Talk:Hijabophobia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 3 September 2019 and 12 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Aaditjaveri.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:21, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:07, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Matthias Laurenz Gräff, "Liebende Eltern".jpg

OR? Not of course
AadaamS: Per WP:SYNTH "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article." So, if there's a reliable source, for example, making relations between "Hijabophobia" and "discrimination against Hijab", other sources talking about "discrimination against Hijab" can safely be used in Hijabophobia. So, "word 'Hijabophobia' not in any of the sources" is not correct argument. Thus, I'm reverting those un-discussed mass removals as per the policy based argument I made. You're advised to discuss with other active editors involved in the article before making such a huge change. -- M h hossein   talk 17:44, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No editor is required to discuss before making edits per WP:BRD. AadaamS (talk) 19:52, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for editing the article, AadaamS. After the user is reverted, he's advised to stop reverts but start discussion per your WP:BRD. -- M h hossein   talk 13:21, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Not required, but I would advise discussion about a change at the root of the article's subject matter, which is almost certain to be contested. Editors are not required to discuss when reverting, either, but I applaud Mhhossein for doing so. – Reidgreg (talk) 13:31, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * So, let's discuss. The article lacks very basic information.
 * When was the expression Hijabophobia coined, and by whom?
 * This article also fails to provide even a basic context of secularism in France, which has been around since the mid 19th century.
 * These issues are at the root of the article's matter. AadaamS (talk) 05:29, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This is essentially a start-class article which could use expansion on all fronts, as with a great number of articles.  Hopefully its DYK promotion will attract knowledgable editors who can fill-in some of this missing information. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:32, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * While the first bullet is what we need here, I don't see why there should be "a basic context of secularism in France" in this article. Cares should be taken to avoid OR. -- M h hossein   talk 17:46, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Sources stating that the veil ban has its roots in the secular traditions of France will be very easy. Avoiding such sources violate WP:CHERRYPICKing. AadaamS (talk) 07:16, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Ethno or cultural?
Regarding this edit, I think the rational raised for the change is acceptable, however I'm not sure if the change is supported by the source. -- M h hossein   talk 17:04, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

If Mirriam Webster describes it as "of or relating to large groups of people classed according to common racial, national, tribal, religious, linguistic, or cultural origin or background" how is it distinguished from the term cultural?

Who coined the term
A user is edit warring based on his on own interpretations of the term's history. This book writes: "Hamzeh's (2012) term 'hijabophobia' encapsulates the sexist and racist discourses of this discrimination." This scholarly source verifies that the term was coined by Hamzeh; "... Hamzeh (2011) coined the term “hijabophobia” to directly refer to the gendered aspect of Islamophobia". another source, which is a master thesis, saying it was "identified by Hamzeh as hijabophobia (Hamzeh 2011, 484)". However, there's another source, also a thesis, saying it was coined in 1990s by European researchers. I'm not sure if the the two thesis can be taken into account, but the first book seems reliable. -- M h hossein   talk 03:13, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The master's thesis by Baugerud is indeed a master's thesis hence not WP:RS by default per WP:SCHOLARSHIP: Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence and no such proof is given. You're advised to familiarise yourself with guidelines for finding reliable sources suitable to use. Also, Baugerud uses Autoethnography as a method, which according to the enWP article means that an author uses self-reflection and writing to explore anecdotal and personal experience and connect this autobiographical story. It can be questioned whether an autobiography with anecdotal evidence from a non-established scholar/expert and a master level student is hardly an established scholar, can give any general conclusions or summaries on any topic suitable for an encyclopedia. Happy editing, AadaamS (talk) 06:12, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestion, but I'm indeed familiar with the guidelines. That's why I stressed that the source was a Master thesis and that I was "not sure if the the two thesis can be taken into account, but the first book seems reliable." -- M h hossein   talk 06:28, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The first book indeed looks reliable, but "Hamzeh's (2012) term 'hijabophobia'" need not mean that it wasn't used by anyone before her. It means that she used it and we can definitely say that in the article.VR talk  16:20, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:51, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Matthias Laurenz Gräff - "Liebende Eltern".jpg

top of this talk page
@MBisanz, Hi. At the top of this talk page in a box reads: "This article was nominated for deletion on 22 January 2016. The result of the discussion was delete." However, the article exists. I can not find any other discussions against deletion. GharouniTalk 07:30, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes. Following the standard procedure, when a discussion has been closed and the conclusion is delete, then the article should be deleted. Thus this consensus result should be directed to admins/user with 'article deletion' authority to be executed. Chongkian (talk) 14:47, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Gharouni@Chongkian I doubt you'll find one. I wouldn't delete it. This is a recreation of the deleted article. You'd need a new WP:AfD showing it isn't notable, and I doubt you'd succeed. Doug Weller  talk 15:10, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Doug Weller Hi. Thanks for the message. I am not for or against of this article and I am not going to find a WP:AFD to put a question mark on notability of this article. I just wanted to remind the enwiki admins to fulfil their tasks properly. GharouniTalk 08:05, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Gharouni Which they did, it was deleted per the AfD. Doug Weller  talk 08:34, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks again. This I know now, but the box on the top is making some users like me confused. The discussions that ended up to undelete the article has to be addressed as well. Then a not very experienced user like me knows what was going on. GharouniTalk 08:56, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * While we have template on the deletion discussion (as placed on top of this article's talk page), do we have a template marking that this article (which was previously deleted) has been recreated? Chongkian (talk) 12:56, 26 April 2023 (UTC)