Talk:Hijab

Highlighting of other religions in the lead

The Wikipedia article on Head covering for Christian women does not mention similarities to Islamic practice or other religions at all, so why is an article on hijab, a practice explicitly associated with the Islamic faith, prominently highlighting the practices of other religions in the very first paragraph? The standard should be consistent across the board. Either this article should be framed differently or the articles relating to Christian practices should also be given the same context.

The current framing comes across as very biased and apologetic towards Islam, when similar articles regarding other religions are not given similar framing. 2601:588:4100:28E0:4F79:F0D0:F747:FBA8 (talk) 14:47, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Okay, I have resolved the inconsistency by modifying the other article to include a mention of Islamic and Jewish headscarves. 2601:588:4100:28E0:4F79:F0D0:F747:FBA8 (talk) 15:16, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Chain of unexplained edits

@Crampcomes - May you explain your chain of edits that removed reliably sourced info, introduced neutrality issues, & changed the lead's photo? You gave no edit summaries for such drastic changes & as they did not seem to improve the article, I've reverted them. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 16:42, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi, thank you so much for asking. Assertions like most women choose to wear hijab were randomly added by IPs and were removed by admins before.. Also, some of the sources have nothing to do with statements that cite them. For example, Encyclopedia of Islam and the Muslim World (2003), p. 721, New York: Macmillan is used to support a statement that the Quran doesn't mandate hijab. Finally, ridiculously long up front. I would need a nap after trying to soldier through that wall of imposing text. Not to mention sentences with 4 or 5 refs each. Refs are generally not needed in lead sections because the body already has it covered. I changed the image in the lead because the image of mannequins wearing hijab and niqab better explains the difference, and also the image from flicker is posted by an anonymous person, probably the image is from someone's Facebook account being used without their permission.Crampcomes (talk) 21:16, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your in-depth explanation. Giving the edits a second look over now, I realize that much of the details you removed that I was concerned about were already adequately discussed in the body & did not need such depth in the lead.

Regarding the image, while I personally prefer it aesthetically & it seems to properly fall under fair use, I'm not as familiar with such matters & your choice in image, as you've said, better serves to inform the reader.

While I request that you use edit summaries more in the future for the sake of clarity, that does not absolve me of my improper summation of your edits & for that I apologize. I will promptly self-revert. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 22:07, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

There's absolutely no need for you to apologize as I strongly believe that you are a much more capable editor than I am and your actions were totally justified. I should have used edit summaries so thank you for pointing that out and showing me the ropes. Thanks again,Crampcomes (talk) 00:36, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Correction under "Modern Approaches"

'Abdullah bin Bayyah was mentioned when it came to Islamic scholars that did not believe Hijab was a religious obligation. The problem is that the sentence portrays these scholars as having an absolutist view that Hijab is not obligatory, but this is not the position of 'Abdullah bin Bayyah, who at least has some credibility to his name.

Even the source used for that paragraph mentioned that he took this view based on necessity, not absolutely. I hope whoever wrote the article can correct it, thanks for reading my message. ~2026-95657-8 (talk) 08:55, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Runoff in second para of lede

The second paragraph of the lede has a 6-line runoff sentence towards the end, where it drifts off into a part about judicial independence of judges as a pillar of judiciaries. I would advise either removing the bulk of that sentence or migrating it into a more relevant subsection of the article, but curious what others' thoughts might be. It cuts from the substance of the article otherwise. IkeOnTheBike (talk) 02:16, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Humanities 2013

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 June 2026 and 23 July 2026. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): NovaEquation (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Carlydomangue.

— Assignment last updated by DrBRCC (talk) 00:40, 14 July 2026 (UTC)