This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' ( talk) 17:47, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
2022 Karnataka hijab row has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The last paragraph of the lead reads, "The hijab ban in high schools and colleges was criticized inside India and abroad by officials in the United States and Pakistan, by Human Rights Watch, and by figures like Malala Yousafzai and Noam Chomsky
" but I think they're all misguided, so please add a sentence that they have been misguided/misinformed (or imagine) that it marginalises Muslim women.-
116.72.144.73 (
talk)
05:38, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
ScottishFinnishRadish (
talk)
11:55, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
I am not sure we can concur with the IP's expectations as is. But I am for having a section on media debate which can include opinions of various sides and that would be better balancing of encyclopedic article.
Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' ( talk) 13:22, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
include opinions of various sides and that would be better balancing of encyclopedic article."- 116.75.95.165 ( talk) 17:29, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
include opinions of various sides and that would be better balancing of encyclopedic article." That is all I am requesting (with reliable sources).- 116.75.79.71 ( talk) 19:27, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
include opinions of various sides and that would be better balancing of encyclopedic article." That is all I am requesting (with reliable sources). After Paul Pogba's statement, to show his hypocrisy, please add the sentence, "The hijab is however banned in France, showing his hypocrisy. [1]" This talks of the hypocrisy of others. This is about criticism of Shashi Tharoor for playing politics. This is about Priyanka Gandhi's hypocrisy.- 2409:4071:2182:9EFD:AF6D:7256:9B5C:F91D ( talk) 08:25, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
References
Since there is a consensus that this IP user (last seen on 2409:4071:2182:9EFD:9B7A:CA7:15C0:7905) is a time sink. Today he has violated copyright. I propose that others should simply revert his comments on this page. And seek page protection if he resorts to Edit warring to spam here. Venkat TL ( talk) 11:48, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Article in other some other language WP seem to be there but not yet in Kannada itself? Or it is not linked?
Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' ( talk) 03:21, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
In the Paragraph 3 of the lead. The word "Ban" is used twice. I suggest this is not good because there isn't any ban imposed by the government. AG clarified the stance of the Government that it only suggests the students to follow the dress code of the University they are attending. The word Ban in public reactions and court case is okay but in lead section, its use is not justified IMO. I suggest
"The hijab ban in high schools and colleges was criticized inside India and abroad by officials in the United States and Pakistan, by Human Rights Watch, and by figures like Malala Yousafzai and Noam Chomsky. The ban was defended by politicians such as Arif Mohammad Khan, Aaditya Thackeray and Vishva Hindu Parishad and figures like Taslima Nasrin and Masih Alinejad."
to be changed to
"The restrictions on hijab in high schools and colleges was criticized inside India and abroad by officials in the United States and Pakistan, by Human Rights Watch, and by figures like Malala Yousafzai and Noam Chomsky. The restrictions was defended by politicians such as Arif Mohammad Khan, Aaditya Thackeray and Vishva Hindu Parishad and figures like Taslima Nasrin and Masih Alinejad."
@ Rockcodder, your thoughts? >>> Extorc. talk(); 06:33, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
The preamble stated that a ban on hijab was not illegal' phrase in the ' Government Reaction' sub-section, but Kautilya accused me (without explicitly naming me) of "trying to edit the text away from that based on sources" for doing so. Using the term 'ban' in wikivoice when one side has repeatedly stated that it has not banned anything is a violation of WP:NPOV in my opinion. Let us wait and see as to how they react to this proposal. Rockcodder ( talk) 06:56, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
"trying to edit the text away from that based on sources", The para we are talking about does not cite any sources. How can one criticize a ban when it doesn't exist. Use of such terminology might be acceptable in reactions section because these influential people end up critisizing a "Ban" but in the lead, as I stated, should not have a place.
"Using the term 'ban' in wikivoice when one side has repeatedly stated that it has not banned anything is a violation of WP:NPOV in my opinion", I agree with you. Moreover this is not a claim from "one side", it is a fact that nothing has been banned yet. [1]
>>> Extorc. talk(); 07:13, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
Oh, just take a look at the range of sources that hvae referred to the government order as a "ban" on hijab. If you want me to add some of them to the article, I will be glad to. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 12:52, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
(UTC)
This section is too long already and we shouldn't prolong it. But I don't believe it is correct that these were localised decisions in individual colleges. Except for the Udupi College which indeed had a prevailing dress code disallowing hijab, all other colleges that came up here were allowing hijab and stopped doing so following the Government Order that got communicated on 3 February.
Education Minister BC Nagesh has informed the college authorities that students can come to the classrooms only in uniforms and neither hijab nor saffron shawls will be allowed. [1]
Education minister BC Nagesh specified that "naqab, burqa, hijab, saffron or green shawls" are prohibited in classrooms and wearing the stipulated uniform is compulsory. [2]
Thus the fundamental premise behind this argumentation is wrong. There was nothing "localised" about it. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 18:35, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
References
".- Y2edit? ( talk) 19:07, 5 March 2022 (UTC)The implementation of the dress codes by educational institutes, prohibiting the use of the hijab along with the uniform, was criticised
"usual Wikipedian defence is facts are not evaluated but what reliable sources say matters", Are there any sources that state that a "Ban" has been imposed on hijab in schools. No. The word ban mostly originates from titles of sources where this word is used for brevity.
"At the beginning of January 2022, a dispute pertaining to restrictions on School Uniforms erupted in the Indian state of Karnataka,..", This is not the issue for consideration here. I am questioning the use of the word Ban because it is communicating that there Is a ban which is Not True. >>> Extorc. talk(); 07:24, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
The ban is on Burqa and not hijab.Also then issue started in September 2021 when 6 students suddenly started attending classes wearing Burqa despite multiple instructions by the school authorities to adhere to Uniform guidelines of the college. 171.76.125.187 ( talk) 10:07, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
I see editors trying to edit the text away from that based on sources. Please don't. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 19:43, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
The preamble stated that a ban on hijab was "not illegal"... [1].
References
Kautilya3 Since when did coming to a place become the same as entering it? 'wanting to wear' indicates a mere wish and not that they actually came wearing them. And why is wanting being used here anyway? It's clearly being used in the wrong sense here. Please look up the definition of the term 'wanting'. Btw, 'came to' and 'denied entry' were being used in the same sense as in the sentence 'He came to my house to talk things out, but I denied entry to him'. Is there anything about this sentence that 'doesn't make sense'? Alternatively, we could also use 'went to' instead of 'came to'. Rockcodder ( talk) 04:01, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
to. . . when some Muslim students of a junior college wanting to wear hijab to classes were denied entry on the grounds that it was a violation of the uniform policy.
Rockcodder ( talk) 08:44, 28 February 2022 (UTC); edited 10:22, 28 February 2022 (UTC). . . when authorities of a junior college denied entry to those Muslim students wearing a hijab, on the grounds that it was a violation of the uniform policy.
Here are a few sources for "wanting to wear":
"I want to wear the hijab. Last year, students in the science block used to wear it, but they are not allowing us. They're discriminating against us. We only want our rights to be upheld." [1]
A few months ago, a group of Muslim girls studying in the Government PU College in Udupi had sought permission to wear the hijab inside classrooms. This was one of the few colleges that had banned the hijab. When the college refused to accede to their demand, the girls turned up at the college wearing the hijab, but were not allowed to enter classrooms. [2]
“We are only requesting permission to wear hijab, which is an emotion, our identity and our fundamental right,” said the student who spoke on behalf of the entire group. [3]
Six students who initially demanded permission for wearing the hijab at Women's Government PU College, Udupi, abstained from attending classes on Wednesday even as the college reopened after a week's gap amid a statewide row over the issue. [4]
I really don't understand what your issue is. There are thousands of pictures in newspapers, where students were seen standing outside classrooms, or sitting in corridors, having been denied permission. They wanted to continue to wear hijab into classes. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 12:10, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
He said that initially, around a dozen women wanted to wear the hijab, but the number reduced after he spoke to their parents. [5]
References
Wanting adjective[1]
1)wanting (in something) not having enough of something
SYNONYM lacking
*The students were certainly not wanting in enthusiasm.
2)wanting (in something) not good enough
*This explanation is wanting in many respects.
*The new system was tried and found wanting.
to. . . when some Muslim students of a junior college wanting to wear hijab to classes were denied entry on the grounds that it was a violation of the uniform policy.
Kautilya3 I have taken some of your concerns with my first proposal into consideration in this second proposal. What say you? Rockcodder ( talk) 19:04, 28 February 2022 (UTC). . . when authorities of a junior college denied entry to Muslim students who decided to wear a hijab, did so and insisted that they be allowed to wear, on the grounds that it was a violation of the uniform policy.
At the beginning of January 2022, a dispute erupted pertaining to school uniforms in the Indian state of Karnataka, when some Muslim students wanting to wear hijab in a junior college were denied entry to classes.
The row started because the student decided to wear hijab to classes and insisted that they should be allowed." was missing. I added these in the second proposal. Rockcodder ( talk) 21:39, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
. . . when some Muslim students of a junior college, who had decided to and insisted upon being allowed to wear a hijab to class, were denied entry on the grounds that wearing a hijab was a violation of the college's uniform policy.
P.S. On normal settings, Grammarly thinks that the above is good enough (it doesn't show a 'Hard-to-read text' warning). Rockcodder ( talk) 06:54, 1 March 2022 (UTC)At the beginning of January 2022, a dispute about school uniforms erupted in the Indian state of Karnataka. It did so when some Muslim students of a junior college, who had decided to and insisted upon being allowed to wear a hijab to class, were denied entry because wearing a hijab was a violation of the college's uniform policy.
Notes
@ Kautilya3: As earlier in the discussion, I urged other side to use word "Some" before 'Muslim students' , in the same line I urge word "Some" before 'Hindu students'.
Secondly, I am unaware of MoS, but while interlinking word 'school uniform' we generally anticipate 99.99 percent people to know what 'school uniform' is. I suppose those readers who can read this dispute can handle reading of global controversies surrounding school uniforms if they land directly to controversies section. Though I am not insisting on this point I feel generally we need not be afraid in letting people land @ controversies section directly.
Thanks Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' ( talk) 07:03, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Should we split the subsections in the Reactions section into 'for' and 'against' the 'ban'? Something along the lines of
and can someone add reactions from Taslima Nasrin and Masih Alinejad? The lead mentions that the two defended the ban but the reactions section doesn't contain their reactions. Rockcodder ( talk) 08:47, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' ( talk) 02:22, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
I had stayed away from this article (and will do so) due to a lack of intricate acquaintance with facts but Bhatia, Gautam (2022-03-15). "Between Agency and Compulsion: On the Karnataka High Court's Hijab Judgment". Indian Constitutional Law and Philosophy. appears to be a decent critique of the KHC judgement. TrangaBellam ( talk) 16:01, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Greetings,
I did come across one link to the Karnataka HC judgement @ Bar and Bench but a link but the linked PDF does not appear to be their own website. Link from more known/reliable platform shall be preferable and needed.
Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' ( talk) 08:00, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
There is no need to italicise hijab. Most RS don't do it. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 21:04, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
I noticed the article had been modified and the reactions section was removed. Well, the reactions, domestic or international, are notable enough to be put in here. Utkarsh555 14:53, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
and we put it as January. Did they get it so wrong? [1] [2]
References
— DaxServer ( t · m · c) 17:28, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
I have added the Rejection of the urgent hearing request in the SC , and I only saw it after the edit that @ Kautilya3 has already reverted someone elses edits on this. IMO this should be covered considering opportunity to appear in exams is a major request of the petitioners. >>> Extorc. talk(); 12:34, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' ( talk) 17:47, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
2022 Karnataka hijab row has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The last paragraph of the lead reads, "The hijab ban in high schools and colleges was criticized inside India and abroad by officials in the United States and Pakistan, by Human Rights Watch, and by figures like Malala Yousafzai and Noam Chomsky
" but I think they're all misguided, so please add a sentence that they have been misguided/misinformed (or imagine) that it marginalises Muslim women.-
116.72.144.73 (
talk)
05:38, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
ScottishFinnishRadish (
talk)
11:55, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
I am not sure we can concur with the IP's expectations as is. But I am for having a section on media debate which can include opinions of various sides and that would be better balancing of encyclopedic article.
Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' ( talk) 13:22, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
include opinions of various sides and that would be better balancing of encyclopedic article."- 116.75.95.165 ( talk) 17:29, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
include opinions of various sides and that would be better balancing of encyclopedic article." That is all I am requesting (with reliable sources).- 116.75.79.71 ( talk) 19:27, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
include opinions of various sides and that would be better balancing of encyclopedic article." That is all I am requesting (with reliable sources). After Paul Pogba's statement, to show his hypocrisy, please add the sentence, "The hijab is however banned in France, showing his hypocrisy. [1]" This talks of the hypocrisy of others. This is about criticism of Shashi Tharoor for playing politics. This is about Priyanka Gandhi's hypocrisy.- 2409:4071:2182:9EFD:AF6D:7256:9B5C:F91D ( talk) 08:25, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
References
Since there is a consensus that this IP user (last seen on 2409:4071:2182:9EFD:9B7A:CA7:15C0:7905) is a time sink. Today he has violated copyright. I propose that others should simply revert his comments on this page. And seek page protection if he resorts to Edit warring to spam here. Venkat TL ( talk) 11:48, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Article in other some other language WP seem to be there but not yet in Kannada itself? Or it is not linked?
Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' ( talk) 03:21, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
In the Paragraph 3 of the lead. The word "Ban" is used twice. I suggest this is not good because there isn't any ban imposed by the government. AG clarified the stance of the Government that it only suggests the students to follow the dress code of the University they are attending. The word Ban in public reactions and court case is okay but in lead section, its use is not justified IMO. I suggest
"The hijab ban in high schools and colleges was criticized inside India and abroad by officials in the United States and Pakistan, by Human Rights Watch, and by figures like Malala Yousafzai and Noam Chomsky. The ban was defended by politicians such as Arif Mohammad Khan, Aaditya Thackeray and Vishva Hindu Parishad and figures like Taslima Nasrin and Masih Alinejad."
to be changed to
"The restrictions on hijab in high schools and colleges was criticized inside India and abroad by officials in the United States and Pakistan, by Human Rights Watch, and by figures like Malala Yousafzai and Noam Chomsky. The restrictions was defended by politicians such as Arif Mohammad Khan, Aaditya Thackeray and Vishva Hindu Parishad and figures like Taslima Nasrin and Masih Alinejad."
@ Rockcodder, your thoughts? >>> Extorc. talk(); 06:33, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
The preamble stated that a ban on hijab was not illegal' phrase in the ' Government Reaction' sub-section, but Kautilya accused me (without explicitly naming me) of "trying to edit the text away from that based on sources" for doing so. Using the term 'ban' in wikivoice when one side has repeatedly stated that it has not banned anything is a violation of WP:NPOV in my opinion. Let us wait and see as to how they react to this proposal. Rockcodder ( talk) 06:56, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
"trying to edit the text away from that based on sources", The para we are talking about does not cite any sources. How can one criticize a ban when it doesn't exist. Use of such terminology might be acceptable in reactions section because these influential people end up critisizing a "Ban" but in the lead, as I stated, should not have a place.
"Using the term 'ban' in wikivoice when one side has repeatedly stated that it has not banned anything is a violation of WP:NPOV in my opinion", I agree with you. Moreover this is not a claim from "one side", it is a fact that nothing has been banned yet. [1]
>>> Extorc. talk(); 07:13, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
Oh, just take a look at the range of sources that hvae referred to the government order as a "ban" on hijab. If you want me to add some of them to the article, I will be glad to. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 12:52, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
(UTC)
This section is too long already and we shouldn't prolong it. But I don't believe it is correct that these were localised decisions in individual colleges. Except for the Udupi College which indeed had a prevailing dress code disallowing hijab, all other colleges that came up here were allowing hijab and stopped doing so following the Government Order that got communicated on 3 February.
Education Minister BC Nagesh has informed the college authorities that students can come to the classrooms only in uniforms and neither hijab nor saffron shawls will be allowed. [1]
Education minister BC Nagesh specified that "naqab, burqa, hijab, saffron or green shawls" are prohibited in classrooms and wearing the stipulated uniform is compulsory. [2]
Thus the fundamental premise behind this argumentation is wrong. There was nothing "localised" about it. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 18:35, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
References
".- Y2edit? ( talk) 19:07, 5 March 2022 (UTC)The implementation of the dress codes by educational institutes, prohibiting the use of the hijab along with the uniform, was criticised
"usual Wikipedian defence is facts are not evaluated but what reliable sources say matters", Are there any sources that state that a "Ban" has been imposed on hijab in schools. No. The word ban mostly originates from titles of sources where this word is used for brevity.
"At the beginning of January 2022, a dispute pertaining to restrictions on School Uniforms erupted in the Indian state of Karnataka,..", This is not the issue for consideration here. I am questioning the use of the word Ban because it is communicating that there Is a ban which is Not True. >>> Extorc. talk(); 07:24, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
The ban is on Burqa and not hijab.Also then issue started in September 2021 when 6 students suddenly started attending classes wearing Burqa despite multiple instructions by the school authorities to adhere to Uniform guidelines of the college. 171.76.125.187 ( talk) 10:07, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
I see editors trying to edit the text away from that based on sources. Please don't. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 19:43, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
The preamble stated that a ban on hijab was "not illegal"... [1].
References
Kautilya3 Since when did coming to a place become the same as entering it? 'wanting to wear' indicates a mere wish and not that they actually came wearing them. And why is wanting being used here anyway? It's clearly being used in the wrong sense here. Please look up the definition of the term 'wanting'. Btw, 'came to' and 'denied entry' were being used in the same sense as in the sentence 'He came to my house to talk things out, but I denied entry to him'. Is there anything about this sentence that 'doesn't make sense'? Alternatively, we could also use 'went to' instead of 'came to'. Rockcodder ( talk) 04:01, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
to. . . when some Muslim students of a junior college wanting to wear hijab to classes were denied entry on the grounds that it was a violation of the uniform policy.
Rockcodder ( talk) 08:44, 28 February 2022 (UTC); edited 10:22, 28 February 2022 (UTC). . . when authorities of a junior college denied entry to those Muslim students wearing a hijab, on the grounds that it was a violation of the uniform policy.
Here are a few sources for "wanting to wear":
"I want to wear the hijab. Last year, students in the science block used to wear it, but they are not allowing us. They're discriminating against us. We only want our rights to be upheld." [1]
A few months ago, a group of Muslim girls studying in the Government PU College in Udupi had sought permission to wear the hijab inside classrooms. This was one of the few colleges that had banned the hijab. When the college refused to accede to their demand, the girls turned up at the college wearing the hijab, but were not allowed to enter classrooms. [2]
“We are only requesting permission to wear hijab, which is an emotion, our identity and our fundamental right,” said the student who spoke on behalf of the entire group. [3]
Six students who initially demanded permission for wearing the hijab at Women's Government PU College, Udupi, abstained from attending classes on Wednesday even as the college reopened after a week's gap amid a statewide row over the issue. [4]
I really don't understand what your issue is. There are thousands of pictures in newspapers, where students were seen standing outside classrooms, or sitting in corridors, having been denied permission. They wanted to continue to wear hijab into classes. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 12:10, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
He said that initially, around a dozen women wanted to wear the hijab, but the number reduced after he spoke to their parents. [5]
References
Wanting adjective[1]
1)wanting (in something) not having enough of something
SYNONYM lacking
*The students were certainly not wanting in enthusiasm.
2)wanting (in something) not good enough
*This explanation is wanting in many respects.
*The new system was tried and found wanting.
to. . . when some Muslim students of a junior college wanting to wear hijab to classes were denied entry on the grounds that it was a violation of the uniform policy.
Kautilya3 I have taken some of your concerns with my first proposal into consideration in this second proposal. What say you? Rockcodder ( talk) 19:04, 28 February 2022 (UTC). . . when authorities of a junior college denied entry to Muslim students who decided to wear a hijab, did so and insisted that they be allowed to wear, on the grounds that it was a violation of the uniform policy.
At the beginning of January 2022, a dispute erupted pertaining to school uniforms in the Indian state of Karnataka, when some Muslim students wanting to wear hijab in a junior college were denied entry to classes.
The row started because the student decided to wear hijab to classes and insisted that they should be allowed." was missing. I added these in the second proposal. Rockcodder ( talk) 21:39, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
. . . when some Muslim students of a junior college, who had decided to and insisted upon being allowed to wear a hijab to class, were denied entry on the grounds that wearing a hijab was a violation of the college's uniform policy.
P.S. On normal settings, Grammarly thinks that the above is good enough (it doesn't show a 'Hard-to-read text' warning). Rockcodder ( talk) 06:54, 1 March 2022 (UTC)At the beginning of January 2022, a dispute about school uniforms erupted in the Indian state of Karnataka. It did so when some Muslim students of a junior college, who had decided to and insisted upon being allowed to wear a hijab to class, were denied entry because wearing a hijab was a violation of the college's uniform policy.
Notes
@ Kautilya3: As earlier in the discussion, I urged other side to use word "Some" before 'Muslim students' , in the same line I urge word "Some" before 'Hindu students'.
Secondly, I am unaware of MoS, but while interlinking word 'school uniform' we generally anticipate 99.99 percent people to know what 'school uniform' is. I suppose those readers who can read this dispute can handle reading of global controversies surrounding school uniforms if they land directly to controversies section. Though I am not insisting on this point I feel generally we need not be afraid in letting people land @ controversies section directly.
Thanks Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' ( talk) 07:03, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Should we split the subsections in the Reactions section into 'for' and 'against' the 'ban'? Something along the lines of
and can someone add reactions from Taslima Nasrin and Masih Alinejad? The lead mentions that the two defended the ban but the reactions section doesn't contain their reactions. Rockcodder ( talk) 08:47, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' ( talk) 02:22, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
I had stayed away from this article (and will do so) due to a lack of intricate acquaintance with facts but Bhatia, Gautam (2022-03-15). "Between Agency and Compulsion: On the Karnataka High Court's Hijab Judgment". Indian Constitutional Law and Philosophy. appears to be a decent critique of the KHC judgement. TrangaBellam ( talk) 16:01, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Greetings,
I did come across one link to the Karnataka HC judgement @ Bar and Bench but a link but the linked PDF does not appear to be their own website. Link from more known/reliable platform shall be preferable and needed.
Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' ( talk) 08:00, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
There is no need to italicise hijab. Most RS don't do it. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 21:04, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
I noticed the article had been modified and the reactions section was removed. Well, the reactions, domestic or international, are notable enough to be put in here. Utkarsh555 14:53, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
and we put it as January. Did they get it so wrong? [1] [2]
References
— DaxServer ( t · m · c) 17:28, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
I have added the Rejection of the urgent hearing request in the SC , and I only saw it after the edit that @ Kautilya3 has already reverted someone elses edits on this. IMO this should be covered considering opportunity to appear in exams is a major request of the petitioners. >>> Extorc. talk(); 12:34, 24 March 2022 (UTC)