Talk:2022 Karnataka hijab row/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Violence section

I have undid revision 1073355133 by Extorc There is no date, no context why this is relevance. There are scores of news reports of violence, what makes this special. Every day there are multiple reports like this [1]. see WP:NCRIME. Please discuss this on the talk page. Venkat TL (talk) 09:08, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I think the violence can be explained in general, with one liners for the cases since there are far too many instances related to this to be ignored. Shivamogga incident can be elaborated on since it blew up and got sigcov. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 09:53, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I have not removed Shivamoga. I removed the rest. What is your draft proposal for the rest. I doubt one liners are going to help the reader in any way. A summary of all these events can be included. Venkat TL (talk) 10:35, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Never said you did, heres my proposed section.

Parallel to the protests, there have been a number of instances of violence. Allegedly, these were a result of the victims social media posts against allowing the hijab in colleges. Dilip, a shopkeeper in Davanagere, was attacked by a mob who dragged him out of his shop where he was attacked and stabbed. A man Naveen and his mother Sarojamma were also attacked in the village of Nallur, by an angry mob of around 300 masked people bearing deadly weapons. Both were alleged by the victims families to be a result of posting an anti hijab status on Whatsapp.

On 21 February 2022, a Bajrang Dal activist who took part in the anti-hijab protests of Hindu students was found murdered in the Shivamogga district . According to the police, the incident may have been a result of his prior criminal record. Investigations were ongoing. The Home minister said that no connection had yet been found between the protests and the murder. Stones were pelted on his funeral procession which injured 3 people, some vehicles were also set on fire. 3 arrests were made out of the suspected 5 involved in the murder.

Hazra Shifa, one of the petitioners in the Karnataka High Court, alleged that her brother, Saif was beaten up by a group of intoxicated people, who opposed the satements made by their father to a local news channel in support of the hijab. In her social media post, she claimed that the attackers were "Sangh Parivar goons".

As and when more cases come to light, the list can be expanded, or, if it becomes bloated, contracted to the most notable incidents. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 12:18, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

The fact that Hazra Shifa is one of the petitioners in the High Court case has to mentioned. Rockcodder (talk) 12:34, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, had missed that part. Corrected now. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 12:51, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

@CapnJackSp @Rockcodder This is a much better proposal than subsections with one liners. Devnagere and Shifa incident needs dates and need to be arranged chronologically. if that is added, I remove my objection to including this. I did a minor edit, where I moved the bit about his religious crimes from notes to the para. It is relevant for the reader, which is why I had originally included in the para. It was wrong in my opinion to move it to notelist. Venkat TL (talk) 13:05, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

@Venkat TL: I oppose your 'minor edit'. If the allegation of the PFI being a radical Islamic organization can be mentioned in the notelist and not the para, the same can be done with this allegation as well, especially since this claim has only been made by one reliable source, the 'Indian Express' (a claim they have attributed to 'police sources' within their article). Most (if not all) other news outlets reporting on the same specifically mention "according to the Indian Express" in their articles/reports. Rockcodder (talk) 13:12, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

@Rockcodder The draft proposal had said "According to the police, the incident may have been a result of his prior criminal record. [Note]" Without clarifying to the reader what that criminal record was. "He was involved in at least five assault cases and attempt to murder that had religious overtones." is a relevant bit that helps the reader with the background of this Bajrang Dal terrorist. What is the good reason to censor this info? Are you proposing to include the words "IE reported that.... "? Venkat TL (talk) 13:20, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Are you not editing with a bias here? Calling someone a "terrorist" is a heavy accusation. And I agree with Rockcodder here, The relevant part is the criminal background, since the religious part has been rebuffed. That part may be included if it were his own article, but in this article we dont need his biography, just the relevant parts. Indeed, the note may be undeserved entirely - but I have included it as you felt it was somehow noteworthy and had inserted it. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 13:25, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

see below Venkat TL (talk) 13:53, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

"CIA declares VHP, Bajrang Dal as terrorist organisations". www.thenews.com.pk. Venkat TL (talk) 13:56, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Is thenews.com.pk a reliable source? Rockcodder (talk) 14:24, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

@Rockcodder yes. Venkat TL (talk) 15:18, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

@Venkat TL: And on what basis do you say that? Does WP or any other reliable source term it as such? Rockcodder (talk) 15:43, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Statements are demonstrably false, even you can go and check the facts here [2]. No mention of Bajrang dal anywhere. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 18:15, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

In Bajrang Dal Man's Murder, 6 Arrested, All Have Criminal Record: Police, This also explains why it is important to be included. Venkat TL (talk) 13:52, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

According to the police, the incident may have been a result of his prior criminal record. He was involved in at least five assault cases and attempt to murder that had religious overtones.

Adding this would be a violation of WP:BLP (do keep in mind that it applies to recently deceased persons) since it is a heavy allegation and only one reliable source has been provided (a source which cites its source (and the primary source in this case) to be 'police sources'). Such contentious claims for living/recently deceased persons can be added only when you have 2-3 reliable sources. Please bring more reliable sources which explicitly state something along the lines of 'the deceased person has a criminal record of at least five assault cases and attempt to murder that had religious overtones, as said by the police'. Do make sure that these additional sources don't cite the IE article as their source. I will have no objections to adding said information if you can do this. Rockcodder (talk) 14:23, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

@Rockcodder This is not allegation. It is his history sheet. That he is involved in those cases. Did you read the NDTV article I linked. Venkat TL (talk) 14:25, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

The NDTV article linked by you talks about the criminal record of the perpetrators of the crime, not that of the victim. Rockcodder (talk) 14:34, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

@Rockcodder as I noted above, it is important to mention the dates of violence when mentioning the incidents. Please include the dates as asked. If dates are not available, they will be removed. Venkat TL (talk) 17:55, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

References

Shivamogga police said his rivalry with some Muslim groups went beyond the Facebook posts. He was involved in at least five cases of assault and attempt to murder. On December 3, 2020 following a communal skirmish, Harsha was accused by the police of being part of a mob that attacked Muslim traders in Shivamogga. Cases of assault have been pending against Harsha since 2017 in the Doddapet police station.

References

This is a very relevant information and it should be summarized and included into the draft. This is from HT, in addition to IE Venkat TL (talk) 14:39, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

@Venkat TL: I agree with the proposed text from Captain Jack Sparrow. I am opposed to mention of the Bajrang Dal's activist police record because it is unrelated to this subject.

Furthermore, your use of an unreliable Pakistani source shows your ignorance of this subject entirely. CIA labelled Bajrang Dal as 'religious militant' (not same as 'terrorist') and soon removed the label from Bajrang Dal.[3] Now instead of justifying your biased editing just accept where you are wrong. I would urge you to strike that BLP violation you did just above. See here how it is done. BLP also applies on recently dead people and in this case you are violating BLP on this talk page. Extorc (talk) 15:02, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

@Extorc it is 100% related to this subject. What is the reason for removing this critical piece of information? Please note WP:CENSOR Venkat TL (talk) 15:10, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

@Venkat TL Note WP:REFACTOR. Editing my comment, when signed, in a way that altered its meaning, without taking any sort of permission, is not permitted.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 15:14, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Noted. But I did not edit your comment. Just the proposed draft. Venkat TL (talk) 15:17, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Proposal 2

Parallel to the protests, there have been a number of instances of violence. Allegedly, these were a result of the victims social media posts against allowing the hijab in colleges. Dilip, a shopkeeper in Davanagere, was attacked by a mob who dragged him out of his shop where he was attacked and stabbed. A man Naveen and his mother Sarojamma were also attacked in the village of Nallur, by an angry mob of around 300 masked people bearing deadly weapons. Both were alleged by the victims families to be a result of posting an anti hijab status on Whatsapp.

On 21 February 2022, a Bajrang Dal member was found murdered in the Shivamogga district. He had taken part in the anti-hijab protests of Hindu students.. According to the police, the incident may have been a result of his prior criminal record. He was involved in at least five assault cases and attempt to murder that had religious overtones He was accused by the police of participating in the mob that had attacked Muslim traders in Shivamogga on 3 December 2020 in a religious skirmish. The assault cases against him were pending in the Doddapet police station since 2017. Investigations were ongoing. The Home minister said that no connection had yet been found between the protests and the murder. Stones were pelted on his funeral procession which injured 3 people, some vehicles were also set on fire. 6 people all of whom had criminal cases against them, including three with murders, were arrested as the suspected involved in the murder.

Hazra Shifa, one of the petitioners in the Karnataka High Court, alleged that her brother, Saif was beaten up by a group of intoxicated people, who opposed the satements made by their father to a local news channel in support of the hijab. In her social media post, she claimed that the attackers were "Sangh Parivar goons".

References

Added with details about Bajrang Dal man. Venkat TL (talk) 15:29, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Venkat TL: Stop citing the policies that you don't understand. Read WP:DUE. Details about his police record has nothing to do with this incident at all, only the small mention is enough. Extorc (talk) 15:31, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

@Extorc It is perfectly due and relevant enough for the article that Indian Express a premier newspaper of India put that into headlines. You are whitewashing and WP:CENSORong relevant information without any justified reasons. "Karnataka: Police suspect past criminal record may hold key to murder of Bajrang Dal worker in Shivamogga". The Indian Express. 22 February 2022. Retrieved 22 February 2022. Police sources said that Harsha Hindu, who was murdered on Sunday, was involved in at least five cases of assault and attempt to murder having communal overtones. Venkat TL (talk) 15:36, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

But Wikipedia is not a newspaper, that's why you need to learn the difference. Extorc (talk) 15:45, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Everything in this section is sourced to newspapers. Dont make irrelevant comments. Venkat TL (talk) 15:48, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

He probably meant it in the sense that 'Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Thus, mentioning the incident (the Bajrang Dal worker's murder) and its background in such detail is not necessary. A simple note such as the one in CJS's proposal should suffice'. Rockcodder (talk) 15:57, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Look, either we should not mention this terrorist altogether since Police have caught 6 criminals and murderers in the case, there is no evidence of his death associated with Hijab. And If we are going to mention, we cannot censor and whitewash his criminal background and the suspects. Venkat TL (talk) 16:10, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

@Venkat TL: "this terrorist" while you continue to stick to biased and false narratives. Extorc (talk) 16:48, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

@Venkat TL: If putting allegations of the PFI, SDPI, CFI etc being radical Islamist organisations in a note doesn't amount to whitewashing, neither does putting the details of the alleged criminal background of the deceased Bajarang Dal worker in a note. Repeatedly calling him a terrorist without providing any supporting evidence whatsoever is a gross violation of WP:BLP (do keep in mind that the policy also applies to talk pages). Dont get me wrong, I support mentioning "According to the police, the incident may have been a result of his prior criminal record." in the article and "He was involved in at least five assault cases and attempt to murder that had religious overtones" in a note beside the previous statement. I am only opposed to going into minute details of the murder and its background since it is not the focus of the article. Rockcodder (talk) 17:08, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Cut down on the whataboutery. Why are you removing this relevant information from article and moving it to to a note. I know what your position is. I am asking why? Venkat TL (talk) 17:43, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Proposal 3

We change this

The student wing of Islamic organisation Popular Front of India (PFI), called Campus Front of India (CFI), threatened a protest, prompting the college to arrange a police presence.

to this

The Campus Front of India (CFI), the student wing of the extremist Islamic organisation Popular Front of India (PFI), threatened a protest, prompting the college to arrange a police presence.

and this

According to the police, he was involved in at least five assault and attempt to murder cases that had religious overtones.

to this

According to the police, the incident may have been a result of his prior involvement in at least five assault cases and attempt to murder that had religious overtones.

and revert the removal of this

A Fatwa was issued against him earlier in 2015.

and change it to this

A Fatwa was issued against him earlier in 2015 by a Facebook group named ‘Mangalore Muslims’.

Rockcodder (talk) 18:28, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

@Rockcodder Im Okay with this only as a last resort for conflict resolution, I don't think there is a need to expand either note here. However, i think you can go ahead and add the Fatwa part, unlikely to be controvertial here.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 06:04, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

@CapnJackSp: The question arises again, that is if the criminal credentials of the Bajrang Dal activists are being mentioned, why shouldn't the status of PFI of being an extremist organization be mentioned here? This is no whataboutery, this is to maintain consistancy. Extorc (talk) 07:27, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood- To clarify, neither the islamist org note, nor the note about the specific criminal background should be expanded. Thats what I meant by "either note". But if the editor insists on expanding note 2, then I agree that your/Rockcodder's suggestion can be a suitable replacement in order to have a consistent version. I would still say proposal one is the way to go here.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 09:54, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

References

College development committees

The college development committees were instituted in 2014 under the Siddaramaiah ministry (INC).

However, for the Udupi college:

The AG stated that contrary to what the petitioners argued, the prescription of uniform has been made for some time. In this regard, he referred to the resolution of the CDC of Govt PU College, Udupi, prescribing college uniforms in the years 2013 and 2018.

This seems to suggest, first of all, that the Udupi college had a CDC before the government mandated it. Neither do we know whether the MLAs chaired the CDCs in both 2013 and 2018. Those two are election years by the way, and the constituency alternated between Raghupati Bhat and Pramod Madhwaraj. The BJP did not come to power till 2019. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:00, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

References

Kautilya3 (talk) 13:00, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Removal of political role early in the dispute

Kautilya3 removed this content, saying it is a WP:POV edit. How is this edit a violation of POV? Kautily3 also said "Raghupati Bhat is covered in a later paragraph". While Bhat is indeed covered in a later paragraph his actions early on are not covered in a later paragraph. Why was this removed? VR _talk 23:36, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

It is POV first of all because it is omitting the important information that Bhat is a responsible official for the college. Secondly, it cherry-picks a line from the second source which is covering CFI to a large degree. Did you fail to notice that the CFI was demanding the suspension of the principal? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:42, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

The content in question consists of two sentences:

According to the New York Times, the college banned the hijab after consultation with a BJP politician.[4]

On Jan 1, BJP MLA Raghupathi Bhat said if hijab was allowed then boys will wear saffron shawls.[5]

I take it you object to the second sentence. Do you also object to the first one? Do you have an alternative wording for the second sentence? There is already material blaming CFI in the article, and if you want to put more, be my guest (just do so without violating WP:NPOV). But I don't understand why are you removing text critical of the BJP from this article? VR _talk 23:49, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

I have already rejected the NYT information a few days ago in the section #Banned on campus too?. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:07, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

That above section was different information. That above section talked about whether hijab was later banned on campus. The current sentence is whether the ban in the classroom was done in consultation with a BJP politician. Or are you saying all information from NYT on this topic is to be rejected? If that is your position, then lets take this to WP:RSN.VR _talk 00:13, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, all information from NYT about the so-called "ban on hijab" at Udupi is to be rejected because NYT didn't go to Udupi and check anything. The information they give is contradicted by numerous local sources. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:28, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Can you give me any local sources that contradict "the college banned the hijab after consultation with a BJP politician"?VR _talk 00:42, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

The NYT says the college "banned" hijab in January. But the very first sentence of Udupi dispute and the citation #1, says it was "banned" earlier.

Ahmed, Udupi district president of the Karnataka Rakshana Vedike, a voluntary organisation that works to protect the Kannada language and culture, told The Telegraph that the college had earlier too barred some other hijab-clad students from their classes.

The NYT is merely reproducing what the petitioners or their lawyer said. I pointed this out earlier. That can't be stated as fact, even if it happened to be true. We need a source that has independently verified it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:10, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

The earlier banning has nothing to do with the information in question. NYT is clearly talking about the January banning. Also, I didn't state it as fact, I qualified it with "According to New York Times..." I have referred this to RSN. I'll accept whatever consensus is achieved there.VR _talk 02:04, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Also regarding second sentence, I still don't understand your objection. Is it that the sentence fails to mention Bhat's responsibilities? If so, how would you add this information? VR _talk 00:42, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

It is a misrepresentation of the sum total of the information given in this source. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:10, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I disagree, but anyway how would you phrase it differently? I'm open to rewording.VR _talk 02:04, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: I am here from RSN. What exactly is the misrepresentation of the NYT article? I don't understand the objection to using attribution. Pious Brother (talk) 03:09, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

He hasnt replied, Ill fill in. Essentially, the decision was taken by the CDC, which is the body which decides the dress code among other things. The MLA was a member of the committee. The NYT article makes it look like the college held some random meeting with the politician, whereas it was the due process being followed. Some other discrepancies as well, such as the order of events and dates that do not match those in local reliable sources .@Kautilya3: if you have anything to add, please do. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 04:43, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah I don't get it either. It's not an extraordinary claim neither does it need attribution when NYT isn't the only that has reported it. Regardless of whether the school had disallowed hijabs previously, the MLA still held a meeting with the principal and decided that hijabs shouldn't be allowed. He himself doesn't deny that he stated that hijabs shouldn't be allowed, instead he has tried to defend it. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 04:57, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Pious Brother, the objection as stated in the edit summary is that the information about Raghupati Bhat (the "BJP politician") is covered in a later paragaph. I also called it WP:POV because the prominence being given to the BJP politician is NYT's own point of view. Other sources talk rather of the "college development committee" (CDC) of which he was the chairman. It is very well possible that the "BJP politician" was the driving force behind the whole decision, but how on earth does NYT know? Given that another part of the same sentence is demonstrably false (as I stated at WP:RSN), I don't fancy giving much weight to NYT.

If anybody wants to argue that NYT is the prevailing authority on this controversy, and should trump all other sources, please go right ahead. The WP:ONUS rests on you to argue for its inclusion. It is not my problem. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:28, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Raghupati Bhat is on this TV programme starting at 4:45. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:06, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

The CDC 'decision' was a long time ago. For Bhat's early involvement (in his capacity as MLA, not CDC chairman) the early stages of this specific flareup, see [6] and [7], both from Jan 2. Hemantha (talk) 04:23, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

The statement "in his capacity as MLA, not CDC chairman" is either a WP:OR or WP:SYNTH violation, since the sources mentioned by you say that 'MLA Raghupati Bhat' met with student leaders, but don't say anything about it being 'in his capacity as MLA, not CDC chairman'. Rockcodder (talk) 06:37, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

It's neither, that's not part of a proposed text for inclusion in the article. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 07:09, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, but the argument cant be made with OR either, can it? Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 10:06, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I'd suggest that you read the policy page if you think so. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 15:36, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

My mistake. I meant it in the sense that if included in the article it would violate said policies. Anyways, thanks for the clarification. Rockcodder (talk) 07:55, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Kautilya3 thanks for the explanation. Vice regent do you think there is a nuance that might have been missed by NYT? CapnJackSp's explanation makes it seem so. Pious Brother (talk) 05:35, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Kautilya3, what is demonstrably false? Do you not realise that rejecting the NYT source on the basis of soundbytes of a "earlier ban" from the protesting girls is untenable. If you think it's inconsistent with the fact that Bhat met the principal afterwards and affirmed a prohibition, it's not. There is nothing in ThePrint or The Indian Express investigations (which you keeping waving around) that directly contradicts it. One can integrate both the CFI/PFI involvement as well the Bhatt's involvement in the Udupi dispute if they wanted to using all of these sources. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 07:21, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Affirming a prohibition is not referred to as "banning it". That phrasing is used in normal discourse when a ban comes into place for the first time. NYT's wording is quite specific, "issued the prohibition". It doesn't say "continued" the prohibition, like The Hindu says, and most normal people would say. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:26, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

The phrasing can refer to affirming a disputed instruction, strengthening an inconsistently implemented one, formalising it or any other number of things. The Hindu piece mostly quotes the PUC administration and says that the uniform code would be continued not that a hijab prohibition is being continued. The students have largely given conflicting statements and I'd expect the journalists at NYT to be competent enough to not make such mistakes. You are looking for inconsistencies where one doesn't exist, the source is weighty enough to be included, the information directly relates to the topic of their article and it's not our job to act as a fact checker. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 15:35, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Hemantha is correct in saying that the CDC decision was a "long time ago". But his contention that Bhat was acting in his capacity as the MLA rather than the chairman of the committee has no basis. During December, the students' parents made three representations to the principal. The students wrote to the Government on 14 December, complaining about the college. The students had refused to remove the hijab for classes (like they used to do earlier). CFI and SDPI threatened protests. Under this situation, Ragahupati Bhat would be entitled to get involved in the affair wearing all his hats. But his role has been only to reiterate and affirm the policy. Nothing new was decided in January. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:43, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Is it your point that CDC chairman and MLA positions are unrelated? The new thing that was decided was to uphold an informal guidance very strictly. There were no mandatory rules till Feb 5 and MLA played a decisive role in that enforcement. Hemantha (talk) 11:54, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

The government has empowered the college CDCs to make mandatory rules. It seems like this was done in the 1980s under a Janata Party government. This particular college had this rule since then. But I don't have specific information about whether the no-hijab policy has always been part of it. The principal implies that it was. The students don't seem to think so. Nobody has investigated the issue further. But certainly, for this batch of students, for the last 1.5 years, it had been the policy. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:34, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

There were no classes for much of the last 1.5 years and they would have begun recently only (in a regular manner) so even if there was a "policy" which itself is unclear since its derived from a soundbyte from a student, the policy would have to have been implemented recently. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 15:39, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Please Kautilya3, give us the source for the claim The government has empowered the college CDCs to make mandatory rules. It seems like this was done in the 1980s, as well as for your certainty that it was 'policy' for the latest batch. College guidances were explicitly not mandatory and even against the PU department policy when they mandated uniforms (per the IE article added by you). Hemantha (talk) 07:29, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I admit that the language of "empowered" comes from this government. The Minister says that it was introduced during the Siddramaiah-led Congress government. I have seen the NIE article (not "IE article"). But I have no idea what is meant by uniforms are "mandatory" or "not mandatory". All I can figure out is that, from the government's point of view, it is not mandatory for an institution to have a uniform code. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:29, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

And, there is nothing extraordinary about that. I myself have studied at some schools that had uniforms and others that didn't, all government schools, though not in Karnataka. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:34, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Oh, but the minister's statements there appear so wrong and contradictory. Since you've added it in wiki-voice, I'll address them in a separate section.

To bring this back to original issue of college banning hijab, can it be said that your claim - Nothing new was decided in January - was based solely on an involved minister's (political?) pronouncements after the new circular? Hemantha (talk) 13:13, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

@Kautilya3:, This is still unresolved, but I see you're mentioning NYT down below in another section. Do you wish to continue it there?

To recap, your objection to NYT text on "college banning hijab after meeting Bhat" was founded on the understanding that Nothing new was decided in January. That understanding was driven by the involved minister's statement on Feb 5 (which completely contradicts his own dept's earlier clarifications). So in light of all this, do you have objection to restore the text the college banned the hijab after consultation with a BJP politician referencing NYT or whatever local source you prefer? Hemantha (talk) 04:15, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

We can also replace "banned" with "refused to allow" to satisfy Kautilya's objection.VR _talk 04:43, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

@Hemantha: From your comments on the "agreed the uniform is not mandatory, but said that colleges have made it mandatory" statement and the "(which completely contradicts his own dept's earlier clarifications)" part of the above reply, I believe that you have misunderstood the government's position on the matter. My understanding is that the Karnataka government/PU dept. has not made uniforms mandatory, but has left it to the discretion of the educational institutions themselves. This then lead some institutes to use this power to impose uniforms and/or implement a dress code. Rockcodder (talk) 05:06, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

government/PU dept. has not made uniforms mandatory, but has left it to the discretion of the educational institutions This is what the minister has claimed on Feb 4 just before the new circular which codified this. There is no reliable source for this from before. Hemantha (talk) 05:26, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

The hobjection was based on numerous sources provided at WP:RSN which said that the ban was in effect a lot earlier than 1 January 2022. Here is an even more direct one:

“I was taken aback to see my daughter there… because she isn’t a member of ABVP,” Shukur said. Furthermore, Muskaan was not wearing her usual headscarf in the photo. “I asked her why she wasn’t wearing a headscarf in the photo, and that is when she told me that the college doesn’t allow hijabs in classrooms,” he said. This came as a shock to Shukur, who decided to confront the college principal.

The date of the photo (which you can find in the source) is October 2021. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:50, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Nobody is disputing that the CDC took a decision to disallow hijabs long before Dec 2021. The issue here is how to phrase the principal's decision, after meeting Raghupathi Bhat, to strictly enforce it even when its purported legality was questioned by students and parent. As Vice Regent has proposed above, "refused to allow" can also be used, so that the text in full would be "the college refused to allow the hijab after consultation with a BJP politician" (or Raghupathi Bhat). Hemantha (talk) 02:45, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

You are again, stating the same thing as in the beginning. How is this an alternative? 1)This implies that the college somehow changed the policy, when they only stood by the policy. 2) Again, undue weight to "politician" rather than "CDC Chairman". The college refused to change its policy to allow the Hijab in the classroom, after meeting with the College Development Committee chairman, Raghupati Bhatt. This is the most generous form which could be accepted. I have included the Undue parts too as a note, just for the sake of resolution (though I believe they do not merit inclusion at all). Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 05:18, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Hemantha, it is not the "principal's decision". It is the CDC's decision. The phrasing you are asking about is already present in the last paragraph of the Udupi dispute section. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:27, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@CapnJackSp: we have numerous sources that refer to Bhatt - in this controversy - as a BJP politician. So you can't say this is WP:UNDUE. So here is what I propose (as I did earlier): The college refused to allow the hijab in the classroom, after meeting with the CDC chairman and BJP MLA, Raghupati Bhatt. As Tayi Arajakate pointed out, even the vice chairman of the committee was a BJP politician.VR _talk 06:18, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

This is a far better version than what Hemantha proposed earlier. I would suggest a small modification, The college refused to allow the hijab in the classroom, after meeting with the CDC chairman, Raghupati Bhatt, who is the BJP MLA from Udupi. Lets see what Kautilya3 has to say about it. The major objections that editors had with Hemantha's version (and the NYT article) was that it failed to mention the part about him being CDC chair, which is the important part.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 06:58, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

As stated by CJS, the above proposal is better compared to the one from Hemantha, but I would suggest wording it as

The college refused to allow the hijab in the classroom after meeting with Udupi MLA and ex-officio CDC Chairman, Raghupati Bhat, a leader from the ruling BJP.

I am not quite sure, but I believe that during the high court hearing, the Advocate General of Karnataka said something along the lines of 'one automatically becomes the CDC chairman when elected as the MLA'. Meaning that the person serving as the CDC chairman does so in an ex officio capacity as MLA. Rockcodder (talk) 09:22, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I still don't see any reason to mention the MLA or the CDC in the first paragraph. That paragraph is trying to describe the events that happened before 1 January. That date was when the CDC meeting (or perhaps a more general meeting with all parents) took place, and Raghupati Bhat chaired it (as it was his role to do as the CDC chairman). As per the wording in The Hindu stated in the last paragraph, the meeting decided to continue the no-hijab policy.

The students knew when they joined the college in 2020 that hijab was not allowed in classes. Their parents signed a form to this effect, though there is some uncertainty about whether they understood what they were signing. The students used to come to college in burqas (not hijabs) and remove them before going to classes. In the secdond year, the classes started in September 2021, and the students continued the same practice, though there seem to have been some grumblings about it. It was only in December that they decided to change their stance. See the #The six students section below.

The next few paragraphs describe this backstory as far as we are able to piece together. Then we return to the main story with Raghupati Bhat in the last paragraph. That is how that section is structured. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:06, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I am fine with the wording proposed by CapnJackSp and Rockcodder. And K3, the wording "refused to allow" does not in any way contradict either "continue the no-hijab policy" or other explanations given. For example, K3 posted in section below (#The six students) that the students argued the college had not explicitly disallowed the hijab previously. The wording "refuse to allow" is consistent with all such interpretations.VR _talk 05:18, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I think we can word it along the lines of The college decided to continue with its policy that did not allow the hijab in the classroom, after a meeting chaired by the CDC chairman, Raghupati Bhatt, who is the BJP MLA from Udupi. That might cover the objections of all. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 05:31, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

No, that version would be a violation of WP:NPOV given that the students dispute whether the hijab was explicitly not allowed (#The six students), so we can't state that in wikipedia's voice. I can't see any objections to "The college refused to allow". It doesn't seem to contradict anything.VR _talk 05:39, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

So, in effect, you are asking the last paragraph to be pushed into the first paragraph? Nothing in the intervening paragraphs deserves to be so pushed in your opinion? Why not? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:12, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

References

The High Court proceedings

The SCObserver seems to be a good source for the court proceedings.

The Day 7 proceedings, part 1 is a must read. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:10, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

'Religious rights' sub-section of the 'Court case' section

@Kautilya3: Could you include the responses of the Advocate General and other lawyers representing the respondents (the government, CDC etc) as well? They have responded by saying that the hijab is not essential practice in Islam and thus not covered under freedom of religion. These lawyers have also made a distinction between freedom of conscience and the right to practise one's religion, and have asserted that the former doesn't apply since it is 'forum internum' and has something to do with inner convictions and inner thoughts, and not outwardly expression, hence why it is 'freedom' of conscience and not 'right to practice' conscience. One lawyer, representing few teachers from the PU College, stated that the interpretation of public order in article 25 has to depend on the context and that in the context of this case, uniformity in attire can represent public order. He also stated that a breach of public order doesn't have to take place only where there is disorder. This lawyer also spoke of the CFI during his arguments. These lawyers have also repeatedly pointed out that all rights, including fundamental rights (such as article 25) are subject to reasonable restrictions. They have also pointed out that 25.2.(a) allowed the state to make laws to regulate secular activities, like non-religious state-run institutions. The Advocate General has also mentioned that the state has not banned the hijab or any other religious attire but has only allowed the institutions to decide for themselves. These lawyers also pointed out that the Udipi PU College has verifiably had a compulsory uniform policy for at least the past 18 years. Please look into these and other arguments made by them and add those to the sub-section as well. Thank you. Rockcodder (talk) 22:08, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Covering more details would be a good idea but I suggest following

a) More than general news media Law related media should be preferred

b) Even daily proceeding coverage by Law related specialized media too can miss some content so if at all to be covered then it should be corroborated from one more independently reporting Law related specialized media agency

Last but not least why not have a separate article for in depth judicial coverage (draft to begin with may be larger scope than just Hijab and Karnataka) Even after High court after Sabarimala big constitutional bench results come present judgements may be reviewed So it's likely to remain long drawn.

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 03:36, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Please list whatever sources you are able to find. I am mainly dependent on the SCObserver site that I mentioned at the top. LiveLaw hasn't yet written up summaries of the proceedings except a couple. Bar & Bench is completely pay-walled to me. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:11, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Two petitions?

Some time ago there were comments added to the effect that two petitions were filed in the Karanataka High Court. The sources didn't back it up. When I asked who the two petitioners were, no answers were received. There is no clarity from the sources either. It is clear that one petition was filed by the six students of Udupi in January, and the second appears to have been filed by the students of some other college (Kundapura?) who were affected by the Government Order. Devadatt Kamat, representing the second group, said this:

I am not asking for a general declaration that headscarf is part of essential religious practice. My primary challenge is to the GO.

This is perhaps a division of labour among the petitioners. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:28, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, India Today got it right, while most other newspapers didn't.

It seems like the petitioners made a mistake in fielding him first. His half-baked efforts at arguing religious freedom were easily demolished by the AG. He seems to have retreated. The ball is back in the Udupi court. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:05, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2022 (2)

Reacting to the tweets of the Pakistani minister, Union Minority Affairs Minister Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi said that some people are giving "communal colour" to a decision on dress code and discipline of institutions as part of their "conspiracy to defame India's inclusive culture" and Pakistan Foreign Office over the Karnataka hijab controversy. According to sources, the Indian diplomat called Pakistan's claims "baseless" and conveyed to officials that "India is a secular country" according to this source. Please add those sentences to this article.- 27.7.8.107 (talk) 11:18, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done. The reactions section is meant for the reaction of third parties to the affair. We cannot go on including reactions to reactions etc. The EAM position has been stated. That is good enough. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:15, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: In the Reactions section, there is a, "Ministry of External Affairs, India" sub-section where there is a response to the Americans and also another response to the OIC, should you not add what Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi said in response (some people are giving "communal colour" to a decision on dress code and discipline of institutions as part of their "conspiracy to defame India's inclusive culture") to Pakistan's taunt, using the source I have linked to?-2409:4071:4E81:EEE0:C8D2:DCC1:BD25:3551 (talk) 11:46, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

The ministry of external affairs is the responsible body for dealing with reactions from foreign governments and notable rights bodies. The reactions section is already too bloated for my comfort. It will be pruned eventually. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:54, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I would request for this 'eventual pruning' to not include the removal of comments made by the MEA in response to comments by other countries and international organisations. These counter comments are important in my opinion. Rockcodder (talk) 15:55, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2022 (3)

Muskan Khan is mentioned in this article, so should you not mention the rewards she received by various groups and the praise heaped on her by the Taliban, Pakistan, Bangladesh etc.?- 27.7.8.140 (talk) 19:02, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Kautilya3 (talk) 19:55, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Kautilya3, Muskan Khan has been praised and also received rewards and gifts, so please see this, this, this, this and this. In this, the Taliban is praising her.-2409:4071:D1B:F46:228:98C8:25DE:649A (talk) 21:33, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Please add that Muskan Khan received gifts and rewards from various groups and praises were heaped on her by the Taliban, Owaisi etc. using the sources mentioned above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4071:D1B:F46:228:98C8:25DE:649A (talk) 21:37, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

It is tricky.

IMO I suppose up til Muskan Khan's known interest in Hijab is being pious and modest and no clear association from her side with any specific association we need not invent one.

'As far as various sides of religious groups including extreme ones tried to take political benefit' can find mention if already not there in the article. but for that you need to have better articulated sentence to suggest.

c Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 02:35, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Bookku, Kautilya3, RegentsPark, Perhaps you can mention this, "Muskan Khan/Muskan Zainab received gifts and rewards from various people and groups and praises were heaped on her by the Taliban, Owaisi and others for wearing a hijab and burqa and shouting out, "Allahu Akbar"". using the sources mentioned above.-2409:4071:D1B:F46:D3C8:FAA0:9D41:BE3D (talk) 12:08, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Some sources call her Muskan Khan and others call her Muskan Zainab, so please choose either (or both)-2409:4071:D1B:F46:E002:3965:5ADF:FA0C (talk) 12:14, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Still does not sound fair enough, Can you find some other subject for criticizing politicians than that of a student for whom you do not have proof/ref of accepting heaped praise by politicians which was for politician's own political benefit.

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 12:58, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Bookku, Kautilya3, Tayi Arajakate, Rockcodder, Venkat TL, Bharat0078, Hemantha, CapnJackSp, Ainty Painty, DaxServer, Muskan's video went viral and millions of people have seen it worldwide - that's why I am asking to add that sentence above. I have added links to the sources that can be used also (further above in my first response to Kautilya3 at the top of this section)!-2409:4071:D1B:F46:237D:B49F:EF4E:7A40 (talk) 13:27, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

@2409:4071:D1B:F46:237D:B49F:EF4E:7A40 I support including this incident into the article. But the draft proposal you have added is not giving enough details about the incident. So I cannot add it now. Please give complete picture. May be add a few lines and propose again with reliable source. This will be added. Venkat TL (talk) 13:38, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Venkat TL, please add, "Muskan Zainab (also known as Muskan Khan) received gifts and rewards from various people and groups and praises were heaped on her by the Taliban, Owaisi and others for wearing a hijab and burqa and shouting out, "Allahu Akbar" in a school where a uniform is compulsory."-2409:4071:D1B:F46:3A97:743B:C0BE:5236 (talk) 14:55, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

No. I think what is relevant in this incident for the reader has already been included into the article. I suggest you focus on other areas that need improvement. Venkat TL (talk) 15:00, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Venkat TL, I thought you would add it by your first response.-2409:4071:D1B:F46:3A97:743B:C0BE:5236 (talk) 15:09, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

If anyone feels, they can add it. Muskan is mentioned in the seventh paragraph of the, "Fallout" subsection of the, "Events" section.-2409:4071:D1B:F46:3A97:743B:C0BE:5236 (talk) 15:13, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes. I was under the impression that this Muskan incident was not included in the article. I was wrong. It is already there. The additions you are proposing are not relevant for the reader. If there was another article exclusively on this Muskan incident may be all these could be included but the incident is not that important to have its own article. As a result we have to summarize and only include the material relevant for the reader. Venkat TL (talk) 15:16, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Venkat TL, it is relevant for readers to know where all she got support from which is not mentioned now. In the same (7th) paragraph, Paul Pogba's criticism is mentioned. This should be added to show his hypocrisy. This talks of the hypocrisy of others. -2409:4071:4E0F:F24:BE05:305C:21C6:C329 (talk) 15:23, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

No I am not impressed. Please read WP:NPOV and WP:TE. Lest you will be blocked from editing. Venkat TL (talk) 15:32, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2022

In the lead, just before the last paragraph, please add this: The question of whether Muslim girls and women in Karnataka can wear the hijab in school and college will be decided by the Karnataka high court which is currently hearing the matter; the question arose after radicalisation among student groups - be it by the student wing of the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which is currently in power in Karnataka, or the Campus Front of India (CFI), the student wing of the radical Islamic group, Popular Front of India. 27.7.8.107 (talk) 05:55, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I see that there has been some discussion about it here.- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.7.8.107 (talk) 06:08, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

"The question arose after radicalisation among student groups" suggests causality, which is not stated in the source. The "radicalisation" has been present for more than 10 years. But in the past the disputes that arose were resolved, locally. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:00, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Kautilya3, you can at least mention, The question of whether Muslim girls and women in Karnataka can wear the hijab in school and college will be decided by the Karnataka high court which is currently hearing the matter. Please also mention the Campus Front of India (CFI) in this article in whatever way is acceptable here at Wikipedia either using the same source or something else.-27.7.8.107 (talk) 11:25, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

This can also be used as a source.-27.7.8.107 (talk) 13:28, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't use WP:CRYSTAL. We can only mention the fact that hearings are ongoing. As for CFI, you need to specify what exactly needs to be added, and provide citations. I think the balance of the reliable sources place the onus on the BJP government though. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:26, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Kautilya3, You may add that, "The Karnataka government on Thursday informed the High Court that a first information report has been registered against the members of the Campus Front of India (CFI), who had allegedly threatened some teachers in the Government Pre-University Girls College in Udupi district." if you deem it fit to be added, using this as a source.-2409:4071:4E81:EEE0:5B3D:5059:EB56:2FF (talk) 04:49, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

FIRs merely indicate the intention of police to investigate something, and are normally put under WP:NOTNEWS. If it becomes a major issue, we might. But not right now. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:49, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

This says, "The CFI’s state committee responded by saying they had indeed tried to give a representation on the matter to the Udupi college authorities. “We had met the principal on 30 and 31 December to request that hijab-wearing students be allowed to sit in the classrooms,” Masood Manna, CFI state committee member, said. The CFI also met the deputy director for pre-university education." Should that statement not be included in this article?-116.72.144.73 (talk) 06:51, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

This says, "The sudden appearance of the hijab agitation in some schools of Karnataka, spreading outside them to Maharashtra and Delhi, has been called violative of the ‘religious freedom’ of Muslims. This is how the Popular Front of India (PFI), a hard-line Islamic organisation, peopled by men, framed it. Its student wing, The Campus Front of India (CFI), ‘counselled’ some young Muslim women to prioritise hijab wearing in schools over the need to receive education in the last quarter of 2021. The agitation then began in December 2021. Many Muslim women subsequently joined the CFI themselves. In Delhi, the Students Islamic Organisation (SIO), the student wing of the Jamaat-e-Islam Hind, is reportedly working on spreading the agitation nationally, with its epicentre in Delhi." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.72.144.73 (talk) 07:09, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Please review WP:NEWSORG policy, provide WP:Full citations in your requests, and do not file edit requests until you are sure you have WP:CONSENSUS. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:42, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2022 (2)

I appreciate this and this addition by Bookku but can it be added after the comments by the US (it is relevant)?- 2409:4071:D1B:F46:5E56:624:3580:A13A (talk) 08:39, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

@2409:4071:D1B:F46:5E56:624:3580:A13A: Which comments by the US are you talking about. It seems this is a correct place for the See Also section. Extorc (talk) 09:08, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I suppose IP is expecting to attach See alsos given by me to be mentioned after Reaction International US religious freedom representative; If that is the expectation then unlikely to fit in Wikipedia anti synthesis policy since those controversies are not directly related to Karnataka row.

But School_uniform#Controversies can be considered for interlinking in the lead itself when next update happens.

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 10:28, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Extorc, Bookku understood correctly. Let me clarify even more. At the top of a section, a, "Main article" or, "See also" helps the reader to click and read more which is what I am requesting to add.-2409:4071:D1B:F46:B8C4:39E3:7F:3635 (talk) 12:21, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

2409:4071:D1B:F46:B8C4:39E3:7F:3635 I don't think this would be okay because this issue is not exclusively a uniform issue, it is also a religious issue and much more. "Main Article" is used for an article that is expansion of the topic of the section. IDT any section here qualifies for this. Extorc (talk) 12:48, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

IMO there is some scope to update the article section School_uniform#Controversies itself with global court cases related to various dress code issues incl Hijab. (Google scholar seem to have sources available). There after may be a see also section relation can be established for section Court case in this article.

So we can say Not done for now.

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 13:12, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Details about 'all girls class' ?

@Kautilya3:

I forgot the day of court proceeding but I remember one of the justice on panel asked one of the pleader advocate until s/he confirmed that client students PU college class is 'girls only class'.

As far as religious practice of Hijab is concerned detail of a class / school being 'girls only' becomes as important detail. Among women also a girl/woman may prefer to continue using Hijab but where there are no stranger men and only girl & women only environment, requirement of Hijab almost not needed or gets much diluted. In that point of view mention of concerned girls PU class/ school is all girls or not becomes an important detail to be covered in the article. IMHO

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 17:18, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Bookku, the, "Events" section begins with the Udupi dispute with, "In early January 2022, a dispute over the wearing of the hijab was reported at a government-run Pre-University College for Girls at Udupi that had disallowed the wearing of hijab as being in violation of its uniform policy." However, it is purposely being done all over India now, just to defame the party in power in India (the BJP).-2409:4071:4E0F:F24:20AD:9100:3A72:4654 (talk) 17:39, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Bookku I believe i have seen it in the last 3 days. >>> Extorc.talk(); 17:42, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

@Bookku: I found what you wanted. Day 9 | find the conversation at 4:17 between Justice J M Khazi and Adv Sajan Poovayya. >>> Extorc.talk(); 17:48, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the Udupi PU College is an all-girls college, but it has some male teachers and the protesting students cited that as the reason for their insistence. Note that the government order applies to all colleges, including co-educational ones. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:59, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2022

The last paragraph of the "Background" section is unrelated and should be removed. It reads, "Since 2019, Karnataka has been governed by the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)............." - how is it related to the uniform enforcement?- 116.75.95.165 (talk) 17:43, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

A reliable sources has been provided, which you are welcome to read. There are plenty of others as well. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:39, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Kautilya3, I did not type anything about the source used. I am only saying that it is not related to this hijab row and so, it should be removed.-2405:204:5606:E090:9664:FA49:8F17:81AF (talk) 19:20, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Reliable sources provide that as background to the situation, so it makes sense for it to be covered in our article as well. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:29, 27 February 2022 (UTC)