Talk:Hijab/Archive 3

"Quran" or "Qur'an"?
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)


 * There being no objection, I changed "Quran" to "Qur'an" in four places, for consistency & more accurate representation of the Arabic pronunciation. I could not change the remaining five occurrences because they appear in citations, & working with citations is beyond my ability at this time.  Perhaps an editor who is proficient with citations would like to complete this conversion. Ubzerver (talk) 06:29, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Images
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.

&#32;Bookku   (talk) 11:28, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment
This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Colgate University supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program&#32;during the 2012 Fall term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from by PrimeBOT (talk) on 15:54, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Explanation of "weird".
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)


 * If you read ahead, this detail has already been expanded upon in the lead and even more so in the body. I have no idea why are you trying to repeat that similar info. StarkReport (talk) 17:43, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The information I am trying to include is vastly different from the information you are referencing.The text you are referring to mentions a certain organization and their beliefs about the specifics of the hijab. The information I am trying to include refers to women who do not believe in/do not wear the hijab. Could you please explain your objection to including this in a little more depth? Googleguy007 (talk) 19:08, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The info is seriously ignoring WP:OR and WP:RS. The sources provided are attributed to individuals who lack notable credentials in the field, such as Jamal Saidi and Ibrahim B. Syed, who are neither established Islamic scholars nor reputable historians with expertise in these matters. Also "refers to women who do not believe in/do not wear the hijab," their source is given two times in those last two paragraphs along with the assertion that some women chose not to wear the Hijab, the very source that was being repeated on top.
 * In order to provide further clarity and help you better understand my point, in the article "Ayesha," numerous sources from dozens of Islamic scholars, some of whom are relatively well-known in their respective countries, as well as contributions from various writers, were presented to challenge the traditionally accepted information regarding Ayesha's age. Despite the availability of this substantial evidence, the editors, including an administrator, refused to include even a part of that detail in the body, let alone in the lead, stating that the information was fringe.
 * And yet the info that some woman may choose not the wear the Hijab is explored extensively in the body StarkReport (talk) 19:06, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Im sorry but the first half of your comment is indecipherable with regards to the content of the article. What point are you trying to portray with it?
 * The second half only seems to show that you are mad/annoyed your edits were rejected, I dont see how it is relevant to the very real and relevant fact that many women choose not to wear the hijab, if you are trying to say that not wearing the hijab is fringe belief you are blatantly wrong. Also, could you please explain why you are opposed to including the fact that many woman dont wear them? Googleguy007 (talk) 22:20, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You just ignored the essential point made with regards to the info. Firstly, about "is little agreement within," there exists significant consensus among Islamic scholars and writers, as well as Ilm al-ḥadīth, regarding Hijab within Islam. This consensus contradicts the notion that there is little agreement within the global Islamic community on this matter.
 * Now many women may choose to not wear the Hijab and many do so. but, "many Muslim women across the world choose not to wear the hijab" is somewhat reiterated in the last two paragraphs.
 * Furthermore, the source provided in your response is subject to certain limitations. These limitations include a small sample size, outdated data, regional variations, and methodological constraints. However, it is important to note that the information you intend to include has already been thoroughly discussed in the body. StarkReport (talk) 02:57, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The global Islamic community includes all of the people in it, not just the scholars. Muslim women who choose not to wear the hijab are part of that community; hence, there is considerable disagreement: this is a WP:COMMONSENSE statement. Societies like Turkey are majority Muslim, but only half of Turkish women wear a headscarf. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:55, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Allow me to clarify that I do not oppose the incorporation of the information; rather, my concern lies in the absence of credible and reputable sources that substantiate the statement in question.
 * Also I strongly think that putting the statement like that on top violates WP:UNDUE StarkReport (talk) 06:24, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the opposite; I think it is very due and important to clear up any confusion or potential misconceptions early on in the lead - just as a conspiracy theory article will state, right up front, that is about a conspiracy theory. The wearing or not wearing of the hijab is a much polemicized issue, but the reality is some women in some societies were a headscarf, others don't. Simple. We could always add that Islamic scholars might be in consensus that Muslim women should cover their head and is widely viewed as mandatory (e.g.:, : "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." - 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." - I take "important to stress" as WP:DUE. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:13, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Then we can instead of "There is little agreement-the hijab, add this for more clarity:
 * "There is a general consensus among Islamic religious scholars around the world that Hijab is required, however that many Muslim women do not cover. Many are not practising and several practising disagree with the idea that covering is mandatory in Islam."
 * Along with the two sources you gave. All agree? StarkReport (talk) 07:21, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It might be better to look for some slightly more solid sources on this though, since the two sources provided for the first part are both less-than-stellar and have identical wording, so, as mentioned, one must have plagiarized. They are also both South Asian and so may conform to a certain bias that is not fully representative. It should be possible to find more concrete academic sources saying similar things. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:51, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Some more nuanced (and potentially more authoritative) readings include: this: ‘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)
 * I have removed the sentence you were feeling uneasy with, "All orthodox schools of sharia law prescribe covering the body in public." StarkReport (talk) 17:47, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Friendly advice
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.


 * a) Summarize your dispute with exact changes both of you support with reason and Wikipedia policies. Discuss point by point to sort out the issues if those are more than one.


 * b) Avoid edit war. It's very unlikely any single user would be able to take final decision on changes in this article, hence avoid edit-war and follow WP:DR mechanism.


 * c) IMO all WP articles including this one need to have bibliography section with one academic scholarship sub-section so that can help all users to study, evaluate provide inputs and improve the articles.

&#32;Bookku   (talk) 06:10, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Second sentence in the lede

 * Present second sentence in the lede:



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.


 * Present third sentence




 * Would not present third sentence look more consistent immediately after present first sentence. Like following?



What do you think? &#32;Bookku   (talk) 01:35, 6 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree with you. I moved this sentence to the end of the introduction. It just doesn't seem important enough to put it in the very first paragraph. It is definitely undue emphasis and poor framing which comes across as apologia rather than objective discussion of the subject of hijab. It is also very strange that the "Christian and Hindu headcoverings" were described as being worn by "many" women of these respective religions while hijab was only described as being worn by "some" Muslim women when hijab is a far more widespread religious practice than any of these other examples. I have changed the wording accordingly. Aronanki (talk) 14:51, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

On the source I removed
I accidentally hit enter when typing out my edit summary for this edit I made. I intended to quote the paper:



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)

A More Appropriate Link to the Literal Definition of "Hijab."
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


 * Thanks for updating. Google search on 'Sara Slininger' seem to indicate claims that, Slinger was just a college student when paper was written. May be what Slinger says is correct, still, academically this is much old and much discussed topic, hopefully more academic citations from professors of cultural and religious studies should be available. &#32;Bookku   (talk) 07:27, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Photo removed
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)


 * Perhaps she was obliged to where she lived? Customs differ. Also, "not obliged" (by whatever) is not a reason to exclude the image. While WP can try to describe religious practices in the articles, articles are not written according to religious practices. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:01, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * She is holding a Qur'an, so the image is consistent with the use of the apparel for the purposes of reading the Qur'an, since the book is revered and not simply carried around casually. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:23, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * If there is a section on children also wearing the hijab while at prayer, it would be reasonable to use it there. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:25, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I see no such section, but the article does mention children. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:37, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. It would be acceptable and not misleading to be used in this context. Qivatari (talk) 22:39, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I understand your point, but the photos used in such articles should express the majority of women wearing hijab. Using such image suggests that children are obliged by their religion to wear hijab, which is not true. Moreover, it's allowed to hold and read the Qur'an without wearing the hijab, so using this image is not accurate and conveys misleading information from the viewpoint of misinformed writers. Qivatari (talk) 22:38, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't have a strong opinion on including the image, it's a good one, showing a particular use, but as Iskandar323 pointed out, atm there's not a lot of specific context for it. Maybe there will be at some point.
 * I can't be sure why she's wearing a hijab, but obliged by religion sounds like a plausible reason to me. Of course religion/culture blend into each other and may very well be pointless to try to separate, but if we asked her parents, what would they say? Off-topic, but I got curious, and found this gallery:. I wonder what the "line" is between the girls with/without hijab in this picture:. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:05, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * In the gallery the translation says it is the "age of obligation" (among these Turkmen in Iran); I imagine this broadly coincides with the earliest signs of the onset of puberty, or maybe they just round it down to the age of 7 - details potentially worth sourcing and adding, alongside better elaboration on the expectation for women to veil for prayer in certain cultures even where they aren't necessarily expected to veil in daily life (a very common setup across the Middle East). It's not a very well-fleshed out page generally. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:31, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:38, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The language of the website is Urdu or something, so I don't understand what's written. Anyway, it looks like she is the same girl in all the pictures on the link you provided above. If that girl is in Iran, Iran's culture and practices don't represent the majority of the Muslim world. They are just a minority. In most Muslim countries, parents don't force young girls to wear hijab. On the other side, if you mean that some parents force their young girls to wear hijab, this might happen among some minorities or in poor areas where ignorance is widespread. Therefore, the pictures included in the article about hijab should not represent such exceptions, rather the pictures chosen should represent the majority or the real application of a certain religious practice, because the article is not about the misconceptions or wrong application of hijab. 197.58.222.155 (talk) 22:33, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The article currently states, right or wrong, "In nearly all Muslim cultures, young girls are not required to wear a hijab." If there are good WP:RS to use, expanding on this may very well be WP:DUE in this article. There may also be communities where young girls are not required (for a certain value of "required") to wear a hijab, but still for some reason wear a hijab, "wrong application" or not. But again, this would need sources. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:33, 8 September 2023 (UTC)


 * "the photos used in such articles should express the majority of women wearing hijab"--no, they should not, especially if we are having to do all kinds of original research to figure out the identity/context/etc. of an individual picture of an individual wearing a hijab. It doesn't matter whether the person is from a place where wearing it is mandated or forbidden or allowed or whatever: this is all way too...nitpicky. The question that the picture is supposed to illustrate is what it looks like. I don't feel an urgent need to revert this edit, but User:Qivatari, I do not believe you have a valid reason for it. Drmies (talk) 22:38, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * If the main purpose of the photo is to show how hijab looks like, it's not necessary to use a photo that suggests oppression against girls. It seems to me a biased choice to reflect a certain misconception and this promotes Islamophobia. The used photos shouldn't express a certain agenda. They should be objective and shouldn't cause such arguments. Qivatari (talk) 22:43, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * "a photo that suggests oppression against girls"--that's all you. Is the woman whose photo you left somehow immune to the same oppression? Drmies (talk) 02:08, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that the person who chose the photo of the young girl meant to choose a girl who looks sad while wearing the hijab to suggest that she is forced to wear it. That choice seems biased to me. Whether the grown-up woman is forced to wear hijab or not is not questionable here because she can choose her own path because she's grown up. Qivatari (talk) 20:15, 9 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Looking at this again I see i missed something (I only read the comments here on the talkpage, didn't check recent edits in the article). When Qivatari removed the image in question it was the WP:LEADIMAGE, and now some of your arguments make more sense to me (as a new editor, you're not likely to have encountered WP-lore like WP:LEADIMAGE). In general, there should only be one image in the lead, and an adult makes sense to me. I still think the Turkmen girl can fit somewhere in the article, like in the Iran-section, but I agree with the removal from the lead.


 * Afaict, this image was added in a series of edits around July 10 - 12 this year, some of which look a bit... odd... and was reverted. Before that, the current leadimage seems to have been there since at least 2022, so fwiw, it can be considered the stable version. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:24, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Only some Muslim women wear it
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)

Seeking a third party review of a revert

 * @@Materialscientist:

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.


 * @Rasnaboy:

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


 * Religious scripture is not considered a wp:reliable source on Wikipedia. See WP:RSPSCRIPTURE. Adakiko (talk) 07:40, 8 November 2023 (UTC)


 * @@Adakiko reverted five of my edits in a single tool use, giving the reason

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.
 * @Rasnaboy: : I am seeking a third opinion.

QamarBurtuqali (talk) 08:16, 8 November 2023 (UTC)QamarBurtuqali


 * @@Eteethan: reverted two of my good faith edits of the Hijab article

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.
 * @Rasnaboy: I am asking for a third opinion. Is this sabotage?!?!?

QamarBurtuqali (talk) 09:02, 8 November 2023 (UTC)QamarBurtuqali


 * It's not "sabotage", other users just have a different view from you on how best to structure the article. It's best not to assume everyone is out to get you. AntiDionysius (talk) 11:36, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, you're asking for a "third opinion" - but your edits have not been reverted by one or two other users, it's been at least five. That is your third opinion, and fourth, and fifth, and sixth. You can't keep asking for outside input until you find such input that agrees with you. AntiDionysius (talk) 11:40, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

@AntiDionysius
 * Almost all of the reverts NEVER GAVE ANY EXPLANATION in the History Page.
 * None discussed their reverts in the Talk Page.
 * It appears that THEY are engaging in Edit Warring. (It very easy to engage
 * Edit Warring by using various logins.)
 * I welcome impartial review of my edits! I look forward to an impartial
 * resolution via the Noticeboard/Edit Warring page!
 * QamarBurtuqali (talk) 12:34, 8 November 2023 (UTC)QamarBurtuqali


 * Mirroring what I said at WP:ANEW: @QamarBurtuqali Since I am participating here in an uninvolved, administrative capacity, I have to look not at the merits of your material but on the overall actions of all editors at the article and talk page. I agree with that there is a clear consensus against your additions to the article. You will have to discuss the changes at Talk:Hijab and get consensus for the changes before you change the article. Any attempts to add the material without doing so are edit warring, plain and simple. —C.Fred (talk) 12:43, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I welcome impartial review of my edits! I look forward to an impartial
 * resolution via the Noticeboard/Edit Warring page!
 * QamarBurtuqali (talk) 12:50, 8 November 2023 (UTC)QamarBurtuqali (talk) 12:34, 8 November 2023 (UTC)QamarBurtuqali[reply]
 * @QamarBurtuqali Thank you for acknowledging that you should not be adding the material in question to the article (pending a discussion here that results in consensus to include it). —C.Fred (talk) 12:54, 8 November 2023 (UTC)


 * . I haven't contributed to this article much (or maybe not at all) so far, so with all my limited knowledge on this, all I notice is that you have cited primary sources. It's not that primary sources are false, but often they cannot be used as reliable encyclopedic sources (please see WP:PRIMARY). Also, as User:Adakiko said, religious scriptures are not considered reliable ones as sources for encyclopedic contents. I think that is the reason your edits are being reverted. I would suggest you try to find reliable sources (books, peer-reviewed journals, magazines, academic publications, etc.) to back your claims. Maybe this page will help you with that. Rasnaboy (talk) 11:47, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Rasnaboy I always provide reliable sources.  No, I did not cite religious primary sources.
 * In particular, contrary to @Adakiko 's allegation, I did not cite any religious scriptures.
 * I cited a Hadith to give historical context of 7th century Arabia in the discussion
 * in the paragraph Hijab/Quran. QamarBurtuqali (talk) 12:44, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @QamarBurtuqali Please clarify which of the following apparently contradictory statements is true: I did not cite religious primary sources or I cited a Hadith. The description of Hadith indicates that they are religious primary sources. —C.Fred (talk) 12:50, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Hadiths can be cited as a religious primary source in support of a religious view, but they can be cited as an historical primary source.
 * For example, I added this sentence to the Hijab article: "During the pre-Islam era, Arabs used to perform Tawaf of the Ka`ba while naked." In support of this sentence, I cited https://sunnah.com/bukhari:1665 to document the historical context of 7th century Arabia.
 * QamarBurtuqali (talk) 13:05, 8 November 2023 (UTC)QamarBurtuqali
 * User Adakiko has claimed that religious scriptures are not considered reliable ones
 * as sources for encyclopedic contents. This is false and ridiculous. In the Hijab article,
 * various editors added quotations of The Quran (as historical citations) and added quotations
 * and citations of Hadith (as historical citations). Apparently User Adakiko never read
 * the Hijab article and never saw the ESTABLISHED citations of "religious scriptures"
 * given the nature of the topic. User Adakiko is engaging in Edit Warring.
 * QamarBurtuqali (talk) 15:05, 8 November 2023 (UTC)QamarBurtuqali
 * Edit warring is separate to the question of the validity of sources; whether or not someone is edit warring is a question of how much and how frequently they continually revert edits or re-add content other people have removed. AntiDionysius (talk) 15:21, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * On the substantive question, I will note my extreme lack of expertise (or opinion) on the topic of Islamic scholarship or theology, and will thus not try to get into specifics. I will note though that religious texts are undoubtedly primary sources, and where possible, we do try to rely much much more on secondary sources, and a user providing their own interpretation of primary sources is very specifically not allowed under the NOR policy. AntiDionysius (talk) 15:27, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Well ... Wikipedia articles such as "Republic(Plato)" and "Baseball" exist because editors wrote paragraphs and paragraphs and paragraphs using primary citations and/or did not provide ANY citations at all!
 * But apparently, here at the Hijab page, where the climate is extremely political and aggressive, editors delete constructive material with no explanation or simply delete strong constructive material because the writer provided solid primary citations.
 * Instead of deleting, we could politely add a "need citation", send a message to the editor to warn that the citation is insufficient, and thus give the editor an opportunity to supply a better citation.
 * Why not?
 * Well, in future, while editing the Hijab page, I will submit to the consensus of the editors
 * of THIS page, by citing solid reliable secondary sources instead of citing primary sources. :)
 * QamarBurtuqali (talk) 15:31, 10 November 2023 (UTC)QamarBurtuqali

A questionable revert of my two sentences
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.       During the pre-Islam era, Arabs used to perform Tawaf of the Ka`ba while naked "

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


 * The first part doesnt say the verse revealed during then funny you mention tsfsir but not when it comes to the hijab.
 * Second part is irrelevant Barbardo (talk) 15:15, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The first citation is incomplete and thus not verifiable - but even if it were a current historian should be cited, not something from 1,000 years ago. The second citation is a hadith, which you have already been informed above is not usable as a primary source. MrOllie (talk) 15:19, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Well ... Wikipedia articles such as "Republic(Plato)" and "Baseball" exist because editors wrote paragraphs and paragraphs and paragraphs using primary citations and/or did not provide ANY citations at all!
 * The Republic(Plato) article is full of PRIMARY citations and Plato's books are 2,300 years old!
 * But apparently, here at the Hijab page, where the climate is extremely political and aggressive, editors delete constructive material with no explanation or simply delete strong constructive material because the writer provided solid primary citations.
 * Instead of deleting, we could politely add a "need citation", send a message to the editor to warn that the citation is insufficient, and thus give the editor an opportunity to supply a better citation.
 * Why not???
 * Well, in future, while editing the Hijab page, I will submit to the consensus of the editors
 * of THIS page, by citing solid reliable secondary sources instead of citing primary sources. :)
 * Regards QamarBurtuqali (talk) 15:40, 10 November 2023 (UTC)QamarBurtuqali
 * Just because some other article might not comply with policy (and in the case of the Republic, I don't think that is actually the case) does not mean that we should also compromise standards on this article. MrOllie (talk) 15:17, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

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)

Just a question of better paraphrasing?
@Barbardo with ref to seem over following sentence.

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. &#32;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)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 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).


 * 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. ..
 * &#32;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:
 * 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.
 * &#32;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
 * 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
 * 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