Talk:2022 Karnataka hijab row/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Expansion of reactions and inclusion of the merit of criticism of the hijab restriction

As you can see here, @Y2edit? has started expanding the reactions section on the article and has added how the Indian social media and the opposition to the critisism responded to these comments. But, I guess, entire WP:CONSENSUS was reached yet on this topic. @Rockcodder and @Bookku's attention would be appreciated. >>> Extorc.talk(); 20:29, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Kautilya3, you removed everything that I had added, so please explain what is wrong with each sentence that you removed (you explained only about one sentence, that is, about the US army). Thanks!-Y2edit? (talk) 01:24, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I mass reverted a whole bunch of edits, where you were padding existig reactions statements with additional content that was simply WP:UNDUE. You also seem to have deleted Noam Chomsky's reaction. You need to explain why. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:44, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Noam Chomsky's reaction did not contain anything about this hijab row. The other additions were essentially reactions to reactions which an IP asked some time ago and which Bookku and Extorc supported. If I am right, Wikipedia allows a rebuttal. Please see this archived discussion.-Y2edit? (talk) 01:59, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Kautilya3, I have provided a reason for each of my edits in the edit summaries. Please see that. I can't repeat everything here now.-Y2edit? (talk) 02:22, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

@Extorc I had suggested a separate 'media debate' section where views and counter views can be easily accommodated. If Wikipedia is truly neutral it should include shades of all sides. Only those prominent views which are not countered and counter countered should be in reaction section.

I see @ present Wikipedia culture of having only reaction sections as a lazy approach which hides non neutrality.

But I do not think User @Y2edit? approach leading to edit wars any way helpful to themselves. IMHO @Y2edit? should prefer to write media debate section in his own user page get it copy edited from other experienced user and then only bring to article and debate at this talk page; other wise he would be wasting his time in edit wars and ultimately blocked some day. Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 02:48, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: While I rarely agree with Ytoedit?'s contributions, he is right to point out that Chomsky's statements were unrelated to this issue. His comments centered around Kashmir. I am quoting from the source here.

“The pathology of Islamophobia is growing throughout the West — it is taking its most lethal form in India,”

Chomsky also said that Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s right-wing Hindu nationalist regime has sharply escalated the “crimes” in Indian-occupied Kashmir (IoK).

“The crimes in Kashmir have a long history,” he said, adding that the state was now a “brutally occupied territory and its military control in some ways is similar to occupied Palestine”.

The situation in South Asia, Chomsky said, was painful in particular not because of what was happening but because of what was not happening. There was, however, hope and opportunities to solve South Asian torment but not for long, he added.

These were the only statements quoted by the source. To me, this seems to be the criticism of Indian actions in Kashmir. The source, indeed, does not mention the hijab row at all, by chomsky, other speakers at the webinar, or by the editors of Dawn. Still, if you do not agree with my edit, feel free to revert.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 05:06, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

References

On the reactions sections in general: We have been allowing such sections in all controversial articles, but they are not encyclopaedic. No other encyclopaedias have "reactions" sections. Enlarging this to allow "debates" is going too far. And I would oppose that. As to the supposed violation of "neutrality", no it doesn't violate it. We are not ruling out either favourable reactions or unfavourable reactions. We only require that these be WP:THIRDPARTY views.

On the Chomsky reaction, I believe his comment was made in reaction to the hijab ban. Numerous newspapers presented it as such. You can find your favourite one among these and add it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:37, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I went through them. Though most made no connection, one article did connect the two - [1]. If this is taken as RS, we could add the statement back with a change of source. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 11:17, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

If Pakistan's some media refs are okay then why users are fighting shy of including a little more detail Pakistani media debate, as there are conservatives as there are secular feminists.

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 14:02, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Kautilya3, you said,

On the reactions sections in general: We have been allowing such sections in all controversial articles, but they are not encyclopaedic. No other encyclopaedias have "reactions" sections

, so should we remove all the, "reactions"?-Y2edit? (talk) 18:15, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

You might. You don't need my permission for it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:34, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

The article is not adequately inclusive of various shades of feminist views and some of the discussions on this page undermines possibilities of inclusivity.

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 02:33, 11 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. Venkat TL (talk) 07:00, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

But wont you agree that the reactions section is larger than ideal? @Venkat TL

I suggest removal of

"Education ministers in BJP ruled Himachal Pradesh and Tripura ... no plans for a uniform dress code."

"Sadhvi Pragya, an MP from the BJP, ... "no need to wear hijab anywhere" ... especially at educational institutions."

"Citizen group Bahutva Karnataka alleged ... controversy was perpetrated by members of Hindutva organisations ... coaxed, exhorted and threatened youth ... religious violence had occurred"

• Other states not implementing any dress codes, even though is related to the controversy, is not directly commenting on the controversy.
• Sadhvi Pragya is not a major BJP politician, only resurfaces whenever she has a court hearing related to her involvement in cases.
• Bahutva Karnataka, as far as i know, is a not very well known and notable organization.

>>> Extorc.talk(); 12:36, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

The reaction of MP from the ruling party is relevant, it offers the reader a view of the members of the ruling party. Other BJP ruled states is relevant, shows the reader that this policy is not uniform across BJP states. Bahutva is an imp, HR org in Karnataka. They have been provided such coverage by RS due to its relevance. Because of these reasons they cannot be removed. Venkat TL (talk) 14:49, 25 March 2022 (UTC)