Talk:Islamic veiling practices by country/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

merge proposal

I propose to merge the multiple descriptions of legislation or cultural norms which may dictate to wear or to ban the wearing of any form of Islamic head dress which are scattered over the following articles into this article here:

• [Niqāb#In different countries]
• Islam_and_clothing#Hijab_by_country
• Burqa#Around_the_world
• Islamic_dress_in_Europe

I am totally no expert on the subject and just stumbled over the multiple articles describing the identical debate and most probably Niqab, Hijab and Burqa describe different pieces of clothing but the fundamental debate is about the same thing. All the laws, for example, in western countries who try to ban such cloting (in particluar cases) do not ban one particular piece of clothing but, for example, any clothing that covers the face (which would include Niqab, Hijab and Burqa). In particular because the topic is rather controversial, it would totally make sense to merge all relevant information into one page (or set of pages) with systematic names and just create inter wiki links from all the other pages. Another solution would be to merge all the Eropean spaects to Islamic_dress_in_Europe. Most important would be to have only one of such articles that list all possible rules and laws and link to the country specific articles. LucLeTruc (talk) 12:50, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

@LucLeTruc: Thanks for brining this up for discussion. It's true these article partially overlap. Some of these issues are more straightforward. For example, the entire Islam and clothing article is a poor-quality content fork of Hijab and this article. In theory, it doesn't have to be, since there's more to the subject than hijab, but in practice it is, and so I think it should be merged. This relationship between this article and Islamic dress in Europe seems be unproblematic, since the latter is a more detailed spin-off of one of the sections here. A trickier question is how to handle Burqa and Niqab, and that is because these terms refer to distinct styles of clothing in a technical sense, but both are often used interchangeably to refer to face veiling. There's some content which relates to those particular styles of garments, but not much. The bulk of both articles applies equally to both styles of garment, and these are currently split arbitrarily between these two articles, plus more general articles about hijab. As the first step for addressing this duplication, I would suggest merging both into an article called something like Face veiling in Islam, which would have subsections for niqab and burqa as distinct garment styles. Then we can consider how to handle the country-specific information scatted between articles about face veiling and hijab in general. Does that make sense? Eperoton (talk) 21:01, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree. There should be articles about the individual types of veils and a separate one focussing on the laws that ban or enforce veils (as most of these bans refer to several types of veils). Another duplication are the religous foundations that argue for or against certain types of veils which are found in the burqa, the nijab and the hijab articles. I would merge these into one separate article. But it is probably best to start with the bans. The article Islamic_dress_in_Europe seems to me the most advanced and a good place for the merged material. It should be renamed, however, to incorporate non European bans and because it focusses on female veils but it is probably best to start that discussion there. LucLeTruc (talk) 22:24, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, perhaps we aren't agreeing yet. I was saying that this article and Islamic dress in Europe both can be basically preserved, because they're in a normal WP relation to each other. Islamic dress in Europe is a more detailed spin-off of the European section here. Only the Kosovo and Turkey subsections are duplicated between them. It's also possible to merge Islamic dress in Europe here. It would make a long, but not unreasonably long article. If they aren't merged, Islamic dress in Europe should really be called Hijab by country in Europe, since the article makes no attempt to discuss anything else except hijab or to move beyond the country-by-country structure. It also gives undue weight to political controversy, but that's not going to be solved by our discussion.

I also don't see a problem with Hijab, which is a general synthetic discussion of veiling in Islam. It touches on various aspects, and has links to more detailed articles. I've just added another one. All the other specific articles listed in Types of hijab also seem unproblematic to me, except Burqa and Niqab whose de facto scope overlaps almost entirely.

I'm having second thoughts about turning Islam and clothing into a redirect after finding articles with that scope in several academic encyclopedias. The sections that duplicate other article should be trimmed/merged, and that goes especially for the Hijab by country section, and the rest of the article needs to be rewritten, or rather just written. Eperoton (talk) 23:44, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Eperoton, of any of us, you appear to have the best grasp of the problems and sources and distinct topics (I became accidentally involved only because of a related RfC and will probably be too busy/lazy to do much donkey-work). The cuurent title for 'Islamic dress in Europe' has the advantage of being more accessible, even if it is less exact. I agree that the 'political' element, whilst notable, is over represented at present. A notable ommission is the view that I have heard expressed by women who adopt Islamic attire, is that it frees them from what they see as the obligation of being 'sexual beings' in public, a view that often perplexes Westerners, male or female. Pincrete (talk) 12:40, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I do not have too strong opinions about this subject. My primary goal is to avoid redundancies and there are probably several ways to achieve this. However, a good strategy from the start on (meaning now) on how to organize and name articles may prevent a such overlap to redevelope in the future. I think it would be a good strategy if we draft names and contents of future articles here first and after we agree on a good scheme, we start to create these articles. It might also be good if we could attract the opinions of other editors engaged with these articles to come to a consensus first and avoid back and forth editing/moving/merging later on. Lets start to draft this set of articles below, feel free to edit or change my proposal. LucLeTruc (talk) 12:48, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

structure draft

Articles to be kept:

• Hijab

Overview article, contains religious foundations and different views on the subject (some merges from the burqa article), an overview of the different types of veils and a brief summary of the political discussion of banning certain types of hijab

• Hijab by country

list of country specific rules, customs and laws regulating certain types of veils with possible links to country specific articles about the debate (e.g. France, etc ...)

• Nijab

• Burqa

• ... all other articles describing specific types of garment

Articles to be merged in the articles above:

• Islamic dress in Europe

• Islam and clothing not sure about this. If we extend this to male clothing and more general aspects, a seperate article may make sense, otherwise it could be merged with Hijab

LucLeTruc (talk) 14:59, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I think RSs could support an article called about hijab in Europe distinct from the "by country" form. For example, most of the chapter titled "Hijab" in The Oxford Handbook of European Islam is a synthetic treatment of the subject, rather than a country-by-country rundown. There is also a book called Human Rights and Religion - The Islamic Headscarf Debate in Europe by Dominic McGoldrick, which has significant synthetic portions. However, the current version of Islamic dress in Europe has none of that. Whatever synthesis there is in the lead is WP:SYNTH. So, I'm still undecided about merging it here. Should it be kept as a placeholder for an article that might be written someday, or treated according to its actual state? In either case, I don't know any sources about Islamic dress in Europe in general, so I don't see a justification for that title.

In contrast, there are general sources about Islam and clothing -- a subject which includes Ihram clothing, the male clothing customs gleaned from early Islamic sources and classified as sunnah in certain quarters, and clerical headgear with its religious connotations -- so there again we have a contradiction between an article that could exist based on the sources, and the article we have, which doesn't match the title. In this case, I think salvageable content (of which there isn't much) should be merged and the rest should be stubbified. As a matter of fact, if you look at encyclopedic treatments like Brill's Encyclopedia of Islam [1] and Encyclopedia Islamica [2] (sorry, paywall), the subject is treated with the broader scope of "Clothing in Islam" (i.e., as civilization rather than religion), on which there's also a multi-part "Clothing" article in Encyclopedia Iranica [3] (this one's free). However, that would be an ambitious expansion better left for another time.

I see that my proposal to merge Burqa and Niqab into Face veiling in Islam is getting no traction, and I'm actually becoming uncomfortable about the idea myself, because encyclopedias seem to have those separate articles, but not the combined version. However, that doesn't have to be a problem. Once we remove the duplication of "by country" material by merging details here and leaving a summary, I think the other duplication can be easily managed, e.g., by designating a corresponding section in one article as the main article for the other.

Anyway, I appreciate the discussion, even if my own contributions are turning increasingly Hamlet-like. Let's keep the discussion going and hopefully others will chime in as well. Eperoton (talk) 05:29, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Great thoughts. Just a remark: I will be busy the next days without much time for this discussion but we should allow some time for other editors anyway. Maybe it would make sense to ping them directly? Do you have an overview about editors who are active in this topic? LucLeTruc (talk) 12:59, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Re: I see that my proposal to merge Burqa and Niqab into Face veiling in Islam is getting no traction, in my case only because you seem to have a better overview than me, not because I think it a bad idea. One minor observation, there seems throughout the articles some confusion between 'Hijab' as concept and as an item of clothing, leading to phrases like 'sartorial Hijab', which read as very odd to Eng. ears. Pincrete (talk) 13:57, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I've posted a notice on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam. Yes, some editors have been keen to add the "sartorial" qualifier because the term "hijab" is used with a broader sense in some contexts. We're already removed some of these, since that usage doesn't reflect most English-language RSs (or those in any other language, AFAIK). Eperoton (talk) 15:13, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I worked out the dual meaning from sentence 2 of "hijab", but doubt if it would be very clear to the average reader. If the concept is truer/older than the item of clothing, maybe that should be clearer, otherwise the linking is unhelpful. 'Sartorial' itself is not THAT common a word. Pincrete (talk) 16:50, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Another editor made me aware that Paranja should be considered here as well. I suppose one way to solve all of this is to create a {{sidebar}} for "Female clothing in Islam", or even one for "Religious clothing & women" where older Christian clothing similar to these could be described. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 18:10, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

There is an article at Christian headcovering — and a possible title for a sidebar could be "Religious headcovering". Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 18:12, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

That's an interesting idea. Such as a sidebar would also need to include Jewish religious headcoverings like Tichel, Sheitel and Snood (headgear). I'm concerned about putting together subjects which aren't commonly treated together in RSs, however, which is treading close to OR. For Islamic female head covering alone, the sidebar could be based on Types of hijab. I think this question is largely separate from from the issue of merging content, however. The main concern in the preceding discussion was preventing duplication of content, such as information about political controversies, over multiple articles. Eperoton (talk) 18:57, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

As CFCF points out, there is also Paranja to be taken into account. My own feeling is not only that political issues (ie largely bans or proposed bans ), should not only not be duplicated, but that they shouldn't overshadow other matters, such as prevalence and history. Also the religious reasons/justifications/refutations should be placed together in a coherent fashion, this is probably the subject of most interest to a non-specialist reader. Pincrete (talk) 20:00, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

@Pincrete, LucLeTruc, and CFCF: Actually, I have a new proposal to address these concerns. Let's create an article called Face veil bans, which will collect all the details on enacted or proposed bans, broken down by country, and can be linked for further information in other articles. That way this material will not overshadow other matters. Then Burqa, Niqab, and Paranja can discuss topics relevant to those specific styles of garments in a synthetic way, while general per-country discussion will be kept in this article here. This will require active maintenance in moving around details, which will probably be often added to more general articles, but I don't see another way to prevent this material from getting undue weight. As for religious discussions of face veiling, I think they can be kept in Niqab as they are now, simply because that's the term that sources for these discussions tend to use. Other articles can link to that section. Eperoton (talk) 04:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Dead links

Reference link no 31 is dead. It goes to the generic first page on NYT rather than the reference article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.251.217.205 (talk) 08:16, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

2017: Bans are planed by governments in Austria and in Luxembourg

In 2017, governments in Austria and in Luxembourg plan legal ban on face-covering Islamic clothing.

• Krone.at: Auch aus Wiener SPÖ klares Ja zu Burkaverbot -> Austria
• Lokalo.de: Rolle rückwärts, Luxemburger Regierung plant Burkaverbot -> Luxembourg

Strulare (talk) 18:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Lifting of Turkey ban

IP user: The cited source refers to the 2014 action as lifting of the ban. In order to change that, you need to find a source that refers to this action as partial lifting. Whether or not an earlier action was characterized that way is irrelevant. Obviously, if there was a ban to lift in 2014, then earlier relaxations of the ban were incomplete. By the way, you should verify the citations you're using. The one you've added is a dead link. Eperoton (talk) 19:47, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

@Sarvathi: (aka IP user?) I've already left a message on your talk page, which you have ignored. If you don't explain here how news stories describing the partial lifting of the ban in 2008 are relevant to the description of the lifting of the ban in 2014, you change will get reverted again. Refusing to seek consensus for your changes violates a WP policy, WP:CONSENSUS. Eperoton (talk) 02:18, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not that familiar with different styles of Islamic head-covering, but firstly, it is headscarves that are now allowed in Turkey, full-face covering remains illegal as far as I can see. also, some sources refer to the ban going back to Ataturk, not 1997. Would rewording to say that there was regulation (rather than ban/not ban) help? Pincrete (talk) 17:59, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

That's kind of orthogonal to this discussion. There have been multiple decisions gradually relaxing the restrictions. From Hijab, "The ban was lifted from universities in 2011, from government buildings in 2013,[45] and from schools in 2014." We're citing a RS that refers to the decision of 2014 as lifting of the ban, which is the most up-to-date summary of the situation in our citations. Sarvathi bizarrely insists on replacing that statement with a reference to a 2008 decision. If we have sources discussing this in more detail, we can use them too. Eperoton (talk) 18:47, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I realised my error after leaving my post above. Frankly, I wonder whether the details of individual bans are lead-worthy, rather than a summary that certain named countries have (had?) partial restrictions in certain educational or public contexts. The article is nominally about everything to do with this item of dress, world-wide, it seems disproportionate for the lead. Pincrete (talk) 19:30, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm open to rewriting the lead, but I think this is connected to our unfinished discussion in the preceding section. If much of this article is about bans, then the lead should reflect that. On the other hand, if we move details of bans and proposed bans into another article, then we can rebalance the lead. Eperoton (talk) 20:11, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

@Sarvathi: This is an article about the Hijab EVERYWHERE on earth, prevalence, tradition as well as legal position. The lead should summarise the body. The only thing worth saying about the legal position in Turkey in the lead IMO is that it has had bans in certain contexts and they have been relaxed recently. Eperton also questions whether your source is up to date. Can we please discuss HERE how to succintly express the Turkish legal position which is proportionate to the whole subject, and which is an accurate summary of what is in the body of the article and the best available sources? Pincrete (talk) 16:19, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

The headscarf ban began to be lifted in 2008 (and not misleadingly and erroneously only from 2014), when on February 7, 2008, the Turkish Parliament passed an amendment to the constitution, allowing women to wear the headscarf in Turkish universities. In October 2013, Turkey lifted the ban on the Islamic headscarf for women who work in civil service or government. The ban on wearing the headscarf in high schools was lifted in 2014. Sarvathi (talk) 22:20, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

@Sarvathi: I'm glad to see you've joined the discussion. Your references seem to indicate that the 2011 date given for lifting of the ban in universities in Hijab is incorrect, as it seems that the New York Times article cited there [4] got it wrong. We'll correct that. Other than that, your concern seems to be with the phrasing that suggests a one-time decision. I have no problem of clarifying the phrasing. In fact, I'll follow Pincrete's proposal and make it more generic. Eperoton (talk) 22:41, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

References

Merge Around_the_world section with Hijab By Country Article

Oppose per se The hijab is just the head covering part of womens' dress in the Mid-East. Information about hijab should be thus merged, but to add in the robe itself is overreach. Perhaps an article about burqas'/abayas'/etc usage around the world would be better...Veryproicelandic (talk) 03:55, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Bans in Denmark and in Norway by governments

In autumn 2017, governments in Norway and Denmark allowed bans aganist hijab/burqas. 188.96.185.76 (talk) 20:40, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

More than 13 country bans...

Country "burqa bans" listed, with links to news accounts, by a Colorado talk radio program include: Austria, France, Belgium, Bulgaria, Latvia, Holland, Germany (with Denmark and Canada's province of Quebec expects to enforce bans in 2018). And the non-Muslim majority African and Asian nations that have "banned the burqa" are Gabon and China's Muslim province of Xinjiang. And the Muslim nations that have banned face coverings completely or to varying degrees are Azerbaijan, Chad, Niger, Tunisia, Congo, Tajikistan, Malaysia, Cameroon, and Morocco. 75.171.244.53 (talk) 22:11, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

World Map

Hi can somebody put up a map of the world showing which states are banning the burka. Max.Moore (talk) 01:43, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello. Max.Moore (talk) 14:42, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

If you want, you can make a map yourself. There are some blank maps here that you can work from, using a program like Inkscape. You can also make a request at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop. —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:11, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Someone removed the world maps of which Muslim countries enforce the hijab and replaced it with a map of Europe showing which countries have total or partial bans on the hijab. Does anyone have any insight into why this edit was made? I will try to link those maps back into the article from the archived versions but I would be interested to know if there is a reason why I should not. Are they inaccurate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:A6A0:181:E8AA:FB7C:ACBB:1D2E (talk) 21:04, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I also would like to know why the map of Europe replaced the World map. The World map was a better choice. CryMeAnOcean (talk) 21:24, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

The World Map was too small and hard to see. Someone removed it now. It's location was wrong any way. The World Map was in the section called Muslim World. CryMeAnOcean (talk) 17:46, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Matthias Laurenz Gräff, "Liebende Eltern".jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:51, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Matthias Laurenz Gräff, "Liebende Eltern".jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:07, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Saudi in niqap.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:25, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Sesi photo nona anggraeni di asia afrika.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:51, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Matthias Laurenz Gräff - "Liebende Eltern".jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:51, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Please see: Talk:Islam_and_clothing#Merge_proposal. PPEMES (talk) 22:58, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Added information regarding hijab legislation in the Netherlands based off of multi-media research and quantitative evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkp1724 (talk • contribs) 21:05, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Inconsistency of Detail

Some countries had a lot of detail of hijab acceptance/prohibition while other countries had very little. In addition, no South American countries were mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexis Lambert (talk • contribs) 03:00, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Poland section

Some user is removing the Poland section for no reason. It is a short section, shorter than most other Euro countries, and belongs in the article. I undid [5].FatmaM99 (talk) 04:16, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Stop socking. Volunteer Marek 05:51, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I wear a Hijab, don't insult me be calling it a sock!FatmaM99 (talk) 06:26, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Sudan

Since Sudan became a secular state I think we should add that no more enforcing of veiling for women. Nlivataye (talk) 17:42, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Muslim girls at Istiqlal Mosque jakarta.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:09, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 3 September 2019 and 12 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mkp1724.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:27, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Iranian girl hijab fashion style.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:24, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Hijab by country

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Hijab by country's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "TA":

• From Humaira Begum: Tamim Ansary (2012) Games without Rules: The Often-Interrupted History of Afghanistan Archived 3 August 2021 at the Wayback Machine
• From Zamina Begum: Tamim Ansary (2012) Games without Rules: The Often-Interrupted History of Afghanistan

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 04:54, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Bangladesh is missing

I don't have knowledge of the situation in Bangladesh, but feel like it should be included in this list since Islam is the dominant religion in this country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.91.210.76 (talk) 11:06, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Afghan minister's statement

Afghan Taliban's Minister of Higher Education Sheikh Mawlawi Neda Mohammad Nadeem announced in a televised speech in December 2022,

We are obligated to force women to wear the hijab....If they impose sanctions on us, drop a nuclear [bomb] on us, start a war against us again, or have any other plan, we are still compelled to implement the commandments of our religion. In this regard, we cannot help anyone, nor can we accept anyone's demands or worry that it will create problems for us. https://www.memri.org/tv/afghan-taliban-higher-education-minister-nadeem-we-care-about-hijab-more-than-about-development-of-people

2601:C4:C300:A210:69FE:3225:C4F7:D87D (talk) 18:26, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

You didn't address my concern at all. Wikipedia is not a venue for advocacy. See WP:SOAP, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:ADVOCACY, WP:QUOTE. --Hipal (talk) 18:30, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

The man is a policymaker and spokesman who is expounding on his unwavering hijab stance for 40 million people. This pronouncement provides context for the lack of flexibility in current Afghan hijab law.--2601:C4:C300:A210:69FE:3225:C4F7:D87D (talk) 18:40, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

I believe that can be in the article as long as it has proper references. It does belong to the subject.--Aciram (talk) 18:47, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Doubtful, but it would depend upon what refs are found that demonstrate some encyclopedic value. --Hipal (talk) 19:08, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Do you question the accuracy of the speech translation ? Do you think the video is fake? --2601:C4:C300:A210:69FE:3225:C4F7:D87D (talk) 19:21, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

No one is doing so. Meanwhile, none of the concerns that have been brought up have been addressed. --Hipal (talk) 19:33, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Hijab in Iran

Hijab in Iran needs its own article. It's too lengthy. 2601:C4:C300:A210:B5B3:C6CA:B33:AB9E (talk) 18:25, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Content topic order

Should not "Muslim world" topic come before "Europe" because it relates much more to Muslim people? + Emroski (my wall) + 13:06, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that would be a more sensible way of organizing the information. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:32, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

On second thoughts, the most neutral and normative way to do this is simply by continent. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:47, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

2016: Bans in Latvia and Bulgaria

In 2016, a legal ban on face-covering Islamic clothing were adopted by the Latvian parliament. In 2016, a legal ban on face-covering Islamic clothing were adopted by the Bulgarian parliament.

References

Hijab in the two cities

@Jeremy Kusumatmadja

The reference you gave was for umrah etiquette it doesnt state saudi arabia has put laws against women who don't veil or the hijab is enforced in the two cities and madina isnt even mentioned in the reference? Barbardo (talk) 08:46, 24 October 2023 (UTC)