Talk:Islamic scarf controversy in France

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): RhysAJackson.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

[Untitled]
I created this page after seeing it in another editor's wish list.

I just now realized there is already an article on secularity in French schools, which is a featured article and has a much more comprehensive scope. My apologies for not looking more thoroughly before putting the article up. I'll go ahead and put a merge tag onto this article in case there's anything that can be used from this article for the secularity in French schools one.

D'oh!

JFHJr (㊟) 16:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Can we get a citation on the mother being banned from her sons school festival? 165.82.96.115 00:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The title of this article references the veil, which indicates a piece of cloth covering the nose and mouth. The actual controversy focused on 'le foulard' a french word for hajib, or scarf, covering the hair and sometimes the neck and ears. I'm going to change the title if you don't mind. (ADDED: Don't know how to change the title, but it should be changed for accuracy's sake.)--Anotherpanacea (talk) 22:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Justification for renaming the article: Scarf, not veil
Oddly, in the English-speaking press, there is some confusion of the [head] scarf for the veil. They are quite different things:


 * A scarf covers the hair and is worn over the top of the head.
 * A veil covers the face, below the eyes; it is worn in front of the face.

The ban addressed the scarf. The veil is worn much less frequently in France.

I just noticed the above comment by anotherpanacea; as she/he addressed this half a year ago, and no on has sufficiently countered his/her points, I will rename the article, done by moving the page. Dogru144 (talk) 19:22, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * As a matter of clarification, I see nothing particularly "Islamic" about the headscarf. Here in Switzerland women who immigrated from the Balkans wear them all the time, whether or not they're Muslim; plenty of women in Latin America do the same, and even in Europe and America you'd probably have seen quite a few headscarves floating around if you'd been around a hundred years or so ago (every once in a while someone still does it).  It's a popular woman's garment in cultures that are moderately traditionalist... wearing a headscarf is not "proselytism," nor is it especially "Islamic."
 * Nativists, it appears, are uneducated idiots the world over... 193.253.237.223 (talk) 09:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * This is wrong, the ban does not address scarves but the covering of the face. My Mum wears a scarf and she is as Anglo-Saxon Christian as they come.  The whole debate is about head coverings that obscure the face, such as the burka or niqab.  I have been working in Afghanistan (where I wear a scarf and I'm a bloke) and a scarf is entirely different, in fact the Taleban ban the scarf and require the burqa.  The article name needs reverting to veil, I think this whole debate arises from an over literal translation of the French.  Actually the scarf is quite traditional in France itself and is still commonly worn by older French women going to church and the law does not apply to them. E x nihil  (talk) 10:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Add illustrations
Editors need to understand that the context of veil in French apparently covers both what we would call veils and what we would call scarves in English. We need to carry forth in this article with this distinction in mind. The mass of religious-minded Muslim women in France are not advocating the wearing of niqabs, or actually veils (which cover the face), but, rather, are advocating the wearing of scarves that cover the hair and ears.Dogru144 (talk) 21:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Note the actual veil, that covers the face (the first two pictures). Now, contrast those veils, which obscure the face, with the final picture, a scarf that leaves the nose, mouth, cheeks and chin visible, unveiled, this scarf being called a hijab:

-- Dogru144 (talk) 21:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * These photographs should be in the main article. 178.39.122.125 (talk) 00:27, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Update needed to cover the new law
This article entirely deals with the 2003 law banning veils/headscarves in schools. The French government is currently planning to introduce a law to ban face coverings in public (see ). Should this be mentioned on this article, or does it deserve a separate one? Robofish (talk) 19:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I think this article is definately the place for updates on the controversy. I also would like to see one improvement... I came looking for references to Muslem groups that are actively trying to fight for their right to have the scarves, veils, burqas in France. The reference section only seems to point to those against the scarves which is a bit biased. 81.51.5.191 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:03, 15 July 2010 (UTC).

The need for updating laws in this article should also include the laws of other countries mentioned in it as examples. The article still states (in present tense) that a similar ban of the muslim headscarf applies to public schools in the mostly Muslim society of Indonesia as well - which it does not, and has not for quite a while. The headscarf (called "jilbab" there) has been perfectly legal to wear in national public schools in Indonesia since 1991. This was the end of a long running "headscarf controversy" in the Indonesian education system that started in the late 1970s, reached its highpoint in the late 1980s, and was officially ended with the SK 100/C/Kep/D/1991, allowing female muslim students in national public schools to wear it. 85.179.208.80 (talk) 13:56, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Merge
This page with French ban on full length Islamic veils. Neither page is too long to warrant a split off, and both are pertinent to each other whereas the scarf controversy is what led to the ban in the first place. Cant see why the need to two articles.
 * Perhaps a page move to "Islamic dress controversy in France" or something of the sort.Lihaas (talk) 09:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * oppose one is the general topic the other is on a specific law that has been passed. BB7 (talk) 13:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * oppose per BB7--Wikireader41 (talk) 14:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The passing of a law like this is notable in itself, enough for its own article. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   16:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Leaning towards support but it may be too early to tell, yet. Otherwise, I don't see why everything needs to be redundantly spread out all over the place and make reading about this that much more difficult. –MuZemike 18:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Support - the French ban is the latest event in part of a long controversy about Islamic veils in France. It is important to keep that context when reading about the new law.  Time will tell whether the law itself becomes significant enough that it makes sense to split back out into its own article.  For now, it does not. Tim Pierce (talk) 18:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Support the ban is clearly one aspect of the controversy and the reader's understanding of the subject would be better served by a merger. – ukexpat (talk) 19:17, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Support, for reasons above. Also, the French-language Wikipedia article on the topic is contained in only one article. Moncrief (talk) 19:32, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * On two articles of the French wikipedia mentioning the islamic veil issues, I did not find any mention of this recent 2010 law.. see for yourself if you understand French : Affaires du voile islamique and Voile islamique en France. The French wikipedia isn't as quick as the English one to process recent news. Also one may wonder if these two French articles serve a purpose being separate which kind of discredits a comparison with the French wiki. But Loi française sur les signes religieux dans l'école publique, on the 2004 law about religious symbols in public schools, was deemed important enough to have its own article. - Munin75 (talk) 02:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Note - per my comment on Talk:French_ban_on_full_length_Islamic_veils, whether merged or not, the issue appears to be face-covering veils, and for clarity I think the title should reference this fact ie. use the word "face." -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 19:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong merge This is an encyclopedia not a news service, the new law is just another phase of this ongoing story, the news article should not really exist given the issue is covered in here. When this article catches up the news item will become redundant anyway. E x nihil  (talk) 09:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose, the law itself is notable and does not just constitute news. It is a specific act of parliament (many of which have articles of their own) and while related to the controversy it is a seperate issue.  They should definitely stay separate. Mtaylor848 (talk) 11:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. for reasons stated above. Note the existence of this article : French law on secularity and conspicuous religious symbols in schools which is related to the Islamic scarf controversy as well since it bans students from wearing Islamic veils in public schools. The true French law we're talking about here is banning covering one's face in public areas, which includes islamic full veils, but not only. There should be an article for this law, because its not only about islamic scarves, even though that is indeed the main subject of controversy in this law. - Munin75 (talk) 20:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Support - these are essentially the same topic; at best, this article is a subtopic of the other one. The other article discusses the specific law, this one discusses the social background and debate that led up to it; they could easily be covered in the same article. Robofish (talk) 14:52, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose per BB7. Saebvn (talk) 20:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong support - per nominator, the other article is too short to have separate article. Qajar (talk) 21:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Compromise
This is similar French ban on full length Islamic veils is similar to French law on secularity and conspicuous religious symbols in schools as the law and the controversey are two sperate things. Another comparrison Health care reform debate in the United States and the actual law of Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. I see no difference, for this to be any different. My argument here is not WP:OTHERSTUFF but to put the topic in perspective.My suggested compromise is we have a section on it here but also a link to main article like can be seen here. I do believe the separate article is neseacary as this is has Wide implications and is already sizing up well BB7 (talk) 19:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Forgot to Add I talked with one of Profs this morning in Philosophy of law class, she has a working draft of an article for a journal she has been writing as this has been developing since march. TO me that indicates a level of notability outside just another issue BB7 (talk) 19:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * So far it seems consensus is for a merger.Lihaas (talk) 06:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I would doubt that, there are four supports and four opposes, hardly a landslide for either side. Mtaylor848 (talk) 11:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The others came after my posting, of course. But lets see what the view on this solution is.
 * IF it were to stay seperate because as Mtaylor848 suggested its a law unto its own then it should be moved to the name of the law itself (As per other such legal articles) with the responses to the law in section below the legal arguements and wording. Lihaas (talk) 08:53, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose merge per above, and strongly agree with the proposal to include a section in this article about the new ban with a  template link to the full article about the new law (which I was also about to propose until I saw that BB7 beat me to it).  —sroc (talk) 16:46, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Hyphen
If the decision is to keep French ban on full length Islamic veils, then it should be French ban on full-length Islamic veils. Ericoides (talk) 06:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree completely. With a redirect from the current title. Moncrief (talk) 17:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Also agree. It is move protected though, so an admin will have to do it. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 04:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Laicité, not preffered word
Please use secularism in place of laicité in this article. It is the proper English translation of the word and English readers can't be expected to understand laicité. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 04:23, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Islamic scarf controversy in France. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110206213909/http://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu:80/resources/countries/france to http://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/resources/countries/france

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 16:17, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Islamic scarf controversy in France. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100601165818/http://www.islamonline.net/English/News/2006-10/06/06.shtml to http://www.islamonline.net/English/News/2006-10/06/06.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:40, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Islamic scarf controversy in France. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051019130954/http://sites.univ-lyon2.fr/lettres/nte3/03-04/femmes/fepub/fepub.html to http://sites.univ-lyon2.fr/lettres/nte3/03-04/femmes/fepub/fepub.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060701080516/http://www.ipsos.fr/CanalIpsos/articles/59.asp to http://www.ipsos.fr/CanalIpsos/articles/59.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060707184823/http://lesrapports.ladocumentationfrancaise.fr/BRP/044000129/0003.pdf to http://lesrapports.ladocumentationfrancaise.fr/BRP/044000129/0003.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051025170147/http://www.penelopes.org/xarticle.php3?id_article=4573 to http://www.penelopes.org/xarticle.php3?id_article=4573
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060109111452/http://www.ldh-france.org/actu_nationale.cfm?idactu=54 to http://www.ldh-france.org/actu_nationale.cfm?idactu=54
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060427034031/http://education.assemblee-nationale.fr/site-jeunes/laicite/accueil/accueil.asp to http://education.assemblee-nationale.fr/site-jeunes/laicite/accueil/accueil.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060515175749/http://www.laic.info/Members/webmestre2/La_laicite_en_France.2003-11-16.1123/view to http://www.laic.info/Members/webmestre2/La_laicite_en_France.2003-11-16.1123/view
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060720022204/http://www.csa-tmo.fr/dataset/data2004/opi20040124c.htm to http://www.csa-tmo.fr/dataset/data2004/opi20040124c.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091214115806/http://www.pedagopsy.eu/le_voile.htm to http://www.pedagopsy.eu/le_voile.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060109113644/http://www.ldh-france.org/agir_manifestations2.cfm?idmanif=69 to http://www.ldh-france.org/agir_manifestations2.cfm?idmanif=69

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:56, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Move to "Islamic headscarf in France"
For two reasons. One is that a scarf is ambiguous and can be worn around the neck etc. A hijab is more frequently called the "headscarf". Two, the "controversy" part doesn't add much to the article scope. Other aspects of the headscarf, like stats about how many women wear it etc also belong in this article. This would be similar to Islamic dress in Europe. VR talk  15:58, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Recent Edits
I added to the section on French-Muslims motivations for wearing the scarf, citing a 2008 study by Stephen Croucher about Muslim concepts of the hijab/scarf. I also added to the Education section about the application of the law, describing a 2019 controversy about the hijab ban as it applies to mothers chaperoning school trips. I cited an article in The Guardian about the incident. Please review my edits and add or edit anywhere that needs it. RhysAJackson (talk) 21:32, 10 November 2019 (UTC)RHYS

Combine Muslim Tradition and Motivations of French-Muslims who wear the scarf
It seems that there is some overlap between these two sections, and they could potentially be combined as two sub-headings under a single overarching category, such as "The Scarf to Muslims." RhysAJackson (talk) 21:57, 10 November 2019 (UTC)Rhys

I think people are talking about this again
Should we lock the article preemptively before Islamophobes trash it? 16:59, 6 April 2021 (UTC)