Talk:World Hijab Day

Comment
Is there a world NO-Hijab day ? 107.222.205.242 (talk) 07:03, 7 February 2014‎ (UTC)
 * That would only be fair if this is about "wearing what you want" and experiencing another culture instead of writing them off as "oppressed" or "sluts", it's got to cut both ways. But this isn't the place to talk about it lol. &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 00:12, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

This page is pure propaganda and does not respect the neutrality of wikipedia 80.42.162.47 (talk) 00:40, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

World Hijab Day itself is just an event and can be neutrally explained, but this page does not do so effectively. I do not feel qualified to rewrite the article, but I do agree that too much of the page focuses on reasoning for such a day rather than factual information. Zakvruwink (talk) 19:16, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Now that there is a fairly good Criticism section I think the neutrality (POV) template can be removed. So I am doing that now. Oska (talk) 06:33, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Would you mind if a changed Another Muslim reformer Maajid Nawaz to Another Muslim activist Maajid Nawaz? It's more descriptive and i've always found the term to be kind of a weasel word. --Trade (talk) 23:09, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree with you that 'reformer' is not great. But I'm not that thrilled with 'Muslim activist' either. Perhaps 'Counter-extremist'? As that is how the Quilliam organisation he co-founded is described. Or perhaps we don't label him at all.
 * (p.s. I dropped one of your indent levels; hope you don't mind.) Oska (talk) 23:35, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Let's take political commentator. That's what he's known for. --Trade (talk) 18:30, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

other name
world niqab day, world tudung day, world scarft day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.171.164.39 (talk) 00:48, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Importance ratings

 * I disagree with the importance ratings given above. I would say this article is of low importance to the Fashion project, mid importance to the Islam project and low importance to the Women project. Oska (talk) 18:37, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: My comment above was apropos the original ratings (high, high, high), not the revised ratings done by Feminist on February 22. Oska (talk) 00:09, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Quote removed; undue weight
All verifiability concerns aside, including one specific criticism quote in an article that already consists of 50% criticism would probably be an issue of undue weight. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 04:33, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Fix up of Criticism section
I saw that since I last edited this article there had been a series of bad edits and an edit war over this section of the article. I reverted to my last version and then did some fixes to the first two paragraphs because I discovered that there had been some mix-up of quote attributions within these two paragraphs. Despite people adding a 'citation needed' tag to the quote in the first paragraph the Washington Post reference had always been within the article. But at some stage it had erroneously been moved to the second paragraph and used as a reference for the wrong person (Nawaz). And some paraphrased quotes from that article had also been wrongly attributed to Nawaz. I have fixed that now. Both paragraphs could be expanded to better summarize the points made in each article but I haven't personally got the time to do that now.

So now we have three paragraphs referencing criticisms made by three different parties at different points in time. And their criticisms vary, from a criticism of the motives behind the day and interfaith support for it, to a person saying that the Hijab should be a choice, to someone campaigning strongly against the hijab. This event has been controversial since it was launched and I think it is important to illustrate the variety of criticism that it has received, as the current section does. In response to ToBeFree raising the question of undue weight (in the talk section above) I don't think that is the case. Rather, I think the rest of the article could be better filled in, e.g. reports on participation by year etc. --Oska (talk) 03:58, 19 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Just to clear the air on my part, my repeated reversion of those edits were only about the vandalism (primarily the editing of the quote/title from the Washington Post article to no longer be accurate; I would not have considered the rest of the edit vandalism in a different context). I have no opinion regarding what content should or should not be included in this article or how much weight should be given to criticism of the event. And for what it's worth, the other editor was blocked for two years for their disruptive editing on this page and others so their edits shouldn't carry any weight either. Paisarepa (talk) 04:49, 19 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, I understood your edits as combating vandalism. And I saw the 2 year ban on the IP editor. It was unfortunate that the reference to the WaPo article somehow got erroneously shunted into the second paragraph because by checking that reference it was clear that there was no need for a 'citation needed' tag and that the IP editor was bowdlerising the quote. Perhaps they wouldn't have been so 'bold' if the reference had stayed in the right spot. That's why I reverted right back to before that whole edit sequence and then went about fixing the three paragraphs so all the quotes and references were correctly linked up. Other edits that were dropped in the back revert were some weird to-ing and fro-ing on a category, and ToBeFree's drop of Yasmine's quote (which I would have reverted individually). --Oska (talk) 06:57, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Unbalanced
Outside of the intro, the entire rest of the article is about detractors. Elainexe (talk) 18:55, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree. Concerns about UNDUE were also raised by . At this point this article looks like a WP:COATRACK. If this event isn't notable, we simply shouldn't have an article on it. If it is, then lets find sources and ensure that criticism is not given more than WP:DUE weight.VR talk 03:24, 29 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I think there are some suitable sources to use here, , and . But the Criticism section is still a violation of POV. I suggest merging supports and criticism into reception. --  M h hossein   talk 06:56, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The first three sources look academic to me, so I'd prefer them. Also support merging support and criticism into reception.VR talk 19:09, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

No Hijab Day
No Hijab Day

twitter search?q=%23NoHijabDay

--Über-Blick (talk) 22:53, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Lead
General Ization: I was adding the criticisms when you reverted me. There's actually no mention of "misinformation" in the page, besides the important issue that the removed sentence was from an opinion piece. I am adding criticism from other sources. -- M h hossein   talk 03:48, 1 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Asra Nomani wrote an opinion piece in The Washington Post saying the World Hijab Day event spreads the "misleading interpretation" that the head covering is always worn voluntarily, and that "hijab" purely means headscarf.
 * I consider the term "misinformation" mentioned in the lead to be analogous to the "misleading interpretation" described in that sentence from the body. While the claim was made in an opinion piece, it is clearly described as such  in our article and attributed inline to the author, as is the Nawad OpEd described in the next paragraph. There is nothing in our policies that says that criticism of a topic cannot include comments made on the OpEd pages when they are thus described and properly attributed.  General Ization  Talk  04:55, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * So there are two different points; i) whether "misinformation" can be used for "misleading interpretation", and ii) whether the opinion piece can be used in the lead when attributed to the author. As for the first one, I don't think they are the same. I suggest using something more representative and neutral. Regarding the second, I never said we can't use them, rather if you take my edit summary saying "will be replaced by a better-sourced criticism." Your prompt revert came amid my edits to be implemented. -- M h hossein   talk 02:53, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * A reminder of your edit summary: the opinion piece does not deserve to be in lead. I took that to mean that you thought there was some policy against it, rather than just that you didn't like it.  As a rule, editors here don't get to decide unilaterally what content "deserves" to be in an article; that is dictated by the quality of the sources supporting it, and whether it reflects due weight with respect to the topic and/or opinions about it.  If you think the word "misinformation" is not analogous to "misleading interpretation", you should consider replacing it, but not removing the sentence, since it summarizes content in the body.  I don't think I agree that it should be replaced with something "more neutral", as the viewpoint is not neutral (and does not need to be if attributed properly, as here).  General Ization  Talk  04:48, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @General Ization: Your revert came just after my edit so that there was no room for my 'replacement' to be implemented. Pinging other active editors if they also think "misinformation" is analogous to "misleading interpretation"; . Agree with giving due weight to the POVs. -- M h hossein   talk 18:00, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping; I have mostly forgotten about the conflict and currently have no specific opinion on it. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:42, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * What would usually happen at this point is that you would post your proposed replacement here on the Talk page, in this discussion, for me and other editors to consider, rather than just recapitulate that you were prevented from posting it in the article as a consequence of my reversion.  General Ization Talk  00:20, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Having a broader view is helpful, I think. Will draft my suggestion. -- M h hossein   talk 02:58, 5 March 2022 (UTC)