![]() | 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 |
I know nothing about Arabic or Islam, but I notice that in this article and its references, "Quran" occurs nine times, while "Qur'an" or "Qur'anic" occur 18 times. Unless someone objects, I will change "Quran" to "Qur'an" for consistency. Ubzerver ( talk) 05:33, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
New user @ AshkanMofidi seem to have deleted following image from the article lead. Idk who when and with what relevance placed that image nor any need to go into that at this juncture. Having any kind of Hijab related image from Iran in article lead indirectly amounts to be like a political statement from this or that side; so I am quite okay if Iran related image is not maintained in the lead it self. But section Iran deserves images of both sides supporting or using and against while maintaining a balance.
Though this image is not a women only (in Hijab) group image but was giving a feel of a group image. IMO article deserves a women only (in Hijab) group image not necessarily from Iran.
Bookku ( talk) 11:28, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
This article is the subject of an
educational assignment at Colgate University supported by the
Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Fall term. Further details are available
on the course page.
The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}}
by
PrimeBOT (
talk) on
15:54, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi! I wanted to use this space to explain what I meant when I said that your removal and replacement felt "weird". What I was hoping (and seemingly failed to) convey was that I was uneasy with the way that removing text about certain muslims views on the hijab and replacing it with the fact that it is required under orthodox sharia law, beyond being an improper removal, is that it feels very much like taking a religious stance in the article, like saying "they are wrong to believe that, this is whats actually true", especially given that the removed phrase only stated individuals beliefs, not a broad anti-hijab belief structure or movement. Googleguy007 ( talk) 15:16, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
"there is sweeping consensus among Islamic religious scholars around the world that Muslim women are required to, or at least should, cover their hair. So the head scarf, or some type of head covering, is widely viewed as mandatory in Islam"- one of these sources clearly plagiarized the other, but I'm not sure which). But that's certainly not the whole picture for the community, for which the situation is complex and varied. Take, for example, this study on schools in Malaysia:
"The girls regularly took off their hijab during the free play time. Prayer time was the time when it was mandatory to wear the hijab with the teachers providing headscarves for those who had not brought theirs. They were encouraged to wear the hijab at other times, but no penalty was given for not wearing it."[3] - here, it's clearly a situation of strongly encouraged, but not mandatory (except during prayer time - a differentiation that I would note is very common across the Middle East). I will end with this:
"It is however important to stress that many Muslim women do not cover. Many are not practising and several practising disagree with the idea that covering is mandatory in Islam."[4] - I take "important to stress" as WP:DUE. Iskandar323 ( talk) 07:13, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
‘Among Islamic scholars there is a consensus with regard to female covering but there is no consensus for the actual form of the covering’- this source also includes important notes on a trend currently absent from this page, which is the Islamic feminists that demur on the subject of the hijab. This material leans heavily on citations to Women in Islam: The Western Experience. By Anne Sofie Roald Also this:
"The exact ambit of the hijab is subject of controversies but there is a consensus among all Islamic scholars that all mature females when in a place where non-mahrims would see them must dress in a way that all their bodies are covered with loose clothing which does not expose the shape of the body and which is not transparent."Iskandar323 ( talk) 08:11, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
@ StarkReport and Googleguy007:
Like me this article is likely to be on watch list of many more Wikipedia users and watching the ongoing content dispute. I have following advice for both of you.
Bookku ( talk) 06:10, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
It is similar to the tichel or snood worn by Orthodox Jewish women, certain headcoverings worn by many Christian women, such as the mantilla, apostolnik and wimple, as well as the dupatta worn by by many Hindu and Sikh women.
I am not sure, this comparative sentence needs in the lede. Though sentence expressly does not say so, purpose of it seems to be justificational hence sounds unnecessarily defensive WP:Coatrack or WP:Undue as second sentence of the lede. I suppose sentence can be in later sections or paragraphs if needed.
.. While a hijab can come in many forms, it often specifically refers to a headscarf, wrapped around the head and neck, covering the hair, neck, and ears but leaving the face visible..
In modern usage, hijab .. generally refers to headcoverings worn by some Muslim women. While a hijab can come in many forms, it often specifically refers to a headscarf, wrapped around the head and neck, covering the hair, neck, and ears but leaving the face visible...
What do you think? Bookku ( talk) 01:35, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
I accidentally hit enter when typing out my edit summary for this edit I made. I intended to quote the paper:
An important point needs clarification here that in this study the women wearing veil are those women who cover their face
However this page is on the Hijab and not those like the Niqāb that cover the face.
Further, the paper is specifically on the attitudes of (a rather small sample of) veiled and unveiled women in the Punjab region in Pakistan. After a thorough reading I couldn't find it make any reference to other work that claims most women wear the hijab out of their own choice.
For these reasons I removed the source. Having skimmed the page I couldn't find anything in the body to support the statement so it's Cn'd now. SevenTriangles ( talk) 06:17, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
The link attached to the end of the sentence in the “The word ḥijāb in the Qur'an refers not to women's clothing, but rather a spatial partition or curtain.” from the subheading “In Islamic Scripture,” takes the reader to a page from “Oxford Refrence.” This website was previously known as “Oxfrod Islamic Studies Online,” and the page with the reference was retired, making finding the exact quoting stating that hijab is a, “spatial partition or curtain,” extremely difficult to find. A more in depth explanation to this reference can be found on the link at the end of this evaluation. This link directs the reader to a paper written by Sara Slininger, of East Illinos State University.
https://www.eiu.edu/historia/Slininger2014.pdf
Goose0919 (
talk)
02:58, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Goose0919
Since young girls are not obliged to wear hijab, I removed the photo of the little girl wearing hijab. Little girls can wear it optionally in mosques, during Qur'an lessons, or in public if they choose to, but they are not obliged to wear it at such a young age. Qivatari ( talk) 05:06, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Source cited in the lead doesn’t state “many”, but some: “Hijab: A head scarf, worn by some Muslim women, which leaves the face exposed.” SwagLikeMe464 ( talk) 09:47, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
reverted 6 of my edits of the article Hijab, within minutes, in a single tool swoop, apparently never giving any consideration, nor checking references, and he NEVER gave ANY explanation in the history page.
@Materialscientist sent a message to me simply say that my six edits were "non-constructive." After I have reviewed @Materialscientist 's Talk Page, it appears that he regularly revert edits without giving explanations.
I am asking for a third party review of @Materialscientist's revert of my edits of the Hijab article.
QamarBurtuqali ( talk) 07:07, 8 November 2023 (UTC)QamarBurtuqali
in the history of stating "not providing a reliable source." In fact, all of my edits are constructive and I gave reliable sources. I did not use religious scripture as a cited published reference. It appears to me that :@ Materialscientist: and :@ @Adakiko are making up excuses, engaging in sabotage.
QamarBurtuqali ( talk) 08:16, 8 November 2023 (UTC)QamarBurtuqali
in one swoop revert and he never gave any explanation in the history page. He performed the revert within one minute after I posted the two separate edits, so he appears that he never considered my edits.
QamarBurtuqali ( talk) 09:02, 8 November 2023 (UTC)QamarBurtuqali
I did not cite religious primary sourcesor
I cited a Hadith. The description of Hadith indicates that they are religious primary sources. — C.Fred ( talk) 12:50, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
I added these two sentences under Hijab/In Islamic Scripture/Quran in a detailed paragraph about "Islamic commentators generally agree ..." :
"In particular, an early Muslim scholar noted that 7th century Arabian slave women went around bare-breasted, inviting harassment. [1] During the pre-Islam era, Arabs used to perform Tawaf of the Ka`ba while naked [2]"
I added these two sentences to establish historical context of 7th century Arabia. Both sentences are constructive to the discussion. Both citations are appropriate, are historical (not religious) and the citations are correct.
Editor @ Barbardo reverted both sentences because he asserted that "The second hadith diesn't mention women being harassed or about slave women and the first reference doesn't say the verse was revealed for slave women." Apparently, @Barbardo does not even understand the difference between a "verse" and a "hadith." Moreover, according to @Barbardo's Talk Page, he has a long history of reverts and has been accused of Edit Warring.
I cited an early Muslim scholar, to establish the historical fact that 7th century Arabian slave women went around bare-breasted. I cited a Hadith as a historical citation (not as a religious citation) to establish the historical fact that "During the pre-Islam era, Arabs used to perform Tawaf of the Ka`ba while naked."
I added these two sentences to support the topic sentence "The Islamic commentators generally agree this verse refers to sexual harassment of women of Medina." The paragraph is discussing the historical context of the Quran verse 33:59: "O Prophet! Ask your wives, daughters, and believing women to draw their cloaks over their bodies. In this way it is more likely that they will be recognized ˹as virtuous˺ and not be harassed." It is important to give historical evidence that the public nakedness of women in 7th Arabia seemed to invite harassment and early Muslims noted that public nakedness was contrary the advice of Qur'an 33:59.
If anyone thinks that my edit is inappropriate or incorrect, please give your unbiased, unpolitical opinion here in the Talk Page.
QamarBurtuqali ( talk) 14:18, 8 November 2023 (UTC)QamarBurtuqali
References
You reverted my good faith edits on 7 November 2023 within 5 minutes, with no careful consideration.
I added a "need citation" for this highly questionable statement leading the second paragraph of the article: "In Islam, Muslim women are required to observe the hijab in front of any man they could theoretically marry." This sentence, permitted at the top of the article gives the impression that ALL Muslim women wear hijab. There is no citation for this sentence. You reverted my "need citation" edit for no reason.
In addition, you reverted my very brief, well-documented, neutral paragraph, summarizing the unquestionable fact that some Muslim women do not wear the hijab:
According to the Harvard University Pluralism Project: "Some Muslim women cover their head only during prayer in the mosque; other Muslim women wear the hijab; still others may cover their head with a turban or a loosely draped scarf." [1]
One sentence or brief paragraph (like this) should appear in the first section of the article.
QamarBurtuqali ( talk) 01:16, 8 November 2023 (UTC)QamarBurtuqali
References
@ Barbardo with ref to this edit dif seem over following sentence.
.. In Islam, Muslim women are required to observe the hijab in front of any man they could theoretically marry. ..
I have not read the presently given source but I think there is a scope for having better paraphrasing and better academic source.
If not then when contested it is always better to provide the exact quote from the source.
On side note: @ QamarBurtuqali Discuss every point in a separate section, so other editors will not get confused and avoid temptation of edit war and always give preference to article talk page discussion.
Please do not divert and keep to the topic of each specific discussion. Bookku ( talk) 10:54, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
QamarBurtuqali ( talk) 14:17, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
Modern Muslim scholars usually require women to cover everything but their hands and face in public
.. that it is obligatory for women to cover their hair, and the entire body except her face and hands, while in the presence of people of the opposite sex other than close family members. ..
.. In Shia jurisprudence, by consensus, it is obligatory for women to cover their hair, and the entire body except her hands and face, while in the presence of people of the opposite sex other than close family members. ..
.. In private, and in the presence of close relatives (mahrams), rules on dress relax. ..
.. In Islam, Muslim women are required to observe the hijab in front of any man they could theoretically marry. This means that hijab is not obligatory in front of the father, brothers, grandfathers, uncles or young children or those regarded as mahram. ..
"There is a consensus among Islamic religious scholars that covering the head is either required or preferred, though some argue that it is not mandated."
.. In Islam, Muslim women are required to observe the hijab
@ Barbardo : @ Bookku and I have been discussing the phrasing of these two sentences. @Bookku added inline Template:Discuss so we can seek input from more users for better consensus. QamarBurtuqali ( talk) 11:42, 14 November 2023 (UTC)QamarBurtuqali
![]() | 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 |
I know nothing about Arabic or Islam, but I notice that in this article and its references, "Quran" occurs nine times, while "Qur'an" or "Qur'anic" occur 18 times. Unless someone objects, I will change "Quran" to "Qur'an" for consistency. Ubzerver ( talk) 05:33, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
New user @ AshkanMofidi seem to have deleted following image from the article lead. Idk who when and with what relevance placed that image nor any need to go into that at this juncture. Having any kind of Hijab related image from Iran in article lead indirectly amounts to be like a political statement from this or that side; so I am quite okay if Iran related image is not maintained in the lead it self. But section Iran deserves images of both sides supporting or using and against while maintaining a balance.
Though this image is not a women only (in Hijab) group image but was giving a feel of a group image. IMO article deserves a women only (in Hijab) group image not necessarily from Iran.
Bookku ( talk) 11:28, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
This article is the subject of an
educational assignment at Colgate University supported by the
Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Fall term. Further details are available
on the course page.
The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}}
by
PrimeBOT (
talk) on
15:54, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi! I wanted to use this space to explain what I meant when I said that your removal and replacement felt "weird". What I was hoping (and seemingly failed to) convey was that I was uneasy with the way that removing text about certain muslims views on the hijab and replacing it with the fact that it is required under orthodox sharia law, beyond being an improper removal, is that it feels very much like taking a religious stance in the article, like saying "they are wrong to believe that, this is whats actually true", especially given that the removed phrase only stated individuals beliefs, not a broad anti-hijab belief structure or movement. Googleguy007 ( talk) 15:16, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
"there is sweeping consensus among Islamic religious scholars around the world that Muslim women are required to, or at least should, cover their hair. So the head scarf, or some type of head covering, is widely viewed as mandatory in Islam"- one of these sources clearly plagiarized the other, but I'm not sure which). But that's certainly not the whole picture for the community, for which the situation is complex and varied. Take, for example, this study on schools in Malaysia:
"The girls regularly took off their hijab during the free play time. Prayer time was the time when it was mandatory to wear the hijab with the teachers providing headscarves for those who had not brought theirs. They were encouraged to wear the hijab at other times, but no penalty was given for not wearing it."[3] - here, it's clearly a situation of strongly encouraged, but not mandatory (except during prayer time - a differentiation that I would note is very common across the Middle East). I will end with this:
"It is however important to stress that many Muslim women do not cover. Many are not practising and several practising disagree with the idea that covering is mandatory in Islam."[4] - I take "important to stress" as WP:DUE. Iskandar323 ( talk) 07:13, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
‘Among Islamic scholars there is a consensus with regard to female covering but there is no consensus for the actual form of the covering’- this source also includes important notes on a trend currently absent from this page, which is the Islamic feminists that demur on the subject of the hijab. This material leans heavily on citations to Women in Islam: The Western Experience. By Anne Sofie Roald Also this:
"The exact ambit of the hijab is subject of controversies but there is a consensus among all Islamic scholars that all mature females when in a place where non-mahrims would see them must dress in a way that all their bodies are covered with loose clothing which does not expose the shape of the body and which is not transparent."Iskandar323 ( talk) 08:11, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
@ StarkReport and Googleguy007:
Like me this article is likely to be on watch list of many more Wikipedia users and watching the ongoing content dispute. I have following advice for both of you.
Bookku ( talk) 06:10, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
It is similar to the tichel or snood worn by Orthodox Jewish women, certain headcoverings worn by many Christian women, such as the mantilla, apostolnik and wimple, as well as the dupatta worn by by many Hindu and Sikh women.
I am not sure, this comparative sentence needs in the lede. Though sentence expressly does not say so, purpose of it seems to be justificational hence sounds unnecessarily defensive WP:Coatrack or WP:Undue as second sentence of the lede. I suppose sentence can be in later sections or paragraphs if needed.
.. While a hijab can come in many forms, it often specifically refers to a headscarf, wrapped around the head and neck, covering the hair, neck, and ears but leaving the face visible..
In modern usage, hijab .. generally refers to headcoverings worn by some Muslim women. While a hijab can come in many forms, it often specifically refers to a headscarf, wrapped around the head and neck, covering the hair, neck, and ears but leaving the face visible...
What do you think? Bookku ( talk) 01:35, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
I accidentally hit enter when typing out my edit summary for this edit I made. I intended to quote the paper:
An important point needs clarification here that in this study the women wearing veil are those women who cover their face
However this page is on the Hijab and not those like the Niqāb that cover the face.
Further, the paper is specifically on the attitudes of (a rather small sample of) veiled and unveiled women in the Punjab region in Pakistan. After a thorough reading I couldn't find it make any reference to other work that claims most women wear the hijab out of their own choice.
For these reasons I removed the source. Having skimmed the page I couldn't find anything in the body to support the statement so it's Cn'd now. SevenTriangles ( talk) 06:17, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
The link attached to the end of the sentence in the “The word ḥijāb in the Qur'an refers not to women's clothing, but rather a spatial partition or curtain.” from the subheading “In Islamic Scripture,” takes the reader to a page from “Oxford Refrence.” This website was previously known as “Oxfrod Islamic Studies Online,” and the page with the reference was retired, making finding the exact quoting stating that hijab is a, “spatial partition or curtain,” extremely difficult to find. A more in depth explanation to this reference can be found on the link at the end of this evaluation. This link directs the reader to a paper written by Sara Slininger, of East Illinos State University.
https://www.eiu.edu/historia/Slininger2014.pdf
Goose0919 (
talk)
02:58, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Goose0919
Since young girls are not obliged to wear hijab, I removed the photo of the little girl wearing hijab. Little girls can wear it optionally in mosques, during Qur'an lessons, or in public if they choose to, but they are not obliged to wear it at such a young age. Qivatari ( talk) 05:06, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Source cited in the lead doesn’t state “many”, but some: “Hijab: A head scarf, worn by some Muslim women, which leaves the face exposed.” SwagLikeMe464 ( talk) 09:47, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
reverted 6 of my edits of the article Hijab, within minutes, in a single tool swoop, apparently never giving any consideration, nor checking references, and he NEVER gave ANY explanation in the history page.
@Materialscientist sent a message to me simply say that my six edits were "non-constructive." After I have reviewed @Materialscientist 's Talk Page, it appears that he regularly revert edits without giving explanations.
I am asking for a third party review of @Materialscientist's revert of my edits of the Hijab article.
QamarBurtuqali ( talk) 07:07, 8 November 2023 (UTC)QamarBurtuqali
in the history of stating "not providing a reliable source." In fact, all of my edits are constructive and I gave reliable sources. I did not use religious scripture as a cited published reference. It appears to me that :@ Materialscientist: and :@ @Adakiko are making up excuses, engaging in sabotage.
QamarBurtuqali ( talk) 08:16, 8 November 2023 (UTC)QamarBurtuqali
in one swoop revert and he never gave any explanation in the history page. He performed the revert within one minute after I posted the two separate edits, so he appears that he never considered my edits.
QamarBurtuqali ( talk) 09:02, 8 November 2023 (UTC)QamarBurtuqali
I did not cite religious primary sourcesor
I cited a Hadith. The description of Hadith indicates that they are religious primary sources. — C.Fred ( talk) 12:50, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
I added these two sentences under Hijab/In Islamic Scripture/Quran in a detailed paragraph about "Islamic commentators generally agree ..." :
"In particular, an early Muslim scholar noted that 7th century Arabian slave women went around bare-breasted, inviting harassment. [1] During the pre-Islam era, Arabs used to perform Tawaf of the Ka`ba while naked [2]"
I added these two sentences to establish historical context of 7th century Arabia. Both sentences are constructive to the discussion. Both citations are appropriate, are historical (not religious) and the citations are correct.
Editor @ Barbardo reverted both sentences because he asserted that "The second hadith diesn't mention women being harassed or about slave women and the first reference doesn't say the verse was revealed for slave women." Apparently, @Barbardo does not even understand the difference between a "verse" and a "hadith." Moreover, according to @Barbardo's Talk Page, he has a long history of reverts and has been accused of Edit Warring.
I cited an early Muslim scholar, to establish the historical fact that 7th century Arabian slave women went around bare-breasted. I cited a Hadith as a historical citation (not as a religious citation) to establish the historical fact that "During the pre-Islam era, Arabs used to perform Tawaf of the Ka`ba while naked."
I added these two sentences to support the topic sentence "The Islamic commentators generally agree this verse refers to sexual harassment of women of Medina." The paragraph is discussing the historical context of the Quran verse 33:59: "O Prophet! Ask your wives, daughters, and believing women to draw their cloaks over their bodies. In this way it is more likely that they will be recognized ˹as virtuous˺ and not be harassed." It is important to give historical evidence that the public nakedness of women in 7th Arabia seemed to invite harassment and early Muslims noted that public nakedness was contrary the advice of Qur'an 33:59.
If anyone thinks that my edit is inappropriate or incorrect, please give your unbiased, unpolitical opinion here in the Talk Page.
QamarBurtuqali ( talk) 14:18, 8 November 2023 (UTC)QamarBurtuqali
References
You reverted my good faith edits on 7 November 2023 within 5 minutes, with no careful consideration.
I added a "need citation" for this highly questionable statement leading the second paragraph of the article: "In Islam, Muslim women are required to observe the hijab in front of any man they could theoretically marry." This sentence, permitted at the top of the article gives the impression that ALL Muslim women wear hijab. There is no citation for this sentence. You reverted my "need citation" edit for no reason.
In addition, you reverted my very brief, well-documented, neutral paragraph, summarizing the unquestionable fact that some Muslim women do not wear the hijab:
According to the Harvard University Pluralism Project: "Some Muslim women cover their head only during prayer in the mosque; other Muslim women wear the hijab; still others may cover their head with a turban or a loosely draped scarf." [1]
One sentence or brief paragraph (like this) should appear in the first section of the article.
QamarBurtuqali ( talk) 01:16, 8 November 2023 (UTC)QamarBurtuqali
References
@ Barbardo with ref to this edit dif seem over following sentence.
.. In Islam, Muslim women are required to observe the hijab in front of any man they could theoretically marry. ..
I have not read the presently given source but I think there is a scope for having better paraphrasing and better academic source.
If not then when contested it is always better to provide the exact quote from the source.
On side note: @ QamarBurtuqali Discuss every point in a separate section, so other editors will not get confused and avoid temptation of edit war and always give preference to article talk page discussion.
Please do not divert and keep to the topic of each specific discussion. Bookku ( talk) 10:54, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
QamarBurtuqali ( talk) 14:17, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
Modern Muslim scholars usually require women to cover everything but their hands and face in public
.. that it is obligatory for women to cover their hair, and the entire body except her face and hands, while in the presence of people of the opposite sex other than close family members. ..
.. In Shia jurisprudence, by consensus, it is obligatory for women to cover their hair, and the entire body except her hands and face, while in the presence of people of the opposite sex other than close family members. ..
.. In private, and in the presence of close relatives (mahrams), rules on dress relax. ..
.. In Islam, Muslim women are required to observe the hijab in front of any man they could theoretically marry. This means that hijab is not obligatory in front of the father, brothers, grandfathers, uncles or young children or those regarded as mahram. ..
"There is a consensus among Islamic religious scholars that covering the head is either required or preferred, though some argue that it is not mandated."
.. In Islam, Muslim women are required to observe the hijab
@ Barbardo : @ Bookku and I have been discussing the phrasing of these two sentences. @Bookku added inline Template:Discuss so we can seek input from more users for better consensus. QamarBurtuqali ( talk) 11:42, 14 November 2023 (UTC)QamarBurtuqali