Talk:Hijab

The first section of the article must clarify that SOME Muslim women do not wear the hijab

@AntiDionysius:

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." 

One sentence or brief paragraph (like this) should appear in the first section of the article.

@Rasnaboy: I am asking for a third party review of this revert by AntiDionysius.

QamarBurtuqali (talk) 01:16, 8 November 2023 (UTC)QamarBurtuqali

The quote is in reference to Muslim women in America. Not the wider world. It should be in the section “Around the world”, not in the lead. AriseYoArise (talk) 08:21, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

References

The second paragraph of the article does not belong in the introduction

The second paragraph of the Hijab article is:

"In Islam, Muslim women are required to observe the hijab in front of any man they could theoretically marry.[citation needed] This means that hijab is not obligatory in front of the father, brothers, grandfathers, uncles or young children or those regarded as mahram.[5] Hijab is similar to the tichel or snood worn by Orthodox Jewish women, certain headcoverings worn by some Christian women, such as the mantilla, apostolnik and wimple,[6][7] as well as the dupatta worn by many Hindu and Sikh women.[8][9][10]"

The first sentence is highly debatable, as discussed in the body of the article. Of course, there is no reliable citation for the first sentence. The rest of the paragraph contains details that are discussed in the body and does not belong in the introduction.

Let us agree that the second paragraph of the Hijab article should be deleted entirely.

QamarBurtuqali (talk) 04:08, 8 November 2023 (UTC)QamarBurtuqali

I dispute the citation that editor :@Barbardo: added to the sentence

"In Islam, Muslim women are required to observe the hijab in front of any man they could theoretically marry."

Naturally, Barbardo has not provided a page number. I checked his reference by reading the entire article.

In fact, the article does not support the sentence in question.

Barbardo is engaging in Edit Warring, again, on 10 November 2023‎.

I urge other qualified editors to check Barbardo's citation.

I repeat, in my humble opinion, the second paragraph of the Hijab article should be deleted entirely.

QamarBurtuqali (talk) 13:28, 11 November 2023 (UTC)QamarBurtuqali

@QamarBurtuqali, since many readers just read the lede to gain an essential insight, the content about headcoverings in various religious and cultural contexts makes more sense in the top section than in the 'Dress Code' area since that relates to what the Islamic sects have to say about the dress.

The lede's purpose is to provide a concise overview of the topic, distinct from the detailed examination in the 'Dress Code' section, which primarily focuses on Islamic laws.

If you find it appropriate, you may choose to either remove or elaborate on the sentence in the 'Dress Code' section but its WP:Notablilty and WP:Due nature merits its presence in the lede. StarkReport (talk) 13:33, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Because the topic is "Hijab" not "Female Head Coverings Around The World,"

the comparison you added is a footnote. A footnote does not belong in the lede.

The information in notability and due in the Dress Code section, but not in the lede.

IMHO.

QamarBurtuqali (talk) 16:46, 10 December 2023 (UTC)QamarBurtuqali

@QamarBurtuqali, "Because the topic is "Hijab" not "Female Head Coverings Around The World,"" Kindly note that it is a religious dress, which makes it WP:Noteworthy, as opposed to dresses that serve a functional or fashionable intent.

And, relegating well-sourced information that mentions religious parallelism about the religious subject matter to just a footnote is absurd.

As I have reiterated before, 'you may choose to either remove or elaborate on the sentence in the 'Dress Code' section,' but it belongs in the lede, especially considering we already have the paragraph 'The practice of Islamic veiling varies around the world --------- unofficial pressure to wear or not wear a hijab' in the lede. This is despite the information being extensively covered in the article body and related articles.

Again, note that the Dress code specifically addresses Islamic guidelines regarding the hijab, making the inclusion of this line inappropriate within that context. StarkReport (talk) 22:36, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Given the significance of addressing the definition of the dress and its contextual importance in the lede section, it can even be written in the top like:

"In modern usage, hijab (Arabic: حجاب, romanized: ḥijāb, pronounced [ħɪˈdʒaːb]) generally refers to various head coverings conventionally worn by many Muslim women. It is similar to the tichel or snood worn by Orthodox Jewish women, certain headcoverings worn by some Christian women, such as the mantilla, apostolnik and wimple, as well as the dupatta worn by many Hindu and Sikh women." StarkReport (talk) 22:56, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Just a question of better paraphrasing?

@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)

Right. The sentence is highly dubious and it will be impossible to provide

a citation to support the essence of the sentence. This is why that I urge editors

to delete the sentence (and the entire paragraph). These issues are already

discussed in depth in the section Dress Code of the body of the article.

QamarBurtuqali (talk) 14:17, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

@QamarBurtuqali The related sentences what I can see in section Dress Code are following.

1)

Modern Muslim scholars usually require women to cover everything but their hands and face in public

2)

.. 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. ..

3)

.. 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. ..

4)

.. In private, and in the presence of close relatives (mahrams), rules on dress relax. ..

To begin with concept of Mahram is a complex enough to translate and simplify in a single sentence. In sentences 2, 3, 4 the term seems to have been used is "close family members" to mean Mahrams but I am not sure that is also very accurate depiction of concept of Mahrams. Secondly 'close family members' is a relative term having different meanings in different religions, cultures and regions.

Explaining of complex enough concept in a single simple sentence can always be a challenge.

• As per MOS:LEAD guideline lead is summary of most representative parts of the article body. (Summarized sentences in the lead do not need to have references)

• Presently following two sentences in the lead, seem to represent summary for (above mentioned) sentences coming in the later section(s).

.. 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. ..

Can it be rephrased some thing on following line?

.. In Islam, Muslim women are expected to observe the hijab in front of most adult men (including cousin brothers and at most public places), except in front of mahram that includes the father, grandfathers, uncles and brothers. ..

Bookku (talk) 07:59, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

@ Bookku

The article lead contains this sentence that accurately summarizes the content of the Dress Code section:

"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 my humble opinion, the second paragraph of the lead should be deleted because it contains detailed complex ideas that are already well addressed in the Dress Code section.

QamarBurtuqali (talk) 00:27, 13 November 2023 (UTC)QamarBurtuqali

As far as sentence you are pointing out seem to miss out on clear mention of very essential dogma:

• " A Muslim woman need not be visible without Hijab to any 'non-Mahram' adult men."

BTW I have added Inline Template:Discuss to the present sentences in lead, IMO we wait for inputs indue course from more users for better consensus.

Bookku (talk) 06:26, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

@Barbardo

In my humble opinion, it will be impossible to find a citation to support the phrase

.. In Islam, Muslim women are required to observe the hijab

because experts will carefully write something like "There is a consensus among Islamic scholars that..."

Moreover, when Islamic religious scholars give opinions (fatwa) about the requirements of female attire

in the presence of non-Mahram adult men, they do NOT require "hijab." In modern parlance, the word "hijab" refers to a particular type of a head covering.

QamarBurtuqali (talk) 00:23, 14 November 2023 (UTC)QamarBurtuqali

@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

Two users @AriseYoArise and @ArdyWard902 deleted an entire paragraph while it was under discussion in the Talk Page

@AriseYoArise and @ArdyWard902 have no business to delete an entire paragraph when the paragraph was being discussed in the Talk Page. The paragraph contained two "discuss" templates to warn editors.

Here is the paragraph they deleted:

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. Hijab is similar to the tichel or snood worn by Orthodox Jewish women, certain headcoverings worn by some Christian women, such as the mantilla, apostolnik and wimple, as well as the dupatta worn by many Hindu and Sikh women.

User @AriseYoArise does not heed warnings. I have already tried to stop him. IMHO, another editor should restore the paragraph.

QamarBurtuqali (talk) 09:24, 14 November 2023 (UTC)QamarBurtuqali

@Bookku: They ignored your "discuss" template ! Argh. QamarBurtuqali (talk) 09:54, 14 November 2023 (UTC)QamarBurtuqali

Thanks for reporting at the talk page. I have shared Template:Contentious topics/alert/first or relevant reminder with most of us.

Let us hope that helps. Bookku (talk) 04:10, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

References

Some wear it, not many

I changed the word “many” to “some” in the opening sentence. The sentence now says: “In modern usage, hijab (Arabic: حجاب, romanized: ḥijāb, pronounced [ħɪˈdʒaːb]) generally refers to various head coverings conventionally worn by some Muslim women.” This is because the source cited clearly states: “Hijab: A head scarf, worn by some Muslim women, which leaves the face exposed.” Dido789 (talk) 21:32, 9 January 2024 (UTC)