Talk:2022 Karnataka hijab row/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Source for uniform adoption in PU colleges

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)

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.

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

Who are those "various college officials"? I'm not going to address "majority" since I've addressed it already above (unless you have other sources of course). Hemantha (talk) 11:58, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

References

Template "by whom" in Udupi section

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)

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

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. DaxServer pointed me to a long investigative piece in ThePrint published on 11 February. The New York Times was still saying that the prohobition was imposed in January, much to the admiration of many people involved here!

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

References

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)

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. For your convenience, I've bolded the relevant parts from quotes. Hemantha (talk) 03:01, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

References

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)

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. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 23:29, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

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)

Sorry, misunderstood what you meant there. Though, a student saying they started wearing hijabs does not mean a policy change didn't occur and I didn't mean ThePrint article had mentioned it. Anyways, I might have deviated this discussion and this should probably discussed in the section above. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 14:37, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

First grade degree college

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.[1] -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:35, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

I am not too aware of the legal specifics but yes, the mandate is only given to PUCs. They are all using the February 5 order to justify it. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 14:38, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Some ten years ago

• Girl submits complaint to DC on hijab row, The Times of India, 13 August 2011. ProQuest 883328954

Hadiya (17), II PU commerce student of Jain PU College in Moodbidri, submitted a written complaint to deputy commissioner Channappa Gowda on Thursday seeking permission to wear the hijab (headscarf) in classroom. .. Hadiya used to wear the hijab before the college made uniform compulsory when she was in I PU. However, the college management did not allow her to do so this year, forcing Hadiya to remain at home... Campus Front of India (CFI) has condemned the ban on hijab in the college.

• K. T. Vinobha, Stalemate on hijab row continues, The Times of India, 9 September 2011. ProQuest 888135599

The college management had brought to the notice of department of PU education that Hadiya used to attend classes wearing the college uniform when she was in I PU. The college management's intention is to maintain discipline inside campus with uniform, it has stated. The authorities have also submitted a photograph to the department of PU education in which Hadiya is seen wearing the uniform like her classmates.

Speaking to TOI Hadiya said that wearing the hijab is part of her religious practice. She has brought the issue to the notice of the National Advisory Council (NAC) too.

The college has firmly maintained that they have been following the rules from the past 20 years. If she could wear uniform while she was in I PU, why has it become an issue now, they question.

The more things change, the more they remain the same. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:56, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

POV statement

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

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

Well who is making this accusation? One of the sources cited[2], 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[3] is an op-ed by "Ghazala Wahab" and I have no idea why her opinion is important here. But at least this should be attributed as "According to Ghazala Wahab, X and Y, ..."VR _talk 23:13, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

References

The paragraph immediately preceding the one you posted says

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

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

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

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

There are two policy violations here:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I did suggest alternative wording at the top of this section[4]: "According to ..." Do you oppose that? Also please focus on the content and refrain from casting WP:ASPERSIONs.VR _talk 01:46, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

@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)

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

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

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

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

Wings

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

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

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

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

Form

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

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

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

Radical Islamic

So ABVP is Hindu nationalist but PFI is "often described as radical islamic organisation" in a side note Neutral POV? Bharat0078 (talk) 14:17, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

If you want to change that, gather sources, make a proposal, and generate WP:CONSENSUS. Just making snide remarks won't get you anywhere. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:27, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Undue content on UJMO sourced to an anonymous claim

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.[5]. 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)

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)

@Kautilya3, the text with quotes is still there. Can I remove them? Hemantha (talk) 02:47, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2022

In the, "Violence" section, there is a false allegation, "Hazra Shifa, one of the petitioners in the Karnataka High Court, alleged that her brother Saif was beaten up by a group of intoxicated people...... ". Please remove it.- 2409:4071:4E81:EEE0:5B3D:5059:EB56:2FF (talk) 04:39, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to be connected to this hijab row directly.-2409:4071:4E81:EEE0:5B3D:5059:EB56:2FF (talk) 04:45, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done. The source relates it.

Unless the quality of your edit requests improves, we will simply remove them. You are wasting people's time. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:57, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2022 (2)

The second paragraph of the lead begins with, "Petitions were filed in the Karnataka High Court on behalf of the aggreieved students." Please change the spelling of, "aggreieved" to, "aggrieved".- 116.75.94.221 (talk) 05:02, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 07:53, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2022 (4)

The last sentence of the second paragraph reads, "As of February 2022, hearings from the petitioners, the state and the colleges were ongoing". Please change it to, "The Karnataka High Court hearing the hijab case concluded the hearing on the eleventh day and the verdict is reserved" using this and this as sources.- 2409:4071:D1B:F46:228:98C8:25DE:649A (talk) 21:06, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done Kautilya3 (talk) 23:49, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2022 (3)

In the, "Udupi dispute" subsection of the "Events" section, the second sentence of the second paragraph reads, "The student wing of Islamic organisation Popular Front of India (PFI), called Campus Front of India (CFI), threatened a protest, prompting the college to arrange a police presence", in which there is a link to the PFI but please add a link to the Campus Front of India also. Thanks!- 116.72.145.43 (talk) 18:30, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks. >>> Extorc.talk(); 18:37, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2022 (2)

The second sentence of the second paragraph of the, "Events" section reads, "The Campus Front of India (CFI), the student wing of the extremist Islamic organisation Popular Front of India (PFI), threatened a protest, prompting the college to arrange a police presence.", in which there is a link to the PFI but please add a link to the Campus Front of India also. Thanks!- 116.75.95.165 (talk) 18:22, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done. Rockcodder (talk) 18:40, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

@116.75.95.165  Done: I don't know how the link was removed, i had added it in the past as well. Thanks >>> Extorc.talk(); 18:41, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

K. S. Eshwarappa

K. S. Eswarappa's comments were inserted twice. We can't do this. The Home minister is the minister in charge of law and order, and he said no link has been found between protests and the murder. Please don't add comments by random politicians. This particular politician seems a complete loose cannon -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:48, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: I had assumed that the problem was 1)said information being inserted in between another statement and its ref and 2)the lack of its own ref. I had failed to read the edit summary of your revert. Rockcodder (talk) 11:39, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Debate in Pakistan refs

There is more debate and comparison in Pakistani media. This article seem to have scope for the same. Here is one article in Washington post

If article writing users are okay I would like add one (neutrally intended) para to this article giving info on debate in Pakistan.

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 10:09, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Opinion pieces are not RS. If you can find reliable sources, you are free to suggest a paragraph for inclusion here. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 10:31, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

@CapnJackSp, It is not true that Opinion pieces are not RS. I think you need to read Wikipedia:Reliable sources before misleading others. @Bookku, what are you trying to add? It would have a merit depending on what is the draft proposal. Venkat TL (talk) 11:59, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Looks like my mistake, thanks. Still, in this context the inclusion seems unnecessary - The article is essentially about the irony of Pakistan lecturing other nations on minorities while a systemic exploitation of minorities, arguably a greater one, is occuring in Pakistan. It compares and contrasts the claims of Pakistani politicians against India with incidents in Pakistan. Not quite relevant to the issue at hand. More about incidents in Pakistan than those in Karnataka. Like I said, Bookku is still welcome to suggest an inclusion, but this source does not seem particularly useful. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 12:11, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Okay no issues

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 11:08, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

@Venkat TL: may be we wait for a week or so, once K. High Court decision comes tempratures at least on Wikipedia will cool down since 'preferably' I do not want to get stuck in edit wars or indirect censorship from either side because that becomes waste of time.

As far as Pakistan has concerned all the sides have criticized limitations coming on freedom of choice on Muslim girls in Karnataka education institutions.

Orthodox side Pakistan: For whatever political reasons if not officially then unofficially Pakistan establishment (Read Govt plus Pak army backed orthodoxy) seem to refocus coming International Women's Day as Hijab Day and use occasion to criticize claimed instances in India this time probably Karnataka will continue with focus.

'Liberal side Pakistan' is criticizing both one side it is criticizing Karnataka issue other side equally they are highlighting hypocrisy of Pakistan's orthodoxy which is talking about right to choice and rights for Muslim women in India but ignoring rights and plight of Women in Pakistan.

Credible sources from Pakistan media are available besides by women's day at least couple of other international media will jump in to criticize both sides equally that's the trends since at least last five year or so about women's day media coverage in Pakistan.

Usually I try to cover all sides as is with due wait but since I cover media as is. Some residual of original media reports tone may remain till copy edits; some feel I am giving tone but that is not the case, that what related source would have said. Other than taking care for avoiding copy right issues I prefer neutral stance same time I am a skeptic on all sides many times I end up covering criticism first even for issues I would have soft corner and unfortunately real neutral one settles in no group to support so I prefer to work in least edit war environment. So I may take time to add the things though I tentatively discussed now.

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 12:32, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

@Bookku Thanks for the detailed reply. It does indeed sounds like Pakistani politicians doing domestic politics using an international incident. Unless things blow out of proportion in Pakistan over this or there is a notable incident, I doubt there is much benefit in distracting the reader from the Karnataka incident to discuss Pakistan politics. It would possibly go in response section in Pakistan para. If there is a worth reading content we can possibly talk about it, but I am not very optimistic it could be added here. If there is an existing article of Hijab in Pakistan, may be that content could be added there in a para and linking this article. Venkat TL (talk) 12:46, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, agree with Venkat here.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 13:32, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Okay no issues

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 12:51, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

The six students

The media has made it appear as if the six protesting students of Udupi are in the same boat. But, apparently not.

Hazra Shifa:

Speaking to The Indian Express, Hazra Shifa, 18, one of the six girls who are now insisting on wearing the hijab to their classrooms, said that when they joined the Udupi PU College (Classes 11 and 12) in 2020, it told their parents about the no-hijab policy.

A. H. Almas:

The pandemic then kept students away from college for months - during this time, said Ms Almas, they realised that the form only mentioned a compulsory uniform and said nothing about a hijab.

and also:

"We went back and checked. There's no such official rule in the university nor did our parents agree to any such arbitrary policy. So we decided to wear the hijab anyway," Almas added.

Muskan Zainab:

However, Muskan’s father Abdul Shukur denied the existence of such a “uniform dress code”. Several alumni agreed to the same. “We have seen the alumni of the college wear hijab; why is the management imposing such rules now,” Abdul Shukur asked.

But something that does seem to be common between them is this:

The Muslim leader from Udupi also pointed out that the protesting students at the PU College were from localities such as Kaup, Kidiyoor, and Malpe, where the SDPI has come to wield massive political influence among Muslim voters.

We also know three of the parents are members of the SDPI. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:23, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Could probably be incorporated into the article under a new section.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 09:27, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Also from Muskan Zainab:

“Our lecturers said that it (hijab) defies college policy. But when we checked the policy a month ago [middle of December?], we were shocked to see no such mention in the signed agreement. So, we decided to wear hijab from December 28 after repeated appeals to the management turned futile,” said Muskan, who has only taken two days of leave in the academic year.

As we all know, the meeting with Raghupati Bhat was on January 1. Just saying. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:23, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

References

Link Karnataka Education Act ?

Just was trying to go through live updates of the court case. There are multiple references to Karnataka Education Act. At one discussion pleaders are discussing purpose of the act. To understand purpose and spirit of the act reliable link to entire act updated as of the date controversy started is needed. Is there any such verified reliable link available ? If available I would suggest to add in external link and save it in archive.org too.

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 14:37, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done. Under External links. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:01, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Main article for the Court Case

The court case section of this page has become quite big, I suggest instead of expanding it any further, we should create a main article for it under the legal name of the court case and elaborate the day by day arguments made by the advocates and parties.
Correct me if the legal name is SMT RESHAM AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS >>> Extorc.talk(); 18:15, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't think the court case can stand its own. It is intimately tied to the developments narrated on this page.

And, the arguments being made in the court are the central issues of this dispute. It wouldn't make sense to separate them. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:10, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Kautilya3, Okay. I also wanted to know whether it would be appropriate to structure the court case section date-wise or advocate-wise to put forward a better picture of how different parties were represented? >>> Extorc.talk(); 21:16, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I deliberately chose to do it issue-wise. We are an encyclopedia, not a court chronicler. We are telling the reader, for each issues, what the views of the two sides were. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:59, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Kautilya3. Alright, Thanks. >>> Extorc.talk(); 13:08, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I am also for issue wise. Same time IMHO there is some potential for larger scope articles like uniform related court cases (across globe) or Uniform related debates in India. For example previously there are uniform related other controversies in India. If any one starts draft I will contribute but I am unlikely to start any draft on my own since my hands are already full enough with good number of sources to be covered. Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 13:28, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Mention of 2 men carrying weapons in violence section

At the end of the fallout section, there is the mention "Two Muslim men were arrested when they were found carrying lethal weapons during a protest. Three others managed to flee.". Should this be moved to the Violence section.? Extorc (talk) 03:00, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I doubt, they didnt use the weapons for it to be violence.... It seems more relevant in the section it is in.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 06:22, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Separate classrooms

Kautilya3 you removed the following content:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

Well, I suppose that would be a rather neutral form of writing. Dunutubble (talk) 16:45, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

The girls did not "chose to sit in a separate classroom as a sign of protest". The girls are not wearing hijab because of some protest, but rather because they believe it is part of their faith. At best this represents the POV of the BJP government so it can't be stated in wikipedia's voice. There are more sources that state the girls were put into separate classrooms[6]. So a proposed wording can be "The college later allowed hijab wearing students to enter, but designated separate classrooms for hijab wearing students. The decision was defended by the Education Minister, but the hijab wearing students accused the college of religious segregation.".VR _talk 06:11, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

@Vice regent: And your proposal represents the POV of the petitioners/girls. I would suggest including the views of both sides. I would propose adding something along the lines of

The college later allowed hijab-wearing students to enter the campus but did not allow them to attend classes while wearing the hijab per the college policy. The college authorities claimed that following this, the students chose to sit in a separate classroom as a sign of protest. But the hijab-wearing students claim that they were forced to sit in separate classrooms and accused the college of religious segregation.

along with the necessary references. Rockcodder (talk) 09:01, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

If we are still talking about the Kundapura college, the sequence of events is that the college suddenly closed the gates on the hijab-wearing students on 3 or 4 February, citing the government order. (It was the first college to do so.) The students sat outside the gate for a few days, and then the college allowed them to sit inside. It would be wrong to characterise this as students "protesting". It was indeed their "right" because they had been allowed in classes with hijab till this point, despite whatever "policy" the college might have had. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:36, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

References