05:26, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is this being discussed already? Where? Not sure who added the content and the template. Lets discuss to resolve this. Venkat TL (talk) 13:46, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Search for "revealed" on this talk page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:58, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My original wording was: "Later investigations revealed a complicated picture." Hemantha insists that there was nothing "later" about it. It was known from the beginning. I don't think that is true. The reports that emanated on 1 January etc. said that the students were being denied entry. They made it appear as if the college had changed its policy on hijab.

The first time I came to know that that was not the case was when Ghazala Wahab wrote about it on 9 February.^[1] DaxServer pointed me to a long investigative piece in ThePrint published on 11 February.^[2] The New York Times was still saying that the prohobition was imposed in January,^[3] much to the admiration of many people involved here!

Hemantha points out that BBC published the information on 22 January.^[4] I agree that this is a good article and should be cited here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:30, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Print should be discounted if there is a conflict among sources. It is known to be pro government. @Kautilya3 thanks for the summary. what is the conflict in removing this. If the attribution is available, it should be added. Venkat TL (talk) 15:37, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kautilya3, which reliable source has made you think as if the college had changed its policy on hijab? The refs that I've mentioned above which clearly go against that interpretation and you've left out are below.^{[1][2][3] [4]} For your convenience, I've bolded the relevant parts from quotes. Hemantha (talk) 03:01, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. But if the students changing their position was the biggest thing that happened, isn't it funny that none of the sources even devoted a whole sentence to it, let alone explain why they changed their position? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:42, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Venkat TL, I don't think, ThePrint source should be discounted; much of it was corroborated in a parallel IE investigation published a bit later. Also Kautilya3, I was the one who had pointed out the long investigative piece in ThePrint to you. It provides details about the early stages of the issue but I never meant it to be considered as conclusive or superseding other sources.

If you notice, it doesn't put its own voice behind any of the various claims around hijabs before January, instead attributing it to individuals and sources (in contrast to say the PFI's involvement). It does indicate that the hijab was not being allowed at the least in some cases, whether that was an official school policy or was even being consistently implemented is unclear. That the status quo had not changed, is only the principal's claim in ThePrint source. What is conclusive is that the MLA did intervene in January laying out that hijabs shouldn't be allowed.

And consider the context that the six students have been under intense pressure so it's not surprising that they given conflict statements at different times. They are teenagers faced with a persistent media storm, in addition their personal information was leaked and used to harass them.^[1] Tayi Arajakate _Talk 23:29, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I misremembered :-( There is too much going on on this talk page!

By "changing position" by the students, I don't mean their statements, but rather their position on hijab. It changed decisively in December 2021. That the college didn't change any policy is clear from the students' own statements, e.g., the first reference below. The MLA is not mentioned in The Print article. He is given prominence only in the New York Fog. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:17, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Someone from among the contributors who is adding formatted wikitext instead of ((Cite news)), needs to stop doing it. e.g. "Karnataka hijab row: No problem for 3 decades; girls instigated, says edu minister" and "Hijab row: Karnataka govt sets up expert committee". Sammi Brie had fixed a few she found. remaining needs to be converted to citation template too. See WP:REFB. The guy who is adding this should take notice. Thanks. Venkat TL (talk) 17:22, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is Kautilya3. I say this simply as a strongly encouraged best practice, not as a must-do. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:25, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, from this diff this is indeed @Kautilya3. Kautilya3 please take note and comply. Venkat TL (talk) 10:51, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comply with what? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:52, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think he is objecting to the use of minimum required parameters, and wants you to include the entire set (dates, names, etc). Personally, Im fine with either as long as the citation works. Not the best practice but if it works, it works.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 11:17, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kautilya3, with MOS:REFERENCES Venkat TL (talk) 12:10, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have always complied with that. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:30, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kautilya3, No. MOS:REFERENCES states, "Editors may use any citation method they choose, but it should be consistent within an article." Others in this article are using the citation templates, you can use it too. See Wikipedia:Citing sources and WP:REFB Venkat TL (talk) 14:29, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let it be, while it is desirable its not something to have an argument over. As long as the citations work, its workable. The formatting can be improved later when the article stabilises.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 17:24, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For me following WP:REFB takes up less time to produce a ((Cite news)) ref in comparison to creating this formatted wikitext, that would also need further work by another editor. Venkat TL (talk) 17:57, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody needs to do any additional work. My citations are quite fine as they are. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:28, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kautilya3 it may be fine for you, but the reviewers demand that the refs be made consistent throughout the article following MOS. Why dont you leave the links bare Ref tag - bare URL - Ref Tag. That way the Citation expander bot or the refill tool can do the extra work of filling in the title and other meta data for you. It is a win win for you and everyone. Venkat TL (talk) 18:34, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The citation expander often doesn't work for me, and, even when it works, it often can't identify the newspaper or the date etc., while it adds an access-date field which is perfectly useless. Leave it to me. If the reviewers have a problem, I will deal with it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:43, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kautilya3, you reworded and added back the lines on UJMO I'd removed. Note the following inaccuracies you've reintroduced.

• On romanisation of ಒಕ್ಕೂಟ: They prefer Okkuta - see this search which includes what I think is their FB. Okkutta is very unusual - google shows only 2 hits before 2022. Even with reporters unfamiliar with Kannada jumping in, there are only around 100 or so hits now in 2022. So the claim, in the footnote, that Muslim Okkutta, also spelt Muslim Okkoota is border-line wrong and definitely unnecessary.

• Your addition During January, efforts were made to resolve the dispute with the involvement of the Udupi district Muslim Okkutta is quite clearly a mis-interpretaion. The Print article is very clear that whatever involvement Muslim Okkuta had, was before January. The sentence right before the quote you use is this - Before the hijab issue reached the headlines, there were weeks of efforts .... Another sentence later in the article is By the end of December, though, nobody was in the mood for a compromise, according to the Muslim Okkoota leader.

• Most importantly, the whole claim of Muslim Okkoota participating in dispute resolution is sourced to a single statement from an insider who wished to be anonymous. The statement from the 'anon leader' - the body had tried its best to convince the families that it was acceptable to remove the hijab in class - itself is very vague and much weaker than the strong claims you've added. The other source you use, Indian Express is simply quoting an Okkuta leader and has nothing on their supposed 'dispute resolution' attempts.

The whole addition is riddled with errors and undue as well, so I can't suggest any improvement other than removal. Hemantha (talk) 04:08, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, the spelling, dates etc can be corrected, I doubt anyone would really object to it. On the Undue part, I disagree, it is a major organisation for the welfare of Muslims in Udupi. Why do you want to remove any statement by them? Unless you consider the print unreliable, a statement made by them should be assumed correct. Rather similar to how we accept the existence of Tek Fog since we rely on The Wire being a reputed source. You had removed statements from them earlier too, that were well sourced. If you say that the reason for removing the prior statement is "anonymity" , then Indian Express gives the name as well.

I think this section can indeed be expanded upon, but removing it would be egregious.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 08:42, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Jack Sparrow, I suggest reading the text before replying. The added text makes claims extrapolating from their statement. If it is just the statement that needs inclusion, it can go in the reactions section. Hemantha (talk) 12:20, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We spell words the way they are spelt in English language reliable sources. If there is some other preferred spelling, you are welcome to add it, as well as the native script.

I have added December to the sentence and added another quote for your reading pleasure. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:23, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again, no RS is talking about this, they are only quoting members. Your text (along with the new addition which is also an insider quote) is basically repeating the claims of the leaders themselves in wiki-voice. Note that none of your sources report it as fact, they only use the quotes of the leaders. Hemantha (talk) 13:33, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The only "claim" my text is making is that efforts were made to resolve the dispute. The given sources are enough evidence for it. I hae no information that the second comentator is an "insider". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:47, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And how can your text claim something in wiki-voice based on quotes used in news? The sources at no point corroborate in any way what the leaders claim. On insider, the IE article says right before the quote you've pasted - one of the NGOs that coordinates with the Okkoota. If that isn't enough, see this - Udupi Zilla Muslim Okkuta’s Mohammed Moula, Hussain Kodibengre, Abdul Azeez Udyawar. I have to exhort you, in your own words, to pay #Attention to detail please! Hemantha (talk) 14:01, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If Kodibengre was a functionary of the Okkoota at some point, he isn't any more. He is running a separate organisation. I find plenty of sources mentioning him in connection with the Association of Protection of Civil Rights.[16]. In any case, none of the "claims" made by the individuals are stated in the article, just the fact that efforts were made at resolution. If the quotes bother you, I can take them out. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:34, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your text is completely based on the quotes. If you mean you'll remove the text on UJMO participating in dispute resolution, I agree. Hemantha (talk) 03:54, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kautilya3 reverted me here again to retain inaccurate text. So please show sources for the sentences but, over time, the majority of college CDCs have adopted them. The rise in student numbers is said to have been a factor in this trend. The referenced articles do not contain any text to support this. There are two relevant quotes from an official in the IE article, but the added text goes much further than paraphrasing him. At best, the quotes imply "some colleges have adopted them to aid in identifying students", but that will still need attribution to the official. The Hindu article is about the new feb 5 circular and makes no points about adoption or student numbers. Hemantha (talk) 12:42, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This paragraph contains both the bits of information:

Dakshina Kannada DDPU Jayanna C D, agreed the uniform is not mandatory, but said that colleges have made it mandatory for the purpose of ‘identification’ of their students. Jayanna, who was earlier principal of a government college in Channarayapatna, Hassan district, said that in colleges where there are 1,500 to 2,000 students, it is difficult to handle them if they turn up without uniforms.^[2]

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:50, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the quote and have said why your text isn't backed by it. The sentence - agreed the uniform is not mandatory, but said that colleges have made it mandatory - itself is contradictory/ambiguous enough that the statement can't be used. But also it does not say anything about the "rise in student numbers" or "many colleges". It only makes a reference about large numbers and possibly implies "some colleges".

I'm pretty sure your English is good enough that language unfamiliarity is not the reason for this dissembling you're employing here. Drop it. Hemantha (talk) 13:19, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the source is using "mandatory" in funny ways, but I see the meaning of the statement as being clear. The government/PU department hasn't made uniforms mandatory but the colleges have. Another sentence in the same source also says:

Sources said almost all PU colleges in the state have made uniforms mandatory for their students though it is a violation of state guidelines.

It is becoming increasingly clear that you have reading difficulties and vested in this issue in some form. I suggest you take a break. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:56, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In a new section/thread on my talk, feel free to educate me about the meaning of "mandatory", keeping in mind that the colleges do not have the mandate and department explicitly had said that insisting on uniforms is a violation.

But here please stick to the original issue - the sourcing for "rise in numbers" and "many colleges adopting" uniforms. Point out which quote says or implies those two things. Hemantha (talk) 14:09, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are you even reading the highlighted text? After all the messages you gave me on my talk page, this was not expected of you. Many colleges: covered by "almost all". Rise in numbers- Covered by the statement saying that higher no. of students are difficult to handle with no uniform. Mandatory- No idea what issue you have with the word. It is said in a less than perfect english, but the meaning is still pretty clear.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 17:22, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no statement saying "higher no. of students", there is a quote implying "large number of students" Is the quote - Sources said almost all PU colleges ... - something that looks like it can be included as a fact in wiki-voice? Reporter is making it clear that he hasn't verified it by using the anonymous attribution.

The sources till now brought only support something like "Deputy Director of PU department of the neighboring district said colleges have adopted them to aid in identifying students". If I modify the text to that, are you two going to revert me again? Hemantha (talk) 03:52, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"but, according to various college officials, the majority of college CDCs have adopted them. A large number of students enrolled in the institute, making administration more difficult, is said to be be a factor in this trend." An alternate version since you have been objecting to quite reasonable phrases, and the time invested is simply not worth the returns.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 06:16, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can somebody explain what "first grade" means? It is said to be a degree college. But students were turned away from one of those as well.[17] -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:35, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I understand, it refers to any higher educational institutions which admits +2 passouts, e.g one that provides Bachelor's degrees. Not all such colleges have that designation in their name though. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 23:41, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So, these colleges have no right to impose any dressing restrictions, right? They had no mandate from either the government or the High Court for this? They are just making hay when the sun shines? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:47, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]