Talk:2022 Karnataka hijab row

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kautilya3 (talk | contribs) at 18:11, 10 February 2022 (→Background: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 18:11, 10 February 2022 by Kautilya3 (talk | contribs) (→Background: Reply)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Islam Low‑importance

	Islam portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

India: Karnataka Low‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Karnataka (assessed as Low-importance).

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Women

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Education Low‑importance

	Education portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EducationWikipedia:WikiProject EducationTemplate:WikiProject Educationeducation
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Schools Low‑importance

	Schools portal This article is related to WikiProject Schools, a collaborative effort to write quality articles about schools around the world. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.SchoolsWikipedia:WikiProject SchoolsTemplate:WikiProject Schoolsschool
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Human rights Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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 Misplaced Pages 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)
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.

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... 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
- Reviewed: Exempt
- Comment:

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

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)

ALT1: ... that 2022 Karnataka hijab row over the wearing of hijab escalated into a three-day closure of high schools and colleges in Karnataka, India?

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 Misplaced Pages: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)

@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)

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 Misplaced Pages. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:33, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)
- Why not just wait and let the article improve and stabilize before deciding? VR _talk 05:05, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
  - 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)
    - 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)
      - 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)
    - 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)
      - 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 Misplaced Pages 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)
        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)
        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)
        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)

Oppose Since this links back to the article, cannot be approved till article stabilises. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 15:40, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

@CapnJackSp. Relax. It takes several weeks and months. Venkat TL (talk) 15:46, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

Oppose It is a completely wishy washy page so far with practically no content. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:21, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Banning of Hijab by Karnataka BJP Government

Hi CapJackSparow, Please see MOS:LEAD The lead does need to include extraneous and unnecessary details. Only relevant info in summarized format should be added. Please do not remove the bit about banning hijab from the lead. It is reliably sourced. Venkat TL (talk) 14:39, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

@Rockcodder: By mistake you have restored WP:CLOP violation added by CapJackSp. Please see the comment above. Lets discuss this before changing the lead. WP:EDITWAR is not appreciated. Venkat TL (talk) 14:45, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Because the hijab was not banned by the government, the "ban" refers to the individual actions of the educational institutes. Kindly see WP:CITATIONS, Controversial statements must be cited. Kindly provide a source for the government enforcing the ban and not just uniform, else self revert. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 14:47, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

@CapnJackSp. The order effectively banned the hijab. Agree or disagree? What are the WP:RS saying about this. Are they hiding the bit that BJP govt, banned Hijab? Venkat TL (talk) 14:49, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

"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 Venkat TL (talk) 14:51, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

No, in all institutes that allow the hijab, it did nothing. Leaving it up to the institute is a world of a difference from banning it. I would encourage you to revert your disruptive edits 1 2, as your assertion of effectively banning is WP:OR. Several is not a ban. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 14:56, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

@CapnJackSp all right. I understand your concern better now. I am willing to modify that bit. Please propose a draft version below. That should cover both the points and sourced by RS. Venkat TL (talk) 14:57, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Why not the actual part that you removed? The issue can be expanded in the body, as "decided by the state government in government schools, and by the school management in private schools, which led to many girls being barred from entry to colleges which did not allow the wearing of the hijab as a part of the uniform." Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 15:13, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

@CapnJackSp, which source is this cited from? Please sign your comment. Venkat TL (talk) 15:06, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Signed it, had forgotten. This is taken from the karnataka GO and the sentence you quoted. IDK if this is an RS, but if not we can just as easily take it from karnataka gov site."Invoking 133 (2) of the Karnataka Education Act-1983, which says a uniform style of clothes has to be worn compulsorily. The private school administration can choose a uniform of their choice"1 Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 15:13, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

@CapnJackSp, Primary sources (Govt site/order here) should not be used in controversial topics like this. I am sure we can find Secondary RS for the same. Please see WP:PSTS Venkat TL (talk) 15:17, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Do you consider the source I provided as unreliable for this purpose? If not, it can be used. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 15:21, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I am saying we should use a secondary source. due to WP:PSTS Venkat TL (talk) 15:25, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I understand that policy, and have attached a secondary source with my previous answer. Check it out. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 15:33, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

@Venkat TL: For the lead: Later, on 5 February 2022, the Karnataka government issued an order to make uniforms compulsory in educational institutions.
For the 'Incidents' section: Later, on 5 February 2022, the Bharatiya Janata Party led Karnataka government issued an order to make uniforms (decided by the state government in government schools, and by the school management in private schools) mandatory, while also stating that in the absence of a dress code, students can wear "the dress which will not affect equality, integrity and law & order". The order effectively banned the hijab in educational institutions which did not allow the wearing of the hijab as a part of the uniform or dress code.
Or at least something along these lines. Rockcodder (talk) 15:26, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

References

ABP News Bureau (5 February 2022). "Karnataka Govt Issues Fresh Order Amid Hijab Row, Says Uniform That Affects Harmony Must Be Banned". ABP Live. Retrieved 10 February 2022.

Im fine with this version. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 15:31, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. This is much better. Some more tweaks. See below version. Venkat TL (talk) 15:32, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Proposal 2

“

For the lead:

Later, on 5 February 2022, the Karnataka government issued an order to make uniforms compulsory in educational institutions. Several schools cited this order and denied entry to Muslim girls wearing the hijab.

For the 'Incidents' section:

Later, on 5 February 2022, the Bharatiya Janata Party led Karnataka government issued an order to make uniforms mandatory, while also stating that in the absence of a dress code, students can wear "the dress which will not affect equality, integrity and law & order". The order mentioned that the uniform were to be decided by the state government in government schools, and by the school management in private schools. Several schools cited this order and denied entry to Muslim girls wearing the hijab.

Source: Reuters and ABP

”

Venkat TL (talk) 15:32, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Slight change,
Proposal 3

Later, on 5 February 2022, the Karnataka government issued an order to make uniforms compulsory in educational institutions. According to local media, several schools cited this order and denied entry to Muslim girls wearing the hijab.
OR
Later, on 5 February 2022, the Karnataka government issued an order to make uniforms compulsory in educational institutions. Reportedly, several schools cited this order and denied entry to Muslim girls wearing the hijab.

For the 'Incidents' section:
Later, on 5 February 2022, the Bharatiya Janata Party led Karnataka government issued an order to make uniforms mandatory, while also stating that in the absence of a dress code, students can wear "the dress which will not affect equality, integrity and law & order". The order mentioned that the uniform were to be decided by the state government in government schools, and by the school management in private schools. Several schools cited this order and denied entry to Muslim girls wearing the hijab.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 15:50, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

CapnJack I object to your proposal. This is unnecessary. According to local reports will apply to every line in the article. Unless absolutely necessary It is not included. I dont see the necessity here. It is not disputed by anyone. Rockcodder your thoughts on Proposal 2 by me above? Venkat TL (talk) 15:50, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Sure, I was just using the language of the source you provided yourself. If you could quote an article that says what you wrote, I have no issues.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 15:52, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

The reuters article I linked and ABP article by Rock codder is the source. Venkat TL (talk) 15:56, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

The ABP one does not mention what happened after the order, and reuters is what I wrote. If you have a source which words it the way you wanted to represent it, do share it. In that case I will not have an issue. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 15:59, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

@CapnJackSp your objections is not clear. You have agreed with Proposal 1. I have only added stuff from Reuters in Proposal 2 and some copy edits. What is your problem with? Venkat TL (talk) 16:07, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

@Venkat TL: Can you change that to "refused to allow students wearing the hijab unless they removed them". Please do mention the schools not allowing students with saffron shawls as well. Rockcodder (talk) 16:11, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Also, you did add "Several schools cited this order and denied entry to Muslim girls wearing the hijab" Which is the contested part. I cant find that being said in the sources, reuters attributes to local media.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 16:15, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

@Rockcodder It is understood. Moreover neither of the 2 sources we have cited says that. so adding it will be WP:SYNTH. If you have no other objections. then I am adding Proposal 2 into the article. Captain Jack Sparrow read the green font in this page. --Venkat TL (talk) 16:18, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

@Venkat TL: You have not adressed my issues. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 16:21, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

CapnJackSp your objection whatever that is, is incoherent. Venkat TL (talk) 16:23, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Ill assume in good faith you did not notice my previous comment, restating. You added "Several schools cited this order and denied entry to Muslim girls wearing the hijab" Which is the contested part. I cant find that being said in the sources, reuters attributes the statement to local media, and if we go by it we must also maintain AttributePOV. If you can give source saying the same thing without attribution, then quote that source and you can go with proposal 2 else whichever version of proposal 3 is acceptable to you. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 16:30, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Everyword is from local media. What is your real problem? are you saying the school did not do what is reported? Venkat TL (talk) 16:42, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

What "real problem"? I just want you to stick to edits according to policy, and stop making incorrect claims. I have been giving you a lot of leeway here, you are being unnecessarily agressive. Again, unless you can provide a source that says the above without attributing it to unknown sources, yopu may enter this into the article, else the objection stands. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 16:52, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

There is no incorrect claim. Sources are given already. Venkat TL (talk) 17:07, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

@Venkat TL: Btw, "the uniform were to be decided by the state government in government schools, and by the school management in private schools" is wrong in my opinions since I interpreted said statement in the order as "uniforms in use in govt schools (which were decided by state gov) and private schools (which were decided by school management)".
And here are the sources for 'schools not allowing saffron shawls
https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Mangalore/kundapur-college-students-march-wearing-saffron-shawls/article38386142.ece
https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/karnataka/principal-asks-boys-to-remove-saffron-shawl-before-attending-classes/article38379162.ece
https://www.deccanherald.com/state/karnataka-districts/hijab-row-students-in-saffron-shawls-take-out-processions-1078328.html
And even sources which say that students agreed to remove said shawls.
https://www.firstpost.com/politics/hijab-saffron-shawl-controversy-continues-to-linger-in-karnataka-colleges-10355081.html
https://www.businesstoday.in/latest/story/hijab-saffron-shawl-controversy-continues-in-karnataka-colleges-321743-2022-02-07
Rockcodder (talk) 16:35, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

@Rockcodder Ok. So use Proposal 2 and create a Proposal 4 from it. It is not clear what changes you want be made in Proposal 2. Venkat TL (talk) 16:40, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

@Rockcodder do note that proposal 2 is disputed, and venkat has yet to answer my issues with it. Kindly use proposal1 if you wish, else wait till the conflict is resolved. Cheers. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 16:55, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Line from CNN

@Venkat TL: Which parts violate WP:CLOP? 'decided by the state government in government schools, and by the school management in private schools'? If that is is only statement violating WP:CLOP, I don't mind it being removed before that version is restored. Rockcodder (talk) 14:59, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

@Rockcodder You can refer to my edit summary with the word WP:CLOP. Instead of reverting to a version. lets propose the draft below and reach a consensus. I agree that I am not entirely right. Venkat TL (talk) 15:01, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

@Venkat TL: I think you missed my edit with the edit summary 'self revert'. Said edit removed the statement violating WP:CLOP. Rockcodder (talk) 15:04, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

If the CLOP bit is still there please remove it. If it is not there, then well lets discuss the topic of the thread above on banning Hijab. Venkat TL (talk) 15:06, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Background

Where is the background coming from? The CNN article cited only says this follows a string of online attacks against Muslim women in India, but those are not the causations of this one. I don't see any references to the elections either? (ping @Kautilya3) — DaxServer (t · c) 17:01, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

background does not necessarily need to be causation. Articles on events use this section to give an idea of concurrent and related events. See Gorge Floyd related pages. Venkat TL (talk) 17:05, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Do note that WP:OTHERCONTENT style arguments are not considered proper. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 17:08, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

And how are they related events despite being concurrent? (Replying from mobile, indent might be wierd) — DaxServer (t · c) 17:16, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

A few more references added. Venkat TL (talk) 18:09, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

What exactly do they say that establishes any "background"? WP:CITEKILL doesn't get you WP:CONSENSUS. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:11, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Removal of any instance of students wearing saffron.

@Venkat TL: You have removed any reference to the protests and/or actions of other students, including those which wore saffron as a sign of protest. As far as Im aware, multiple sources have been given for these on the talk page. Any reason? Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 17:53, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I had removed it as @Rockcodder: had added it violating WP:SYNTH. If it is added it needs to be added separately, with reliable source. Without creeping any False equivalence. Due to these issues it was removed. Venkat TL (talk) 17:56, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Sure, Ill add it back with the relevant citations.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 17:58, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

@CapnJackSp Since it was added once and removed once already. Please folow WP:BRD and discuss the draft here, to get consensus before adding. Venkat TL (talk) 18:00, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, sure. No issues, no need to cite policy every time you make a request, its fine.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 18:02, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

@Venkat TL: you might also want to respond to the section above, seems relevant.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 18:04, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Categories: