Talk:2022 Karnataka hijab row/Archive 4

Media debates, list of some balanced sources/ articles

 * Malayala Manorama: https://www.onmanorama.com/news/india/2022/02/05/shashi-tharoor-tv-mohandas-pai-spar-over-karnataka-hijab-row.html

&#32;Bookku, &#39;Encyclopedias &#61; expanding information &#38; knowledge&#39; (talk) 17:47, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2022
The last paragraph of the lead reads, "The hijab ban in high schools and colleges was criticized inside India and abroad by officials in the United States and Pakistan, by Human Rights Watch, and by figures like Malala Yousafzai and Noam Chomsky" but I think they're all misguided, so please add a sentence that they have been misguided/misinformed (or imagine) that it marginalises Muslim women.- 116.72.144.73 (talk) 05:38, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I searched with these words online, "Karnataka hijab ban marginalized Muslim misguided" and found many citable references.-116.72.144.73 (talk) 05:42, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Uniforms in schools are compulsory even in the US, Pakistan and most countries worldwide.-116.72.144.73 (talk) 05:51, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * This talks of their hypocrisy. This is about Paul Pogba's hypocrisy. This is about Priyanka Gandhi's hypocrisy.-116.72.144.73 (talk) 06:31, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * This mentions other countries where it is banned in public places.-116.72.144.73 (talk) 06:34, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * These seem mostly to be twitter banter, I doubt it can be included. If you still think it deserves coverage in the article, you can suggest what you want to be included into the article here.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 08:06, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Those lines are added to mention the reactions by the international community. I don't think it is relevant to mention the merit of these criticisms in this article. Even Taliban, which has a poor track record in relation with Women rights, commented on this issue. It doesn't mean we can sit and debunk all of these statements here. Extorc (talk) 09:13, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:55, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * , In the 7th paragraph of the, "Fallout" subsection of the, "Events" section, Paul Pogba's criticism is mentioned. This can be used as a source to show his hypocrisy with the sentence, "The 'hijab' is however banned in France, showing his hypocrisy." This talks of the hypocrisy of others.-2409:4071:4E0F:F24:7FA0:41E0:BDEB:D539 (talk) 01:46, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The purpose of mentioning that statement there is not to make a point. Its about representing how the international community took notice of this event. It has nothing to do with the merit of the statement itself. I guess you have totally ignored what I said earlier. So ill repeat for you. Even Taliban, which has a poor track record in relation with Women rights, commented on this issue. It doesn't mean we can sit and debunk all of these statements here. >>> Extorc . talk ; 04:15, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, I think it could be included, but not like the OP is suggesting. It can be included in the "Domestic" section, essentially saying that the statements made by foreign personalities and officials were subject to criticism in India ,and then put the cases highlighted. Priyanka Gandhi criticism Ill avoid, its less relevant (domestic politics essentially) but stances taken by other nations have garnered a fair bit of criticism. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 06:34, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I am not sure we can concur with the IP's expectations as is. But I am for having a section on media debate which can include opinions of various sides and that would be better balancing of encyclopedic article. &#32;Bookku, &#39;Encyclopedias &#61; expanding information &#38; knowledge&#39; (talk) 13:22, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * ,, , , , , , , , , I believe both opinions are important. Like says, "include opinions of various sides and that would be better balancing of encyclopedic article."-116.75.95.165 (talk) 17:29, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Just saying, blanket pinging every editor who ever wrote anything on the talk page isnt the best idea. Write your reply, and if you have specific doubts with someone, then ping the individual editors. Other editors who see your message will reply automatically. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 17:35, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * , the hypocrisy of the criticisers should be exposed.-116.75.95.165 (talk) 17:32, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not to expose or promote anyone. If you continue to make such motivated and WP:POV loaded requests, admin may ban you from editing. Venkat TL (talk) 19:05, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Responding to ping. There is no recent proposal to review here. The proposal mentioned on the opening comment is totally inappropriate. Wikipedia cannot pass remarks that noted commentators and noble laureate are misguided. Venkat TL (talk) 19:03, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * , Like says, "include opinions of various sides and that would be better balancing of encyclopedic article." That is all I am requesting (with reliable sources).-116.75.79.71 (talk) 19:27, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * @Bookku, Yes even Im in for that. >>> Extorc . talk ; 17:49, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * ,, , , , , , , , Like says, "include opinions of various sides and that would be better balancing of encyclopedic article." That is all I am requesting (with reliable sources).  After Paul Pogba's statement, to show his hypocrisy, please add the sentence, "The hijab is however banned in France, showing his hypocrisy. " This talks of the hypocrisy of others.This is about criticism of Shashi Tharoor for playing politics. This is about Priyanka Gandhi's hypocrisy.-2409:4071:2182:9EFD:AF6D:7256:9B5C:F91D (talk) 08:25, 1 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Please stop mass pinging all involved editors. Like CJS said, it would be better to ping only those editors with whom you are discussing. Rockcodder (talk) 08:35, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * There is no way that the proposed line can get inserted. I might add a general line about the criticism the individuals faced in India in the "Domestic" section later when I get time, but phrases like "shows his hypocrisy" can not be stated in wikivoice. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 08:57, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * This article is not about 'these individials'. What they faced or did not face in india is not the business of this article. Any such addition will be removed. Venkat TL (talk) 09:02, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * If their statements on this particular instance have seen backlash in India, I dont see why a para cant be inserted into the domestic section.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 13:43, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * , I don't know about the rules as much as you do, so please do what you can. This says, COPYRIGHT VIOLATION REMOVED-2409:4071:2182:9EFD:9B7A:CA7:15C0:7905 (talk) 09:03, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah Copyvios will get removed. Ill see what part is suitable for inclusion. Will have to check other sources as well, will take some time.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 13:43, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * As already told by other users, this IP needs to understand repeated pinging all the users unhelpful. Wikipedia content development is long drawn process and meeting all the expectations of every users can be impractical so one need to have patience. Ip has given it's opinion now can take a break and spend time somewhere else on other productive aspects of life. &#32;Bookku, &#39;Encyclopedias &#61; expanding information &#38; knowledge&#39; (talk) 10:56, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * 2409:4071:2182:9EFD:9B7A:CA7:15C0:7905, I have removed the massive copying of article as Copyright violation. You are warned and repetition will get you blocked. Venkat TL (talk) 11:39, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

IP 2409 is wasting our time with pings
Since there is a consensus that this IP user (last seen on 2409:4071:2182:9EFD:9B7A:CA7:15C0:7905) is a time sink. Today he has violated copyright. I propose that others should simply revert his comments on this page. And seek page protection if he resorts to Edit warring to spam here. Venkat TL (talk) 11:48, 1 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes, generally very negligent of WP policy and basic courtesy. Spam pinging. >>> Extorc . talk ; 12:55, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think his contributions on mainspace are generally rather poor. Kindly keep your comments to the talk page (and no blanket pings, dont post duplicate comments, repetitive comments etc. Not a good practice.). Visit the teahouse, and preferably register an account if you want to edit seriously.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 13:48, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

WP Kannada article
Article in other some other language WP seem to be there but not yet in Kannada itself? Or it is not linked?

&#32;Bookku, &#39;Encyclopedias &#61; expanding information &#38; knowledge&#39; (talk) 03:21, 28 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I dont think one exists yet, there are only 2 results when searching for hijab in Kannada Wikipedia which are totally unrelated. >>> Extorc . talk ; 17:27, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Use of the word "Ban"
In the Paragraph 3 of the lead. The word "Ban" is used twice. I suggest this is not good because there isn't any ban imposed by the government. AG clarified the stance of the Government that it only suggests the students to follow the dress code of the University they are attending. The word Ban in public reactions and court case is okay but in lead section, its use is not justified IMO. I suggest

"The hijab ban in high schools and colleges was criticized inside India and abroad by officials in the United States and Pakistan, by Human Rights Watch, and by figures like Malala Yousafzai and Noam Chomsky. The ban was defended by politicians such as Arif Mohammad Khan, Aaditya Thackeray and Vishva Hindu Parishad and figures like Taslima Nasrin and Masih Alinejad."

to be changed to

"The restrictions on hijab in high schools and colleges was criticized inside India and abroad by officials in the United States and Pakistan, by Human Rights Watch, and by figures like Malala Yousafzai and Noam Chomsky. The restrictions was defended by politicians such as Arif Mohammad Khan, Aaditya Thackeray and Vishva Hindu Parishad and figures like Taslima Nasrin and Masih Alinejad."

@Rockcodder, your thoughts? >>> Extorc . talk ; 06:33, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I have no issues with the above proposal, but I tried doing something similar to the 'The preamble stated that a ban on hijab was not illegal' phrase in the 'Government Reaction' sub-section, but Kautilya accused me (without explicitly naming me) of "trying to edit the text away from that based on sources" for doing so. Using the term 'ban' in wikivoice when one side has repeatedly stated that it has not banned anything is a violation of WP:NPOV in my opinion. Let us wait and see as to how they react to this proposal. Rockcodder (talk) 06:56, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * @Rockcodder, "trying to edit the text away from that based on sources", The para we are talking about does not cite any sources. How can one criticize a ban when it doesn't exist. Use of such terminology might be acceptable in reactions section because these influential people end up critisizing a "Ban" but in the lead, as I stated, should not have a place.
 * "Using the term 'ban' in wikivoice when one side has repeatedly stated that it has not banned anything is a violation of WP:NPOV in my opinion", I agree with you. Moreover this is not a claim from "one side", it is a fact that nothing has been banned yet.
 * >>> Extorc . talk ; 07:13, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I suggest add and update media debate section first. Lead summary depends more on remaining content body. Call on this wording in lead can be taken while summarizing the media debate section.
 * &#32;Bookku, &#39;Encyclopedias &#61; expanding information &#38; knowledge&#39; (talk) 07:16, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * @Bookku, Yes, this can be the right course as well. >>> Extorc . talk ; 07:42, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Oh, just take a look at the range of sources that hvae referred to the government order as a "ban" on hijab. If you want me to add some of them to the article, I will be glad to. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:52, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The Times of India cannot be relied upon for such controversial issues, as per WP:RSP. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:07, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * At outset feel free not to read or to ignore this piece of opinion. I am not contesting word 'ban' too much since Wikipedia's presently settled culture depends on what secondary source says. This is just my incidental intellectual rambling wherein I am analyzing this issue for encyclopedic philosophy vis a vis Wikipedia's structural limitation (Pre–Wikipedia traditional encyclopedist themselves were supposed to be qualified and their writings were supposedly passed from academic preview or editorial review, So Pre–Wikipedia traditional encyclopedist might not have had as much compulsion to rely on secondary sources and might have had some leeway for synthesis and usage of primary sources). To rely on secondary sources is Wikipedia's structural limitation is aggravated due to various pretexts of inclusionary and exclusionary tactics of Wikipedians. The unfortunate part is to what level secondary sources can invent what is not there in primary source is a very well ignored issue by dominant Wikipedian culture.
 * At outset feel free not to read or to ignore this piece of opinion. I am not contesting word 'ban' too much since Wikipedia's presently settled culture depends on what secondary source says. This is just my incidental intellectual rambling wherein I am analyzing this issue for encyclopedic philosophy vis a vis Wikipedia's structural limitation (Pre–Wikipedia traditional encyclopedist themselves were supposed to be qualified and their writings were supposedly passed from academic preview or editorial review, So Pre–Wikipedia traditional encyclopedist might not have had as much compulsion to rely on secondary sources and might have had some leeway for synthesis and usage of primary sources). To rely on secondary sources is Wikipedia's structural limitation is aggravated due to various pretexts of inclusionary and exclusionary tactics of Wikipedians. The unfortunate part is to what level secondary sources can invent what is not there in primary source is a very well ignored issue by dominant Wikipedian culture.


 * I do very much respect news papers as secondary sources still they may have some inherent limitations like using words with intention of attracting their readers in particular ways and many times having less time for using precise words etc.
 * Usage of word 'ban' may have other options from restriction to prevent and prohibit etc each of may be more precise for different different context. In which context which word is more precise can be an interesting discussion. Word 'prohibited' seems to be neatest to the word 'ban'. 'Prohibited' indicates an impossibility. One sense of word 'restricted is used very much like 'Prohibited'; but another sense in different context word restricted means some limits have been placed but it can be possible under some conditions.
 * The plain reading of the Karnataka Government order uses word restricted. A casual attitude can very well translate it as prohibited or banned. But in the education institutions where local committee does not have dress code there usage of headscarf is not getting prohibited or banned so in some possibilities usage is possible. And where in some possibilities usage is possible word 'restricted' becomes more precise specially in context to the government order. In cases where education institutions where dress code is existent without provision for headscarf, what is not in dress code is 'prohibited' becomes precise. Now you can consider nuanced difference between prohibited and banned; in 'banned' sense is some thing was earlier allowed and now it is banned.


 * So as above analyzed government order is not making any changes in local school committee decisions. Technically those are at liberty to continue or change their dress code. Government order only asking to follow dress code on as is basis so other than dress code is getting restricted. Using other word for 'restricted' in case of the Karnataka government order amounts to invention. That is why I earlier said; "The unfortunate part is to what level secondary sources can invent what is not there in primary source is a very well ignored issue by dominant Wikipedian culture."


 * I concede that all the above analysis remains inconsequential since Wikipedia culture values technicalities more than that of merit. There is one Indian celebrity says some where 'In this big world,small small things keep happening'. So it's okay to be imprecise but how far things can be inaccurate in an encyclopedia is food for thought.
 * &#32;Bookku, &#39;Encyclopedias &#61; expanding information &#38; knowledge&#39; (talk) 16:49, 28 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for those comments. The "unfortunate part" is really that this is a contentious subject and the editors bring varying viewpoints to the table. So, we have to go by the book, as far as possible.
 * Prohibit and ban are synonyms according to wikidiff. To me, "prohibit" sounds stronger. For example, you "prohibit" firearms on airplanes, not simply "ban" them. Be that as it may, the use of "ban" in connection with hijab has a long history. So I think nobody need complain about the word being used here, either by the secondary sources or us. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:42, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * while Im not much concerned about the of the usage of the word ban, I think there may be an issue with the sentence in the lead ("The hijab ban in high schools and colleges was criticised") not being clear enough to the effect that the "ban" is a localised rule, implemented individually by colleges, rather than a blanket ban enforced by the state. I think "The implementation of dress codes by educational institutes, banning the hijab, was criticised" would be more clear in that regard.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 09:07, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Due to lack of response from the editors, I have BOLDly made the corrections. If any editor has an issue with my edit, feel free to revert my edit and reply here.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 16:51, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * ,, believes that the word, "ban" is not right, so please change the sentence to, "The implementation of the dress codes by educational institutes, restricting the use of the hijab instead of the uniform, was criticised"-Y2edit? (talk) 17:18, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It could also be, "The implementation of the dress codes by educational institutes, restricting the use of the hijab along with the uniform, was criticised"-Y2edit? (talk) 17:21, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that part may be controvertial, Kautilya doesnt seem to agree with it fully. His argument is also not entirely wrong, because while the "ban" might not be the most accurate term here, that term has been used quite a bit in RS. Any comments to add here? Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 17:48, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Logic says if RS is to be followed as is in every thing then one will need to copy every word as is and that will lead to situation of breach of copyright. If their argument is not entirely wrong then it is not conclusive enough either since RS is usually required for sources, when one has to have consideration for copyright then whether one has to use alternate words and terms or not? Still Kautilya is a senior experienced user and we should respect them since they follow traditional settled Wikipedia culture where considerations of logic and rational many times get compromised.
 * In most article disputes time and energy is wasted over lead even before completing sections, while lead is supposed to be summarized depending on related content from sections and such summarizing usually is supposed to be flexible for choosing words based on context. Besides Wikipedia MoS seem to have flexibility to adjust wordings for tone etc. But those who are involved in dispute will keep wasting time of every one.
 * IMHO best course of action is first get the sections completed and then submit article to WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests Those are usually experienced users see what remains after copy edit and there after only start discussion on such words in the lead.
 * &#32;Bookku, &#39;Encyclopedias &#61; expanding information &#38; knowledge&#39; (talk) 18:25, 5 March 2022
 * I agree that the current version is more or less fine and that we can probably wait a while, but I wanted kautilyas comments as he had disagreed with the removal of ban, which the new editor requested.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 18:37, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

(UTC)

This section is too long already and we shouldn't prolong it. But I don't believe it is correct that these were localised decisions in individual colleges. Except for the Udupi College which indeed had a prevailing dress code disallowing hijab, all other colleges that came up here were allowing hijab and stopped doing so following the Government Order that got communicated on 3 February.

Thus the fundamental premise behind this argumentation is wrong. There was nothing "localised" about it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:35, 5 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I hadn't come across these, is it a statewide ban? AFAIK it was a ban by individual colleges, which used the GO as legal backing for the the ban. A cursory reading of your sources seems to suggest that the minister said that Hijab or saffron etc could not be exempted from the uniform rules. I could be wrong here, I hadn't seen the ministers statement. If it's a state enforced statewide ban, I do think my edit would be wrong. Going by what the AG said in court, it shouldn't be that way... rather confusing.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 18:44, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * In my personal opinion if not both at least one side has to take a step back and work on section first. Secondly in this particular case court proceedings and judgement is going to matter end of the day. Third at least on paper local bodies did have rights irrespective of what minister says. To draw parallel it's like US Governers have some rights as per constitution irrespective of what Trump or Biden says. Last but not least it's not my case but Wikipedian culture does not appreciate much positively Times of India for Government related refs is my understanding.
 * &#32;Bookku, &#39;Encyclopedias &#61; expanding information &#38; knowledge&#39; (talk) 18:49, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * ,, , used the word, "prohibited", with a reliable source, so we can probably change the sentence to, "".-Y2edit? (talk) 19:07, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * This, this, this#, this, this, this and this - all use the word, "prohibited"-Y2edit? (talk) 19:26, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * None of these are WP:RS >>> Extorc . talk ; 19:29, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * , has quoted that sentence using the, Times of India as a source - I hope you accept that and change the word, "ban" to, "prohibited".-Y2edit? (talk) 19:38, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Can you stop pinging me for no reason, as you can see im an active editor on this talk page, if I think its necessary to respond, I will. >>> Extorc . talk ; 19:41, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Look, the entire argument from my side is that we are talking about a "Ban" which doesn't exist. Which ban? The GO? It states that the students must follow what the colleges say on the individual level. Its the colleges' decision to cite the GO and restrict Hijab. The GO did not ban anything. >>> Extorc . talk ; 19:46, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Extorc, take a look at my correction. Can we all agree that the colleges banned the uniform, but state didnt? Then my edit covers that confusion. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 20:23, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * So please change the word, "ban" to, "prohibited". This can also be used as a source.-Y2edit? (talk) 19:53, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * This is about the Karnataka High court's order saying the same thing in its interim order which will be superseded by the judgement shortly (in this month itself)-Y2edit? (talk) 20:03, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * No, I don't agree. There is no clarity on the lines of responsibility. It is wrong to indicate otherwise. The government may claim some things. They are just claims. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:42, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Updating intro sentence in the lead

 * IDK which way above one on replacing of word ban with restriction will go, usual Wikipedian  defence is facts are not evaluated but what reliable sources say matters.
 * I do have one more suggestion that is for the first intro sentence in the lead, which as of now reads news like. Can we improve first sentence by inserting words some thing like " pertaining to restrictions on  School Uniforms "
 * After insertion sentence would look like following:
 * "At the beginning of January 2022, a dispute pertaining to restrictions on School Uniforms erupted in the Indian state of Karnataka,.."
 * Whether such insertion in intro sentence will help reader to understand dispute is about what, more easily?
 * &#32;Bookku, &#39;Encyclopedias &#61; expanding information &#38; knowledge&#39; (talk) 07:10, 28 February 2022 (UTC)


 * @Bookku, "usual Wikipedian defence is facts are not evaluated but what reliable sources say matters", Are there any sources that state that a "Ban" has been imposed on hijab in schools. No. The word ban mostly originates from titles of sources where this word is used for brevity.
 * "At the beginning of January 2022, a dispute pertaining to restrictions on School Uniforms erupted in the Indian state of Karnataka,..", This is not the issue for consideration here. I am questioning the use of the word Ban because it is communicating that there Is a ban which is Not True. >>> Extorc . talk ; 07:24, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Apparently, this reply of mine was not made with a proper understanding of your statement. >>> Extorc . talk ; 19:58, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Please correct it.
The ban is on Burqa and not hijab.Also then issue started in September 2021 when 6 students suddenly started attending classes wearing Burqa despite multiple instructions by the school authorities to adhere to Uniform guidelines of the college. 171.76.125.187 (talk) 10:07, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * On Wikipedia one need to provide credible reference source (acceptable to other Wikipedians) in support of the information or change you are looking for. Thank you
 * &#32;Bookku, &#39;Encyclopedias &#61; expanding information &#38; knowledge&#39; (talk) 10:43, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Marking as declined since there is no way this will go through. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 18:18, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:STICKTOSOURCE
I see editors trying to edit the text away from that based on sources. Please don't. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:43, 27 February 2022 (UTC)


 * @Kautilya3 Which edits are you referring to? >>> Extorc . talk ; 19:58, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, there was a line saying, "The preamble stated that a ban on hijab was "not illegal"....
 * It was changed to: "The preamble stated that not allowing the hijab was "not illegal"". When I went back and checked the source, it reflected the original wording.
 * There needs to be a good enough reason if you want to deviate from the source, and that needs to be explained in the edit summary. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:04, 27 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I assume that you are referring to this edit of mine (diff). I would like to point out that the government order, at least its English translation (the original is in Kannada), neither uses the term 'ban' nor the term 'illegal'. I would also like to point out that the news article provided as the reference for the statement in contention, does not mention 'not illegal' in double-quotes. P.S. I changed the contentious sentence as per the info in the eng translation of the GO and added the same as a ref. Rockcodder (talk) 21:33, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I know that this wording is not in the GO. The new article said it was in the "preamble" wherever it was. The reaction of the educational institutions to the communication was vastly disproportionate to what the order says and what the government claimed in court that the order says. So, I have no idea what actually happened. I am not going to second-guess what the RS say. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:42, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The preamble is the first part of the order. "As per Section 7(2)(v) of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 (as mentioned in Reference 1) students of . . . after carefully examining the rules under Karnataka Education Act 1983, the government issues the following Order:" is the preamble and everything after that is the order. Rockcodder (talk) 21:46, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * We base our content on WP:SECONDARY sources. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:02, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * How is the Supreme Court Observer not a secondary source? Rockcodder (talk) 22:17, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It merely provided a translation. That does not make it SECONDARY. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:41, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Fine then. Here you go, a different secondary source which doesn't use the term 'ban' in the article body (the term is used in the title though). Instead, it uses "asking students not to come to schools wearing 'headscarf' or covering their head". It doesn't use the term 'illegal' as well, and instead uses "not in violation of Article 25 of the Constitution". Rockcodder (talk) 04:30, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

"Wanting to wear"
Since when did coming to a place become the same as entering it? 'wanting to wear' indicates a mere wish and not that they actually came wearing them. And why is wanting being used here anyway? It's clearly being used in the wrong sense here. Please look up the definition of the term 'wanting'. Btw, 'came to' and 'denied entry' were being used in the same sense as in the sentence 'He came to my house to talk things out, but I denied entry to him'. Is there anything about this sentence that 'doesn't make sense'? Alternatively, we could also use 'went to' instead of 'came to'. Rockcodder (talk) 04:01, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Proposal 1
 * Change to  Rockcodder (talk) 08:44, 28 February 2022 (UTC); edited 10:22, 28 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Pl. do tally with sources, if I am not wrong, I suppose wording some of is correct along with 'Muslim students' or else let that be some hijab wearing students, because if I am not wrong all muslim students were not necessarily wearing hijab but only some of were doing so.
 * &#32;Bookku, &#39;Encyclopedias &#61; expanding information &#38; knowledge&#39; (talk) 09:45, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I have updated the proposal. Rockcodder (talk) 10:21, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Here are a few sources for "wanting to wear": I really don't understand what your issue is. There are thousands of pictures in newspapers, where students were seen standing outside classrooms, or sitting in corridors, having been denied permission. They wanted to continue to wear hijab into classes. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:10, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Because 'wanting' doesn't mean what you think it does. Like I said, look up what 'wanting' means. Moreover, stating in wikivoice that 'their wanting (sic) and the subsequent denial of the said request by the authorities' was the initiating factor presents the POV of the girls and those supporting them since the opposing point of view is that the conflict started when the six Muslim girls in question turned up to school/college one day in hijabs out of nowhere and were then barred from entering until they followed the 'uniform policy/dress code'. Stating that the row started after college authorities denied entry to these students is the most neutral way in which I could present the starting point. Rockcodder (talk) 12:58, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * So, what do you think 'wanting' means? I have looked up OED and it is perfectly fine. And, what is the deal with the "wikivoice"?
 * "Turning up" is what some newspapers thought was happening. But the more knowledgeable sources have acknowledge that they have always "turned up" with hijabs or burqas, but removed them before going to classes. So, "turning up" is not the issue.
 * Nor is the "denial of entry" the start of the row. The college had always denied entry for students with hijab (officially at least, some teachers might have overlooked things). The row started because the student decided to wear hijab to classes (look up the previous discussions) and insisted that they should be allowed.
 * As for the RS using the term, they often used stronger terms like "sought permission", "demanded to be allowed" etc. But here is BBC:
 * -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:54, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:54, 28 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Wanting adjective ​1)wanting (in something) not having enough of something SYNONYM lacking *The students were certainly not wanting in enthusiasm. ​2)wanting (in something) not good enough *This explanation is wanting in many respects. *The new system was tried and found wanting.
 * What you looked up must have been the definition of 'want' and not 'wanting' (they are different!).
 * By "turning up" I meant 'turning up to the classrooms' and not just the school gate. ie They started wearing hijabs inside classrooms. The authorities were against this (as it was, in their opinion, in violation of the college's dress code) and thus they refused to allow students in.
 * The first sentence of the article mentions 'a college' where the row started, which as we all (involved editors) know, is the Udipi PU Girls' College. This college has stated and maintained that their students have never worn hijab inside the campus prior to this row and has used photos from various events from the past to support said claim. So in this case, the college's rules were being followed in practice, and the row started only when said rules were broken and subsequently entry was denied.
 * Terms like 'wanting' (sic), 'decided', 'insisted', 'sought permission', 'demanded to be allowed' all convey that the students were not allowed to enter because they 'thought of wearing hijabs' and 'asked for the same to be allowed' (ie they asked for the rules to be changed). This doesn't convey the entire situation though. It doesn't show the fact that they were wearing hijabs while making the 'request'. That is, the fact that they were not being allowed in for breaking the college's rules, and not for asking for the said rules to be changed.
 * Rockcodder (talk) 15:03, 28 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't intend to give you lectures on English grammar here on Wikipedia, but suffice to say that you are hopelessly confused. You started by saying that "wanting to wear hijab" implies "a mere wish", and now you say it means "lacking". You are making no sense whatsover.
 * The college did not say that the "students have never worn hijab inside the campus". It explicitly said that it was allowed in the campus. Please read the page, carefully, and the sources that have been cited. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:50, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I meant to add a '(sic)' when I made that edit. I must have forgotten to do so. But all subsequent mentions of 'wanting' being used in the wrong sense have a '(sic)' beside them. None of this changes the fact that 'wanting' has been used incorrectly in the article. Rockcodder (talk) 19:04, 28 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Proposal 2
 * Change to   I have taken some of your concerns with my first proposal into consideration in this second proposal. What say you? Rockcodder (talk) 19:04, 28 February 2022 (UTC)


 * My counterproposal
 * Go back to the orignal wording with one addition of school uniforms:
 * The first event was that of some Muslim students wanting to wear a hijab. The second event was the college denying entry to classes. Then you had a dispute. I don't see why you need anything else. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:42, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * No can do. I have three reasons. 1) 'wanting' is used in the wrong sense, as explained above. 2) The original wording and this proposal both convey that the girls were not allowed to enter because they wished to wear hijabs. But the reality is that they were not allowed to enter because they were wearing hijabs. These are two different things since having the thought/wish to do something is not the same as actually doing it. 3) Your problem with my first proposal, as mentioned here, was 'the fact' that "The row started because the student decided to wear hijab to classes and insisted that they should be allowed." was missing. I added these in the second proposal. Rockcodder (talk) 21:39, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * No can do. I have three reasons. 1) 'wanting' is used in the wrong sense, as explained above. 2) The original wording and this proposal both convey that the girls were not allowed to enter because they wished to wear hijabs. But the reality is that they were not allowed to enter because they were wearing hijabs. These are two different things since having the thought/wish to do something is not the same as actually doing it. 3) Your problem with my first proposal, as mentioned here, was 'the fact' that "The row started because the student decided to wear hijab to classes and insisted that they should be allowed." was missing. I added these in the second proposal. Rockcodder (talk) 21:39, 28 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Proposal 3
 * If this proposal is also not acceptable to you, then I see no other option than to ask for a 3O or an RfC. Btw, my most preferred wording is still the first proposal. Rockcodder (talk) 21:38, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You have fixed the sequence issue, but the phrasing is still long-winded, tedious and boring. Good sentences attract the reader, not repel them.
 * I have changed "wanting to wear" to "wanted to wear" since you think "wanting" gives other senses. I think that should be good enough. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 03:21, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't "think 'wanting' gives other senses", I know for a fact that 'wanting' doesn't mean what you think it does, so stop demeaning me on here and on your edit summaries. As stated above, it is a synonym of 'lacking', and those girls were definitely not 'lacking to wear a hijab'.
 * An updated version of the above proposal: P.S. On normal settings, Grammarly thinks that the above is good enough (it doesn't show a 'Hard-to-read text' warning). Rockcodder (talk) 06:54, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * An updated version of the above proposal: P.S. On normal settings, Grammarly thinks that the above is good enough (it doesn't show a 'Hard-to-read text' warning). Rockcodder (talk) 06:54, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

As earlier in the discussion, I urged other side to use word "Some" before 'Muslim students', in the same line I urge word "Some" before 'Hindu students'.

Secondly, I am unaware of MoS, but while interlinking word 'school uniform' we generally anticipate 99.99 percent people to know what 'school uniform' is. I suppose those readers who can read this dispute can handle reading of global controversies surrounding school uniforms if they land directly to controversies section. Though I am not insisting on this point I feel generally we need not be afraid in letting people land @ controversies section directly.

Thanks &#32;Bookku, &#39;Encyclopedias &#61; expanding information &#38; knowledge&#39; (talk) 07:03, 1 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Six Muslims students out of 60 protested in favour of hijab. That is a good use of "some". When 300 students protest, thath is stretching the meaning of "some".
 * Regarding the linking of School uniform section, I found it to be a disorganised section with a quality banner at the top. And it doesn't help for our topic anyway. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:36, 2 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Certainly there is no dearth of ignorant ones on all sides of spectrum. I do not suggest white washing of 'stalking-protests' (the wording I can use but you can not in the article for need of RS). The sentence 'groups of Hindu students staging counter-protests' is good improvement. I get your point but still compared to all the population of Hindu students and their groups in Karnataka 300 is small population and all groups of Hindu students from Karnataka would not have counter protested. Though I do not insist since you are closely following RS on the topic, just think over if there is any scope for further improvement to 'some groups of Hindu students', or some other improvement may be in due course.
 * School uniform section needs improvement is true but it's potential is supposed to be global coverage on the topic. Let us hope it improves in due course. I will add it in my information gap list.
 * &#32;Bookku, &#39;Encyclopedias &#61; expanding information &#38; knowledge&#39; (talk) 10:58, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Reactions section
Should we split the subsections in the Reactions section into 'for' and 'against' the 'ban'? Something along the lines of

and can someone add reactions from Taslima Nasrin and Masih Alinejad? The lead mentions that the two defended the ban but the reactions section doesn't contain their reactions. Rockcodder (talk) 08:47, 23 February 2022 (UTC)


 * @Rockcodder The reactions section is kind of bloated now. Any plans of purging some reactions? >>> Extorc . talk ; 06:34, 2 March 2022 (UTC)


 * IMHO As far as possible encyclopedias are supposed to have prose instead of listing. A balanced section on 'Media coverage' might help highlight various point of views including women's ones. Women centric perspectives too can have vast diversity. As of now women perspectives seem to get undermined and not inclusive enough.
 * &#32;Bookku, &#39;Encyclopedias &#61; expanding information &#38; knowledge&#39; (talk) 11:10, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose the proposal to tag the responses. This should be left to the reader to judge. Also against purging of response section unless strong reasons are given in the talk page and consensus generated to remove them. Venkat TL (talk) 11:49, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I think a few can be removed, not every random person need have his reactions stated.... For now, it seems fine, but later if more are added it might make sense to remove those from less notable people. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 07:03, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I dont see any irrelevent quote. It should not be removed. Venkat TL (talk) 08:50, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

List of refs March 2022

 * https://www.indiatoday.in/india/karnataka/story/karnataka-hijab-row-pakistan-flag-students-whatsapp-chat-protest-1922626-2022-03-09


 * https://www.siasat.com/hijab-row-karnataka-congress-leader-arrested-in-hyderabad-2287479/


 * https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/karnataka/fir-against-journalist-rana-ayyub-in-dharwad/article65191320.ece


 * https://www.deccanchronicle.com/nation/current-affairs/180222/karnataka-hijab-row-congs-mukarram-khan-booked-for-his-cutting-into.html


 * https://tv9kannada.com/karnataka/kalaburagi/hijab-row-in-karnataka-congress-leader-mukram-khan-arrested-for-his-controversial-statement-on-hijab-issue-gbd-350272.html

&#32;Bookku, &#39;Encyclopedias &#61; expanding information &#38; knowledge&#39; (talk) 02:22, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Source
I had stayed away from this article (and will do so) due to a lack of intricate acquaintance with facts but appears to be a decent critique of the KHC judgement. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:01, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

External link to HC judgement
Greetings,

I did come across one link to the Karnataka HC judgement @ Bar and Bench but a link but the linked PDF does not appear to be their own website. Link from more known/reliable platform shall be preferable and needed.

&#32;Bookku, &#39;Encyclopedias &#61; expanding information &#38; knowledge&#39; (talk) 08:00, 15 March 2022 (UTC)


 * You will find a nice summary in Bar and Bench. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:43, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Hijab
There is no need to italicise hijab. Most RS don't do it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:04, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Where did the "Reactions" section go?
I noticed the article had been modified and the reactions section was removed. Well, the reactions, domestic or international, are notable enough to be put in here. Utkarsh555 14:53, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * , has restored the reactions. You had said that reactions are not encyclopaedic and it can be removed which advice I followed. Now please revert his edits, I will support you.-Y2edit? (talk) 08:32, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I object to the removal of reactions. I have restored the reliably sourced section on reactions that was removed without good reasons. They are entirely relevant to this page and help the reader in understanding the incident. Why are you removing them? Venkat TL (talk) 08:36, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * , I didn't "advise" you to do it. You made your own decision. You need to defend it yourself. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:53, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

NYT says Udupi in September
and we put it as January. Did they get it so wrong? — DaxServer (t · m · c) 17:28, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, when a newspaper prints in February 2022 that something happened in September 2021 and gives no indication of how it knows this, we take it with a grain of salt. That paragraph ends with an attribution to the "petitioners". And you also have to wonder, if the "dispute" began in September, what happened between then and 28 December? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:16, 17 March 2022 (UTC)


 * IDK if NYT source is newslaundry ? The Quint counts from May 2021
 * I suggest we have a time line section at least on talk page.
 * &#32;Bookku, &#39;Encyclopedias &#61; expanding information &#38; knowledge&#39; (talk) 17:43, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the source for both Newslaundry and NYT are the students themselves. But NYT is taking their claims at more face value, compared to Newslaundry. What you call "The Quint" is actually an op-ed. They tried to piece together a narrative, but haven't answered the question of what happened between September and December. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:39, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I did in fact attend a webinar organised by IAMC, where some of the students spoke. They gave me the impression of being activists, if not crusaders, railing against Hindutva, but were quite incoherent about their own situation. The organisers didn't allow any questions from audience, despite having promised. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:55, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Sc urgent hearing request rejected
I have added the Rejection of the urgent hearing request in the SC, and I only saw it after the edit that @Kautilya3 has already reverted someone elses edits on this. IMO this should be covered considering opportunity to appear in exams is a major request of the petitioners. >>> Extorc . talk ; 12:34, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The Supreme Court says "don't sensationalise", but that is exactly what we do! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:13, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * xD That is the irony here, but idk to what extent does SC directions apply in WP :) >>> Extorc . talk ; 13:15, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Probably to none, unless it's WP:BLPCRIME related — DaxServer (t · m · c) 13:17, 24 March 2022 (UTC)