Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Talk:2022 Karnataka hijab row


Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by Narutolovehinata5 (talk) 10:05, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination has been open for over a month and the neutrality and stability concerns have remained unaddressed. The article talk page has also raised multiple concerns about the article and many remain unresolved. The article was given a fair chance at stabilization (several weeks), but as it appears that stability remains elusive at this time there does not appear to be a path forward for the article right now. There is no prejudice against the article being renominated for DYK if it is brought to GA status and I would highly suggest that an effort to do so be done once things have settled down to ensure that, if the article is renominated for DYK, the nomination is more likely to be successful.

  • ... that denial of entry into schools for students wearing Hijab led to the Hijab row in Karnataka? Source: "Local media reported last week that several schools in Karnataka had denied entry to Muslim girls wearing the hijab citing an education ministry order, prompting protests from parents and students." Reuters

Created by Venkat TL (talk) and Ainty Painty (talk). Nominated by Venkat TL (talk) at 13:46, 10 February 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • New enough and long enough. QPQ not needed (3 credits). The article does need editing: I see a {{by whom}} tag and a {{excessive citations}} tag that is unacceptable for an article being highlighted on the Main Page, and I'd also like to see the references use citation templates (though this is not a DYK requirement). I can't say I like the construction of the hook, with "Hijab" twice in five words. Can I suggest some options, Venkat TL and Ainty Painty? Please ping me when this is done. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 07:08, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would not normally do this, but after further review (and some off-wiki gathering of advice from fellow editors), and having followed this article's development in recent days, I am going to decline this nomination (WP:IAR) because it is eminently clear at this time that the page is not stable enough for DYK and that the current conflicts surrounding it are of high stakes. This is not your fault, Venkat TL and Ainty Painty.
It is unfortunate that neither the DYK rules near the DYK supplementary rules reference stability in the same way that the good article criteria do. However, this page would not qualify. It is about a current event in a field with discretionary sanctions. There have been more than 100 edits in five days. And there has been a lot of discussion on the talk page, including several people who expressed concerns about the stability of the page at DYK. At Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, there is an open thread pertaining to conduct of editors on this exact page.
Because of the volume of edits and developments, it may be the case that if this were approved, it may not meet DYK standards, especially in areas such as NPOV, by the time it was placed on the Main Page. One in five references has been added after my last edit, for instance.
The topic area means that there is already quite high exposure to this page. The article is gathering a median of 1,780 views a day. Giving it more exposure at this stage may not be salubrious for its development, especially an unstable page and in a topic with inherent sectarian tensions.
I don't do this lightly, but I do it because of the delicate nature of the topic area and because the rapid pace of edits to this page vis-a-vis DYK may mean that something reaches the Main Page without being appropriately neutral. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:20, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Sammi Brie: why not just wait until this article has stabilized? Assuming a DYK nom has been done in a timely order (within 7 days of creation), is there a limit to how long we can wait to resolve potential issues? VR talk 05:40, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Based on what Sammi said another possible issue isn't just stability but also neutrality. Even if the article stabilized, if the tone was still decisively POV, it wouldn't be approved for POV. It doesn't help that the topic in question is already a POV magnet even outside Wikipedia. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:33, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
May I request everyone including @Narutolovehinata5 and Sammi Brie: to be patient and wait for few weeks for the article to stabilize. This is a current ongoing event. Patience is needed.Venkat TL (talk) 12:44, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, it's been more than two weeks. While page views have stabilized at a steady level, many of my concerns linger. The article has multiple talk page discussions, is the subject of a fairly decent daily edit load, and some of the editors on the talk page are worried about NPOV or missing aspects of the topic. (There is also a paragraph needing an inline citation to end it.) I don't think this DYK nomination can go forward but encourage the editors to work toward improving the page with citation templates, increasing POV scrutiny, and adding citations where appropriate. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 07:46, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why not just wait and let the article improve and stabilize before deciding? VR talk 05:05, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Neutrality is one of the main DYK criteria, and if it cannot be expected to be resolved within a reasonable timeframe, a nomination can be failed. To answer your earlier question, while technically there is no deadline, there is a reasonable expectation that DYK nominations be completed as soon as possible, and if reviewers agree that issues cannot be addressed within a reasonable timeframe, then it doesn't have a path forward. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:41, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • What is a reasonable time for one topic won't be reasonable for another. For example, an article about a controversial historical event should come to neutrality in a shorter time than an article about a controversial current event. Given that this topic had a significant development just 3 days ago (a court decision), it is not unreasonable that NPOV issues still need to be worked out.VR talk 13:06, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • The fact that the case is still ongoing and the article remains unstable and appears likely to be that way for the foreseeable future is probably a point against the article running on DYK anytime soon. I would probably suggest that, once everything has settled down, the article be brought to GA status (which also takes into account things such as stability and neutrality) so that next time we'll be sure that the article is ready for DYK. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:42, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Clearly there is an unwritten deadline that these regulars at DYK are following. They will quote WP:NODEADLINE and yet claim 7 days and 30 days to close DYK and mark it as fail. Irrespective of the author asking time. I dont understand what pressure they are facing if the DYK exists unclosed. I have stopped arguing with them, no matter what you say, they will do their thing. It appears there is a sadistic pleasure in closing the DYKs and trimming the DYK list. If the intention is to keep the DYK backlog in order, why not just unlist it till it is ready for review, why follow an unwritten deadline to close and mark it as fail? In the case of this article Hijab, the article is still getting improvements and updates. But as I said there seems to be an un-written DEADLINE to be followed. Venkat TL (talk) 13:15, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • Venkat TL, DYK was designed for newly created and newly expanded articles: to highlight them on the main page. Note the purpose: new. If you look at the page that describes DYK, the word "new" appears with great frequency. There is an expectation that articles submitted will be actively worked on if they aren't quite ready at the time of submission or the review finds issues that need fixing, keeping in mind that newness is part of DYK's DNA, and that nominations that don't make progress after a couple of weeks (with leniency sometimes extended to as much as a month) are liable to be closed, something you continue to ignore even when you're told that your time is running out. You have quoted WP:NODEADLINE more than once, but don't seem to realize that NODEADLINE is not an official Wikipedia policy, it's an essay that doesn't really apply to things like DYK or GAN or other review processes. Back to DYK, we don't unlist and later relist precisely because of the newness criteria. As for your statement It appears there is a sadistic pleasure in closing the DYKs and trimming the DYK list, that's about as stunning a failure to assume good faith that I've seen here at DYK. I strongly recommend you apologize and strike it. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:22, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • I stand by my observations. Coming to the topic, the number of edits per day has reduced greatly and the article has stabilized. I suggest a review after 7 days. Venkat TL (talk) 07:21, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
              • The nomination has already been open for over a month, and was given two weeks to stabilize. The article has already been given its fair chance. It's fair to close it for stability issues given how much time has been given without the concerns still being addressed. I don't see how another seven day wait would change anything. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:07, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                • Most of the issues have been addressed already. If you see existing ones, please point them. A review after 7 days will find a more stable article. Till then please focus on other DYKs. Venkat TL (talk) 10:14, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Since this links back to the article, cannot be approved till article stabilises. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 15:40, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CapnJackSp. Relax. It takes several weeks and months. Venkat TL (talk) 15:46, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No issues, just placed for now. If it stabilises (as it will eventually), I will be more than willing to strike my comment and allow this through. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 15:49, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your oppose is irrelevent. The WP:DYK reviewer will check the recent page history regardless. Your comment is of no consequence. Venkat TL (talk) 15:54, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nevertheless, I feel it is pertinent to inform the reviewer of such, in case it missed their notice. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 18:34, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is a completely wishy washy page so far with practically no content. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:21, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait. I think this article is developing and that process should be allowed to stabilize. I look forward to that and hope it will be featured in the DYK section soon.VR talk 06:12, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits

Kautilya3, TrangaBellam, removed some names with this edit but we know that those two said something about this row. His next edit is also irritating but since I am not familiar with all the rules yet, I request you to look at it and either revert it or explain why it is okay. Thanks!-Y2edit? (talk) 12:50, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please link to Alinejad's comments on this row? Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 13:00, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The references were not cited in this article but this, this,this, do show that she commented about it.-Y2edit? (talk) 16:15, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please link to Alinejad's comments on this row? Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 16:18, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Y2edit? Pl. understand, media reports cited by you, 'do not mean' Alinejad commented on Karnataka Hijab row. Those media reports only mean that social media and media columnist remembered Alinejad's old reservations about Hijab. Thanks
Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 16:33, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BMMA

After all it is same 'reductionism' which is there in society reflects on Wikipedia too, not only this article but many other articles too. Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 10:59, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bookku, I have added some sentences based on the citation you provided, please check if it conforms to the rules.-Y2edit? (talk) 17:37, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bookku, can you explain what you mean by 'reductionism'? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:50, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Y2edit?, can you explain where she "defended" the ban? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:03, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Kautilya3, She has said,

Since I am from the community, I can see the pitfalls of supporting practices such as hijab. I recall several instances where I’ve had complete strangers — young and old men, and once a younger woman — walk up to me in public and question my choice of dressing. The impunity, the audacity with which your personal space can be violated!

-Y2edit? (talk) 19:10, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If she doesn't support the wearing of the hijab, how does it imply that she supports the ban? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:12, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
She was responding to a question about this row. Please check the reference cited above. I have made this edit elsewhere (in another article) also.-Y2edit? (talk) 19:17, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That may be so. But there is no mention of ban or uniform there. Regarding these aspects, she says

While schools have the right to determine what their uniform should be, before enforcing a decision, why could discussions with all stakeholders not be held? Obviously, because the aim was to communalise, polarise, and push the community into a corner.

That sounds like a criticism of the ban. You, on the other hand, claim that she supports the ban. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:35, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Kautilya3, I wrote,

Noorjehan Safia Niaz, co-founder of the Bharatiya Muslim Mahila Andolan (BMMA) consider the enforcement of the hijab to be a violation of personal space.

Please correct me if I am wrong.-Y2edit? (talk) 20:43, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anything in this source belongs in this article. "Enforcement of hijab", whatever it means, is not the subject of this article. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:54, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you!-Y2edit? (talk) 21:06, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bookku hasn't replied regarding "reductionism".

Here are some stray thoughts of mine regarding the issues. The western understanding of religion in civil affairs is that it is essentially a matter of personal faith. As long as somebody claims that something is their faith, and it is evidenced that such faith exists, the concern is accommodated unless it is unbearable burden. (This might still allow a restaurant to say they have a dress code that disallows hijab/burqa, but generally accommodation is preferred.)

In India, on the other hand, religions have become institutionalised. This was started by the British themselves in the 18th/19th centuries by gathering religious scholars/authorities and getting them to codify what their religion was supposed to be. Muslims apparently liked this since they have centuries of sharia laws. For Hindus on the other hand, it was a disaster, because their supposed "law books" (dharmashastras) were never institutionalised. The British were the first do so. After independence, the so-called Hindu laws have been disbanded wholesale, but the Muslim Personal Law and the Christian Personal Law have remained. (There are however no "Sikh Law", "Jain Law" and "Parsee Law", for reasons that nobody knows.)

So, when the six Udupi girls, pretty certainly instigated by PFI, have started claiming that their "fundamental rights" were being violated, they stepped into this quagmire. Their lawyers proved unwilling or unable to argue that hijab was essential to Islam. Obviously, BMMA would see red if anybody argued that hijab was essential to Islam. That is a non-starter.

The Supreme Court is stuck with its own previous rulings whereby only "essential religious practices" can claim to be protected by Article 25. Only if it can reinvent the "personal faith" idea, which is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution, can this problem be resolved to the satisfaction of all. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:53, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmation biases make people not acknowledge fallacies and irrationalities, and people including Wikipedians are reluctant to take encyclopedic note of nuances and complexities involved.
Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 07:32, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 17 April 2022

2001:8F8:1737:36B5:44A1:D47F:751D:2EA7 (talk) 08:22, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

spelling mistake muslin need to be changed to muslim.

 Done Cannolis (talk) 08:48, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2022_Karnataka_hijab_row