Template:Did you know nominations/2022 Hijab row in Karnataka

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

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)
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.

2022 Karnataka hijab row

• ... 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?

• 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)

@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 Wikipedia. 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)
        • 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)