Talk:2022 Karnataka hijab row/Archive 1

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


 * I had removed it as had added it violating WP:SYNTH. If it is added it needs to be added separately, with reliable source. Without creeping any False equivalence. Due to these issues it was removed. Venkat TL (talk) 17:56, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure, Ill add it back with the relevant citations.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 17:58, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * @CapnJackSp Since it was added once and removed once already. Please folow WP:BRD and discuss the draft here, to get consensus before adding. Venkat TL (talk) 18:00, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, sure. No issues, no need to cite policy every time you make a request, its fine.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 18:02, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * you might also want to respond to the section above, seems relevant.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 18:04, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * @CapnJackSp, If you know WP:BRD already why then did you say that you will add it back? Your comment necessitated the mention of the Link. Venkat TL (talk) 18:11, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * There were counter protests by students against allowing students wearing the hijab to enter the college. These students marched to the college wearing saffron shawls. However, authorities stopped them from entering the premises, and asked the students to remove the shawls. The students were allowed in only after they complied with the request.

@CapnJackSp, Needs date when this happened. Once you include date. It can be added. Venkat TL (talk) 18:22, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * CapnJackSp has added the dates and included into the article. Marked as resolved. Venkat TL (talk) 18:58, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Line from CNN
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)
 * Which parts violate WP:CLOP? 'decided by the state government in government schools, and by the school management in private schools'? If that is is only statement violating WP:CLOP, I don't mind it being removed before that version is restored. Rockcodder (talk) 14:59, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * @Rockcodder You can refer to my edit summary with the word WP:CLOP. Instead of reverting to a version. lets propose the draft below and reach a consensus. I agree that I am not entirely right. Venkat TL (talk) 15:01, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I think you missed my edit with the edit summary 'self revert'. Said edit removed the statement violating WP:CLOP. Rockcodder (talk) 15:04, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * If the CLOP bit is still there please remove it. If it is not there, then well lets discuss the topic of the thread above on banning Hijab. Venkat TL (talk) 15:06, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Mark resolved --Venkat TL (talk) 18:59, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

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


 * By mistake you have restored WP:CLOP violation added by CapJackSp. Please see the comment above. Lets discuss this before changing the lead. WP:EDITWAR is not appreciated. Venkat TL (talk) 14:45, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Because the hijab was not banned by the government, the "ban" refers to the individual actions of the educational institutes. Kindly see WP:CITATIONS, Controversial statements must be cited. Kindly provide a source for the government enforcing the ban and not just uniform, else self revert. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 14:47, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * @CapnJackSp. The order effectively banned the hijab. Agree or disagree? What are the WP:RS saying about this. Are they hiding the bit that BJP govt, banned Hijab? Venkat TL (talk) 14:49, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * "Local media reported last week that several schools in Karnataka had denied entry to Muslim girls wearing the hijab citing an education ministry order, prompting protests from parents and students." Reuters Venkat TL (talk) 14:51, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * No, in all institutes that allow the hijab, it did nothing. Leaving it up to the institute is a world of a difference from banning it. I would encourage you to revert your disruptive edits 12, as your assertion of effectively banning is WP:OR. Several is not a ban. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 14:56, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * @CapnJackSp all right. I understand your concern better now. I am willing to modify that bit. Please propose a draft version below. That should cover both the points and sourced by RS. Venkat TL (talk) 14:57, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Why not the actual part that you removed? The issue can be expanded in the body, as "decided by the state government in government schools, and by the school management in private schools, which led to many girls being barred from entry to colleges which did not allow the wearing of the hijab as a part of the uniform." Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 15:13, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * @CapnJackSp, which source is this cited from? Please sign your comment. Venkat TL (talk) 15:06, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Signed it, had forgotten. This is taken from the karnataka GO and the sentence you quoted. IDK if this is an RS, but if not we can just as easily take it from karnataka gov site."Invoking 133 (2) of the Karnataka Education Act-1983, which says a uniform style of clothes has to be worn compulsorily. The private school administration can choose a uniform of their choice"1Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 15:13, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * @CapnJackSp, Primary sources (Govt site/order here) should not be used in controversial topics like this. I am sure we can find Secondary RS for the same. Please see WP:PSTS Venkat TL (talk) 15:17, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you consider the source I provided as unreliable for this purpose? If not, it can be used. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 15:21, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I am saying we should use a secondary source. due to WP:PSTS Venkat TL (talk) 15:25, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I understand that policy, and have attached a secondary source with my previous answer. Check it out. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 15:33, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * For the lead: Later, on 5 February 2022, the Karnataka government issued an order to make uniforms compulsory in educational institutions. For the 'Incidents' section: Later, on 5 February 2022, the Bharatiya Janata Party led Karnataka government issued an order to make uniforms (decided by the state government in government schools, and by the school management in private schools) mandatory, while also stating that in the absence of a dress code, students can wear "the dress which will not affect equality, integrity and law & order". The order effectively banned the hijab in educational institutions which did not allow the wearing of the hijab as a part of the uniform or dress code. Or at least something along these lines. Rockcodder (talk) 15:26, 10 February 2022 (UTC)


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

Thanks. This is much better. Some more tweaks. See below version. Venkat TL (talk) 15:32, 10 February 2022 (UTC) For the lead:
 * Proposal 2

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

For the 'Incidents' section:

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

Source: Reuters and ABP Venkat TL (talk) 15:32, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Slight change,

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)
 * Proposal 3
 * CapnJack I object to your proposal. This is unnecessary. According to local reports will apply to every line in the article. Unless absolutely necessary It is not included. I dont see the necessity here. It is not disputed by anyone. Rockcodder your thoughts on Proposal 2 by me above? Venkat TL (talk) 15:50, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure, I was just using the language of the source you provided yourself. If you could quote an article that says what you wrote, I have no issues.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 15:52, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The reuters article I linked and ABP article by Rock codder is the source. Venkat TL (talk) 15:56, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The ABP one does not mention what happened after the order, and reuters is what I wrote. If you have a source which words it the way you wanted to represent it, do share it. In that case I will not have an issue. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 15:59, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * @CapnJackSp your objections is not clear. You have agreed with Proposal 1. I have only added stuff from Reuters in Proposal 2 and some copy edits. What is your problem with? Venkat TL (talk) 16:07, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Can you change that to "refused to allow students wearing the hijab unless they removed them". Please do mention the schools not allowing students with saffron shawls as well. Rockcodder (talk) 16:11, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, you did add "Several schools cited this order and denied entry to Muslim girls wearing the hijab" Which is the contested part. I cant find that being said in the sources, reuters attributes to local media.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 16:15, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * @Rockcodder It is understood. Moreover neither of the 2 sources we have cited says that. so adding it will be WP:SYNTH. If you have no other objections. then I am adding Proposal 2 into the article. Captain Jack Sparrow read the green font in this page. --Venkat TL (talk) 16:18, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You have not adressed my issues. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 16:21, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * CapnJackSp your objection whatever that is, is incoherent. Venkat TL (talk) 16:23, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Ill assume in good faith you did not notice my previous comment, restating. You added "Several schools cited this order and denied entry to Muslim girls wearing the hijab" Which is the contested part. I cant find that being said in the sources, reuters attributes the statement to local media, and if we go by it we must also maintain AttributePOV. If you can give source saying the same thing without attribution, then quote that source and you can go with proposal 2 else whichever version of proposal 3 is acceptable to you. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 16:30, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Everyword is from local media. What is your real problem? are you saying the school did not do what is reported? Venkat TL (talk) 16:42, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * What "real problem"? I just want you to stick to edits according to policy, and stop making incorrect claims. I have been giving you a lot of leeway here, you are being unnecessarily agressive. Again, unless you can provide a source that says the above without attributing it to unknown sources, yopu may enter this into the article, else the objection stands. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 16:52, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * There is no incorrect claim. Sources are given already. Venkat TL (talk) 17:07, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Btw, "the uniform were to be decided by the state government in government schools, and by the school management in private schools" is wrong in my opinions since I interpreted said statement in the order as "uniforms in use in govt schools (which were decided by state gov) and private schools (which were decided by school management)". And here are the sources for 'schools not allowing saffron shawls https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Mangalore/kundapur-college-students-march-wearing-saffron-shawls/article38386142.ece https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/karnataka/principal-asks-boys-to-remove-saffron-shawl-before-attending-classes/article38379162.ece https://www.deccanherald.com/state/karnataka-districts/hijab-row-students-in-saffron-shawls-take-out-processions-1078328.html And even sources which say that students agreed to remove said shawls. https://www.firstpost.com/politics/hijab-saffron-shawl-controversy-continues-to-linger-in-karnataka-colleges-10355081.html https://www.businesstoday.in/latest/story/hijab-saffron-shawl-controversy-continues-in-karnataka-colleges-321743-2022-02-07 Rockcodder (talk) 16:35, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * @Rockcodder Ok. So use Proposal 2 and create a Proposal 4 from it. It is not clear what changes you want be made in Proposal 2. Venkat TL (talk) 16:40, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * @Rockcodder do note that proposal 2 is disputed, and venkat has yet to answer my issues with it. Kindly use proposal1 if you wish, else wait till the conflict is resolved. Cheers. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 16:55, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Rockcodder has added the content into the article. Marked this as resolved. Venkat TL (talk) 19:00, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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


 * @Kautilya3 Ok. This was added by @Rockcodder who used the unreliable source ABP news after discussion in Since this is a source conflict, we should follow Express. How do you suggest we fix this issue? Venkat TL (talk) 18:16, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I will fit it later in the night when things calm down a bit. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:53, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * This RSN discussion mentioned ABP news as a reliable source., please take a look at these. "Last week, the government had issued an order to make uniforms prescribed by it or management of private institutions mandatory for its students at schools and pre-university colleges across the state." Financial Express is the business news imprint of Indian Express. ". . . the order by Padmini SN of the education department (pre-university) stated that students will have to wear the dress chosen . . . a uniform style of clothes has to be worn compulsorily." "The Karnataka government on Saturday issued an order making it compulsory for students to wear only such uniforms as prescribed by the government, or their respective school or college managements."


 * Rockcodder (talk) 19:40, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The reason confusion exists is precisely why the Indian Express published an explainer. The order hasn't made a "new rule" to make the uniforms compulsory, but merely reiterated the existing practice and ruled out any exceptions for hijab. The IE's explainer tells you all the details, and I think it trumps all other half-baked news reports. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:25, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I see. Thanks for clarifying it. I wasn't able to read the explainer completely since it requires a premium subscription. Rockcodder (talk) 05:19, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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


 * It's more complicated than this, but the statement that hijabs have not been allowed generally is inaccurate. Most Muslims who attend mixed PUCs and colleges didn't wear it but some did and that wasn't seen as contradictory to the mandated uniform. They just wore it on top of their uniform, it isn't much different from a headscarf. For a similar context, they were treated as Sikh turbans would be. Those who attended Muslim schools would generally wear the full burkha particularly if you go to the urban areas, which would be disallowed in mixed schools. If it matters, I have done my schooling from the coastal Karnataka belt.
 * By the way, Pre-University College in Karnataka refers to +2 or senior/higher secondary schools and not actual colleges, where uniforms are ubiquitous in most parts of India. From what I understand, the dispute is arising now because for whatever reason some schools have started asserting that the hijab isn't a part of the uniform after the pandemic. CFI/PFI is of course involved, they have become particularly strong in the area in last few years and are possibly pushing the Muslims towards more conservative attitudes which contributes to this. The antagonism towards them from the Hindu Jagarana Vedike and the RSS universe doesn't help either.
 * ThePrint has published a good investigative piece (after a long time) on it which can attest to some of the above. In any case, it would be quite useful for the article. I might look into revamping/expanding it if I get some time. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 01:59, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, new information is coming to light. According to an apparently competent article in the New Indian Expresss, the Udupi college was one of the "few colleges" that had disallowed hijab. 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. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:09, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

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

Was this a later development?VR talk 22:27, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * There are many colleges that have been described as being in "Udupi". I doubt if NYT can tell them apart. Can you get the full citation please? I get pay-walled otherwise. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:34, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The text in the quote above is directly from NYT. I don't think I can copy and paste the entire article here without being sanctioned for copyright vio. (Someone once asked me to copy paste a couple of pages from a book into wikipedia, and an admin warned me not to do that). It clearly identifies "Government Women’s PU", as opposed to referring to a generic college in Udupi.VR talk 23:03, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I am asking for a WP:Full citation. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:20, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Does that help? Also, I'm curious as to how a full citation helps you get around a paywall? I sometimes use outline.com but it doesn't work for most sites. Do you have a better way? VR talk 23:33, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks! If I have the title (which sometimes matches with the print version) and date, I can look for it in libraries.
 * This article is dated yesterday, and is making claims about what happened last September, December and January, based on what the petitioiners and their lawyer have said. It can hardly trump the ground reports that appeared in the newspapers at the time. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:50, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Is it possible that the policy evolved over time? The NYT article seems to indicate that when it says "Then the issue started blowing up".VR talk 01:19, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

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

BJP role
As I was discussing with 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: Thus this should be covered in the article.VR talk 01:48, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * " The Guardian
 * "" New York Times
 * "" Deutsche Welle
 * "" Al-Jazeera
 * "" SCMP
 * "" France24
 * " HRW
 * ""The Diplomat
 * " The Guardian
 * Some of these criticisms can probably go in the 5th February Government Order, which hasn't been written yet in any detail. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:00, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * There's indications in sources that the hijab ban was the supported by a local BJP politician (see NYT source above and sources below) well before the Feb 5 announcement. Colleges were also pressured into expelling Muslim girls by right wing organizations like ABVP.
 * TOI (not a great
 * Deccan Herald, Jan 1
 * Al-Jazeera, Jan 18
 * Siasat, Feb 1.
 * The Print, Jan 7
 * VR talk 04:05, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you @Vice regent for digging this out. The cat is out of the bag. Now I request you to see where some IP user along with other blanked a relevant section entirely, even though it was reliably sourced. Venkat TL (talk) 08:46, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

We also have this from the Indian Express:

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)

Attention to detail please!
But if you check the source, you would notice that the college did not bar entry on 3 February ("Thursday"). Rather they were blocked by the saffron crowd. The next day, 4 February, the Principal cited the "government order" to disallow hijab. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:07, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my mistake, fixed it.VR talk 19:26, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

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


 * background does not necessarily need to be causation. Articles on events use this section to give an idea of concurrent and related events. See Gorge Floyd related pages. Venkat TL (talk) 17:05, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Do note that WP:OTHERCONTENT style arguments are not considered proper. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 17:08, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

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


 * A few more references added. Venkat TL (talk) 18:09, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * What exactly do they say that establishes any "background"? WP:CITEKILL doesn't get you WP:CONSENSUS. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:11, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Overcite fixed by bundle. Please spend the time checking the refs first instead of first arguing here. Some more were added. Venkat TL (talk) 18:13, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

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

Copying the content here for reference. Venkat TL (talk) 19:11, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * "Intensified" and elections that will occur sometime in the future do not suggest a "background". "Background" refers to what happened in the past which creates the context for these events. At the moment, we don't have any decent sources. Everybody is running around like chickens without actually knowing what is happening.
 * The right background for this article should cover the history of uniforms in Karnataka, what regulations exist and what the school & college policies there have been, and what objections might have been raised in the past etc. But nobody has any of this information yet. So, no "background" as far as I am concerned. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:31, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * From the quoted references
 * CNN doesn't verify (see quote at the top of the section)
 * BBC quotes Karnataka Education Minister B. C. Nagesh about elections
 * Deccan Herald is opinion article WP:RSEDITORIAL
 * Firstpost is opinion article
 * India Today is opinion article
 * Times of India (WP:TOI, this is a joke- quotes "an academician", former BJP MLA, "those familiar with...", "some frustrated students")
 * ABP Live says "Ahead of the assembly elections in five states ... the war of words has erupted among the politicians"
 * None of the citations provide any background into the elections. I agree with Kautilya's last para. — DaxServer (t · c) 19:48, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * @DaxServer These references from reputed newspapers clearly mention the ongoing elections show the relevance and link between the ongoing elections and this sectarian dispute. CNN article mentions election 2 times. BBC too clearly mentions the link. This is getting into the ridiculous territory. I have raised this at Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard. Venkat TL (talk) 20:20, 10 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I added some background here. I think background is necessary, this incident did not happen in a vacuum. An upcoming elections can certainly constitute background, as parties are in campaign mode.VR talk 21:23, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, it didn't happen in vacuum. Like Kautilya said, a "background" refers to what happened in the past that led to this incident. And right now, we don't have sources to add elections as background. Only how this is changing the elections and campaigning. — DaxServer (t · c) 22:09, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * We do have sources, like this article in France24. The upcoming elections were scheduled to occur in the past, and RS tell us that this schedule is influencing political behavior.VR talk 22:16, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * France24, WP, Al Jazeera hardly has a base in India (CNN has CNN-News18). They are WP:TERTIARY sources. We need good WP:SECONDARY sources, who actually study Indian politics and the likes. — DaxServer (t · c) 06:44, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I think these sources are WP:SECONDARY, not WP:TERTIARY. But even if they were tertiary, that's good enough for wikipedia. If you still disagree, we can take this up at WP:RSN.VR talk 23:44, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

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

The reason is that it has become apparent that the government was not an outside observer. It intervened actively and influenced the events. The government order of 4 February intensified the banning of hijab by the institutions. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:01, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Why did you remove these Government reactions? I'm fine if you want to reorganize into chronological order. But if you want to remove it entirely, you need to justify it.VR talk 23:41, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * No. The WP:ONUS to justify is always on those who want to include particular content. As an encyclopaedia, our objective is to provide information. Certain amount of rhetoric can always be included to give a gist of the way the players are thinking. But that is not the end-all. We can't go overboard. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:45, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The justification is that these are notable reactions that have been covered in numerous reliable sources (more sources cover these reactions than cover some of the reactions you insisted on covering at ).VR talk 02:27, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Mandya incident
The BBC article 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".

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


 * What she was wearing would be a half burqa with a hijab (a body covering with a headscraf on top and the face left open) per the BBC article's typology which is what she might be referring to as a burqa. The NDTV article where her comment is sourced from, itself calls it a hijab in its own voice. Note that she also states that "We used to wear the burqa and hijab all the time. I wore the hijab in class and used to remove the burqa", i.e she would take off the body covering. We shouldn't be coming to our own conclusions and just state what the sources themselves say. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 02:14, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The situation is complicated by the fact that everyone is wearing covid masks. Burqa can imply a dress that also covers the face, and Muskan was covering her face, but I'm not sure if her face covering was due to religious reasons or covid safety. A closeup of her mask shows it looks more like a well-fitted covid mask, as opposed to the loose face veil Muslim women sometimes wear.VR talk 21:19, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Tayi Arajakate is right that she was wearing a "half burqa" and a hijab. She has described it very clearly to NDTV. If people are not comfortable with leaving it as it is, I can add a footnote clarifying. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:40, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I think we should just stick to the sources per WP:NOR. BBC and NDTV just calls it a hijab, CNN goes into a bit more detail and states "Khan had covered her head with a hijab, an Islamic headscarf, and was wearing a religious dress" so we should either use "hijab" or "hijab with a religious dress". Tayi Arajakate  Talk 04:18, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Rearranging
can you explain this rearranging? You put a view at the top of the section about the practice of uniforms in Karnataka. Then I put an alternative view, which has also been covered by RS. I made sure to put this view immediately below the view you put. But you then moved that view even lower into a paragraph that is not about uniforms. Do you not think that alternative views are WP:DUE? VR talk 18:41, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The first paragraph is dealing with the background on uniforms. The second paragraph is dealing with Muslim issues. It should have been obvious. It doesn't make sense to first talk about hijab and then go back to saying 13% Muslim population etc. That would be doing things backwards. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:14, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The content that you moved is talking about uniforms. Take a look:
 * Alternatively, we should start the section with well known neutral facts, 13% Muslim population etc, and then get into uniforms. But once we get into uniforms, we have to cover all significant viewpoints. The view that the uniform policy did not previously restrict the hijab has been reported by RS, hence is significant.VR talk 20:17, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * "Neutral"? What is non-neutral about uniforms?
 * The disputes here are in the context of school uniforms. That is the first context that needs to be covered.-- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:24, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * There are disputing narratives whether hijab has been allowed as part of the uniforms or not. WP:NPOV requires us to cover all POVs. WP:DUE requires us to give them due prominence.VR talk 23:39, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * There are no serious disputes. I am afraid you are mistaken. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:21, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I literally quoted multiple reliable sources saying the hijab had not been restricted in the past.VR talk 00:44, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, they were allowed certainly. But no information is available as to whethehr they were "part of the uniforms". As far as I can see, it has been an informal concession, rarely written down, just dependent on the involved officials' goodwill and interpretation. When secular parties were in power, everybody would have assumed that it is the right thing to do. But now that a Hindu nationalist party is in power and the issue has blown up in the most spectacular way, everybody would go by the book. And the book says nothing about hijab. That means that it is not part of the uniform. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:31, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Again, the former minister of education says otherwise: "" This is relevant to the issue of uniforms. VR talk 02:31, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)

What was the previous uniform policy?
The article currently states twice that hijab was banned in the past:

But sources, including one used as a citation in the above text, say something else: 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.
 * ThePrint
 * Deccan Herald

Interviews with female Muslim students done by The Guardian and New York Times also indicate that students report being allowed to wear the hijab in the past (I've added this to the article recently). VR talk 01:19, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Every college sets its own policy via its 'College Development Council', which has some staff, some parents and some local bigwigs. Not all colleges have uniforms but the majority do. (We are only talking about PU colleges here.) For women, the uniform policies generally state the colours of salwar, kameez and the duppatta. Nothing else is supposed to be worn. But, unofficially, it turns out, most colleges have been allowing hijab in the same colour as the duppatta. (Tayi Arajakate mentioned this somewhere above.) But the Government ordre of 5 February, which said "the uniforms must be worn compulsorily" (or something to that effect) have put a stop to these unofficial concessions. This meant that the students that have been attending classes with hijab suddenly find that they are being blocked. (This to me is the most unfair thing in the whole saga, and I wrote "tearful pleas fell on deaf ears".) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:52, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * As for politician claims about what they did 40 years ago, let them produce what they have instituted in the rules. You will find nothing. As far as I can see, all allowances have been unofficial. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:05, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I added that claim with attribution, not as fact or in wikipedia's voice.VR talk 06:18, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

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


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


 * Okay, I can correct it to had been for many years attending the college, following its rules..... The "Later" npart comes in due to the fact that these details were not available originally, and have been only recently published. The "revealed" part was that the students had initially complied with the rules, but later protested when their parents objected to the rules. Neither of the two sources you have provided speak of it.
 * The material you introduced was essentially an allegation by a student, which was stated as fact, which cannot be allowed. Im wiling to include that under a section "Conflicting Accounts" to cover the different "origin stories" given by the protestors. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 05:26, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Formatted wikitext instead of cite news
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)
 * I think it is . 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)
 * Yes, from this diff this is indeed @Kautilya3. Kautilya3 please take note and comply. Venkat TL (talk) 10:51, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comply with what? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:52, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * @Kautilya3, with MOS:REFERENCES Venkat TL (talk) 12:10, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I have always complied with that. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:30, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * @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 Citing sources and WP:REFB Venkat TL (talk) 14:29, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * For me following WP:REFB takes up less time to produce a 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)
 * Nobody needs to do any additional work. My citations are quite fine as they are. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:28, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * @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)
 * 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)