Talk:Head covering for Christian women

Merge to 1 Corinthians 11

Merge Seems to be the exact same subject since 1 Cor 11 is the only passage on headcoverings. Since 1 Cor 11 already contains several points of view, this would take care of the POV problem. --Ephilei 23:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I actually did consider that; however, that would make the 1 Corinthians 11 article rather lopsided and non-neutral. Also, this is an article on why some cover, not everybody and their brother's view on it. That is treated on the 1 Corinthians 11 page. However, I can understand that this article may lack neutrality. --God's Webmaster 01:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to take so long. 1 Corinthians 11 covers the three major views only - not everyone's view. Making this article NPOV would require repeating those views here - so either way. Wait! What are we talking about?! What information is there to merge? I've already merged what little there is to merge into 1 Corinthians 11#Universal view. However, if this article addressed more than just 1 Cor 11, say, the history of Christian headcoverings, then it could justify its own article. Would you like to add that? --Ephilei 23:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that's why I was proposing merging this article with Veil, since it does have a history of veils. I would be willing to help update the Veil page to include more relevant information on Christian Headcoverings.--God's Webmaster 00:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, there it is. A history of headcoverings and a more balanced viewpoint. Does that pass muster? I am dropping my proposal to merge this with Veil. God's Webmaster 01:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Merge to Veil

I am proposing merging this information instead with the Veil article, since it has a section on the Christian headcovering.--God's Webmaster 22:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

There's little evidence that 1 Cor 11 is talking about a veil versus coverin the scalp. And regardless of what 1 Cor 11 actually says, very few Christians also interpret it to mean a veil.--Ephilei 23:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Types and degrees of headcovering

Hi, all. I'm new to Wikipedia so please help me go in the right direction :)

I am myself a headcovering Christian, and I couldn't help but notice how minimal this article was. I was thinking of adding a paragraph on the types and degrees of headcovering. Do I just add it, or what? Thanks for helping me with my feebleness ;D

Hopeinmusic 02:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure, just add it by clicking the "edit this page" button at the top. It's a good idea to use the "show preview" button before submitting your additions if you aren't sure that everything will come out right. One note: Wikipedia is supposed to have a neutral point of view. You may find your writings marked if they are thought to be un-neutral (though I'm not saying that I personally will mark them.) God's Webmaster 02:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.181.153.68 (talk) 04:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Anabaptist faiths are not Protestant?

I consider myself conservative Mennonite(or at least very close), I do attend such a church as well. I have also been to several such churches and researched much. My understanding is most Anabaptists would passionately disagree with being titled as Protestant. It is a minor point, but I was just hoping the page could be corrected for accuracy. I started to add a footnote, but I have never really edited in Wiki and I just undone it. Thank you, ERM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.181.153.68 (talk) 04:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Further reading?

Any thoughts on a short 'Further reading' section? There are a number of books that address the historical and theological aspects of the practice that may be of benefit. Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 04:56, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, no comments in about a year. I think I will move forward with a short listing. My resources are largely confined to Anabaptist sects, so if anyone could flesh it out with Catholic and Orthodox texts, that would be great.--Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 04:58, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

i've added a bunch. hopefully some of this can be used to create a good article based on reliable sources. i could only access the abstract for most of the articles.  —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 19:19, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

1 Thessalonians 5 reference

The section on Catholicism the statement is made "Plain Catholics retain the custom of the women wearing a headcovering full time in recognition of 1 Corinthians 11 and 1 Thessalonians 5"

I am not catholic and do not feel qualified to edit that section . . . I can find no reference to head coverings in 1 Thessalonians 5 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.167.133.95 (talk) 00:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, the only citation is to an embedded link to a FreeWebs site with stock photos on it. Unless there is some better sourcing forthcoming, this really needs to be removed. Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 01:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses

I was just wondering if Jehovah's Witnesses should be under Christian headcovering as many Christians would not say that they were part of the Christian faith. 86.154.68.92 (talk) 21:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia relies on verifiable references from scholarly works. A preponderance of scholarly (that is, nonsectarian) works classify JWs as Christian. See also Nontrinitarianism#Controversy over status. --AuthorityTam (talk) 13:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Plain Catholics

There is a reference to a community called the "Plain Catholics" that seems to be continually added. As mentioned above, the only evidence of its existence appears to be a FreeWebs site that features stock photos of Old Order Amish members. It almost goes without saying, but content posted on the aforementioned site are not reliable sources.

I did some digging in the standard sources (Google, the Catholic Encyclopedia, various books about Plain sects) and can find nothing suggesting that it is a movement or community. It appears that my citation needed tag was replaced by a couple of links to Bible passages. Rather than engage in any further reversions, I have started this talk section to discuss the inclusion of the reference. If (a) reliable source(s) can be used, I have no issue with it being in the article, but so far that has not been forthcoming. Thanks. Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 02:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with those in favor of omitting the reference to Plain Catholics. They appear to be an affinity group, not an established community or order or even a club, and are therefore not significant enough to warrant mention in a Wikipedia article. Kyriosity (talk) 02:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Interesting Interpretation of Corinthians 11

I think it worth putting in the other meaning of the Ancient Greek word "peribolaiou", as explored in this article: http://experimentaltheology.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/head-coverings-in-worship-why-female.html ixo (talk) 09:02, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

This would be original research, and the exegesis is questionable. It would need some peer-reviewed consensus. I mean, one doesnt overthrown every lexicon out there by publishing something on a blog, especially with a blog named "Experimental Theology." Mikeatnip (talk) 15:02, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Tamar reference

Algorithme, I'm sorry to undo your edit again, but please consider: The section is about the history of Christian headcovering, and you have introduced an Old Testament reference without any explanation of how it connects to the history of the Christian practice. It simply doesn't belong there. I agree that Tamar's veil is an interesting thing to consider in the larger context of the discussion of headcovering, but a) it has not, to my knowledge, had a significant bearing on the history of the Christian practice, b) sticking in a verse without logically connecting it to anything in the article isn't useful, and c) if there is a point to be made about the impact of the verse on the topic, that point needs to be made and referenced. Find us a reputable article that addresses Tamar's veiling and its influence on the Christian headcovering discussion, and you'll be back in business! Kyriosity (talk) 13:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with Kyriosity's points. To keep the reference we will need some sources as to how it relates to the Christian doctrine, practice, or history.--Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 14:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Article goes downhill at the "Reasons" section

I found this article to be very interesting and informative until I got to the "Reasons" section. For one thing, that contains the howler "There are no Christian sects who dispute the continued existence of angels." This strikes me as a parochial American evangelical POV. I seriously doubt that there are many European non-evangelical Christians who think that believing in angels is anything other than superstition and magical thinking. Christianity is about God, not multiple mysterious non-corporeal beings. My understanding is that Christians leave angels to Muslims and American TV shows.

Also, the discussion in the last section of temple prostitutes being alleged to have short hair is just bizarre. The article doesn't even say who makes that suggestion.

Finally, I seem to recall that Paul's authorship of the passage in question is disputed. The article should mention this. Again, the article not bringing that up indicates American evangelical POV. – Herzen (talk) 01:31, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

RfC

The consensus is to remove the "Plain Catholics" mention in the article, which has been done here, because no reliable sources have been presented to verify the information.

Cunard (talk) 00:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Someone keeps adding a reference to Plain Catholics to this page. See the "Plain Catholics" section on this talk page (Talk:Christian_headcovering#Plain_Catholics)

That section refers to http://plaincatholic.webs.com. The photographs on that site are clearly Amish, Mennonite, and German Brethren, and many of the original photographs have been identified on this Mennonite forum: . For instance, on the main page, the kitchen is in the Amish Farm and House in Lancaster County, the picture of two people walking is from a quilt auction in Bonduel, Wisconsin, etc. - see the thread for details. I seem to recall that there was once an article on Plain Catholics that got deleted. How can you search for deleted articles on a given topic?

I agree with those who suggest deleting the reference. How do we bring it to a vote? Jonathan.robie (talk) 22:46, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Comment Can you please clarify the question in this RfC? I have taken the liberty of moving/sectioning the RfC for clarity Pincrete (talk) 23:18, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Response The purpose of the RFC is basically to figure out how to determine whether we believe Plain Catholics exist as an established group, and to be able to delete the reference to them on this page if we believe they do not. I am trying to understand the process for doing this. So far, nobody is vouching for them on this talk page. The issue was raised in 2010. Should I just delete the reference?Jonathan.robie (talk • contribs) 12:32, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Probably yes (delete), if the ref doesn't support the text and is not a WP:RS for the information. If you search for a deleted page you get a message like this CAREFUL don't accidentally recreate! There DOES seem to be one for Plain Catholics. Basically the process is editors decide what should or shouldn't be included. If you are on your own, you may have to rely on your own judgement! Pincrete (talk) 20:51, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - I suggest reword and move -- some mention lower down at Current Practice section and not renamed, just say this is related to the "practice of Plain dress", since I think the "Plain Catholic" makes for puzzlement if it means ordinary 'just a "plain" Catholic', or is speaking of a movement or sub-culture or separate faith. The word "practice" also makes clear it is talking of a devotional motivation and group norm rather just a personal choice way to dress up. The current placement at the Historic Catholic paragraph seems nonessential, particularly since groups mentioned at the end of Historic Protestant section are associated to "Plain Catholic". Markbassett (talk) 21:31, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
• Omit Plain Catholic unless Reliable Sources are supplied. I skimmed the first 100 Google hits for the term, every Google-News hit, and the top 60 Google-books hits. I didn't see anything that appears both on-topic and Reliable. If possible, contact whoever is adding it and give them a friendly note that we need Reliable Sources. Alsee (talk) 00:54, 12 August 2016 (UTC) P.S. It doesn't matter whether they exist. We have articles on things that don't exist, and we lack coverage on many things that do exist. Even if they exist, it constitutes Original Research to simply write about them ourselves. As an Encyclopedia, our job is summarize what Reliable Sources have already written on the subject. Alsee (talk) 01:02, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Comment My wife knew a group of these conservative Catholics in upstate New York, 20 years ago. I do not know if they still exist and how organized they may be. They wore long dresses, etc, and at least in one family of the group, the women wore headcoverings. I don't know that this group in and by itself would merit a Wikipedia mention, but there does seem to be something of the nature in existence. Mikeatnip (talk) 01:00, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

References

Christian Head Covering is rooted in Patriarchy, not Complementarianism

Recommend correction to theological underpinning for Head Coverings. Patriarchy, not complementarian theology is the root theology. As a rule of practice, Complementarians do not practice head covering in SBC, PCA, OPC, or other complementarian denominations. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.153.24.26 (talk) 19:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

The complementarianism page says this: "Christian denominations that support complementarianism include many conservative Protestant denominations (as well as many non-denominational Protestant churches), the Roman Catholic Church, and the Eastern Orthodox churches. These groups of churches that support forms of this position specifically include the Southern Baptist Convention, Eastern Orthodox Church, Presbyterian Church in America, Anglican Diocese of Sydney, Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod, Catholic Church, Conservative Mennonites, Newfrontiers, Jehovah's Witnesses, Evangelical Free Church of America, Christian and Missionary Alliance, Sovereign Grace Ministries, and the Calvary Chapel movement."

Conservative Mennonites are one of the larger groups that still maintain the practice, but some Independent Baptist, Orthodox, Catholic, and others do as well. And, historically, practically all Christian women up until the early to mid 1800s did so as well. So while some patriarchal-minded people and groups practice a head covering, there are plenty of complementarian-minded people and groups who do so as well. I do think that both groups should be represented, so am editing to include both. Please provide some sources if you feel that only patriarchal groups practice the head covering. Mikeatnip (talk) 20:11, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Bloated external links section

The external links section has too many links. I do not have time at the moment to go through them and see which ones represent one view or another. I suggest that the list be culled to include only one link for each view, the one best written. As well, any particular link that may deal with the topic in a unique aspect could be included. As it is, the links appear to have several positions represented several times. Mikeatnip (talk) 20:17, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I went ahead and cleaned up some of the links from blogs. More than one complete study on 1 Cor. 11 remain linked (that support the idea of a covering still applicable for today). I dont have time now to read each one thoroughly and pick out the most complete and well-written. At least the worst of the bloat is gone. Mikeatnip (talk) 00:32, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 29 December 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. (non-admin closure) Surachit (talk) 09:36, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

---

Christian headcovering → Christian head covering – There are over thirty uses of the spelling "head covering", including in the first sentence, and about fifteen of "headcovering" (including text in references). The article should be consistent in the spelling per MOS:ARTCON, and the article title should match the intro in the first sentence. 84.236.27.55 (talk) 04:25, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

• Support as the most common spelling, and on the general principle to use plainer, more easily understood English when we have the option. It's fine if increased readability comes at the cost of a single character. Basically, if most spell checkers have this "word" in red, we're probably making a mistake using the fully compounded version.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:58, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Earle, Alice Morse

The Earle, Alice Morse (1903) reference is used to back up an assertion (in the summary) about head coverings being used into the latter part of the 20th century - clearly the reference can't back this up! Remove the reference or replace it. Rajmarshall (talk) 14:58, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Untrue statement and inapplicable source.

The article states "Although the head covering was practiced by most Christian women until the latter part of the 20th century,[5] it is now a minority practice among contemporary Christians in the West..." (Source: Earle, Alice Morse (1903). Two Centuries of Costume in America, Vol. 2 (1620–1820). The Macmillan Company. p. 582. “One singular thing may be noted in this history, – that with all the vagaries of fashion, woman has never violated the Biblical law that bade her cover her head. She has never gone to church services bareheaded.”) [emphasis mine]

The source is was published in 1903, the early 20th century and refers to a book about the early history of British North America and United States (15th-19th centuries). Unless this person has a very limited definition of what a Christian woman is/was, this is incorrect and I'm editing it to say "many Christian women in the early modern era." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.238.71 (talk) 18:15, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Decline and arguments against

This article talks a lot about Christian groups that do have head coverings, but not much about those who don't and why they don't. When and why did this stop being a common practice in the United States? I think the article could also use some elaboration of the arguments against it being mandatory. —Enervation (talk) 03:09, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Edits by User:Daniel1132

User:Daniel1132, you have added information to this article that is dubious, and unreliably sourced to "Reformed Books Online", along with the pamphlet "1 Corinthians 11: Head Coverings Are Not Perpetual & They Were Hair Buns, with or without Cloth Material: Proven", which is a polemic work and not a scholarly one. The Reformed tradition certainly did not hold this view as evidenced by the writings of John Calvin himself. John Wesley of the Methodist tradition did not hold a cultural view either, as delineated by himself and early Methodist divines. I oppose your recent addition and per WP:BRD, you will need to gain consensus for them here. Thank you for your understanding. With regards, Anupam^Talk 00:48, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

User:Anupam, could help me understand why the source I cited is considered dubious and polemical, even though it contains footnotes, citations, and links to original sources on every page, while the self-published booklet by Paul K. Williams, with no footnotes, no citations, and which is clearly a "pro head coverings" polemic is an acceptable source? As I reviewed this page, with its many links to blog posts, and polemical "pro head covering" websites, I was merely trying to add some objectivity to the page. As to John Wesley, here's what he said: "St. Paul seems to mean, As in these eastern nations veiling the head is a badge of subjection, so a man who prays or prophesies with a veil on his head, reflects a dishonour on Christ, whose representative he is" (Wesley's Explanatory Notes on 1 Corinthians 11). That's clearly the "cultural view"--I'm not sure what you mean? Daniel1132 (talk) 01:38, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Anupam. Even prior edits by User:Daniel1132 misrepresented a primary source to make it claim that head coverings were not important when the writer clearly felt they were and that the protestors were in the wrong.[1] Replacing reliable secondary sources with primary sources is generally not a good idea per WP:PST. I concur too that the citations User:Daniel1132 added are not reliable and misrepresent the views of historic Christian traditions.[2] --1990'sguy (talk) 03:17, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you User:1990sguy. User:Daniel1132, the so-called cultural view is that Saint Paul's instructions in 1 Corinthians applied to the Corinthian church only or that the ordinance was relevant to the Churches of the Middle East. Would you be able to list the quotes of theologians who taught this view here? Do you have an academic source that states that these theologians taught the so-called cultural view? Even if individual theologians might have taught that it was cultural (which has yet to be proven), the wider Reformed tradition has historically taught headcovering. The historic Reformed teaching is clearly discussed in reliable secondary sources, such as World Clothing and Fashion: An Encyclopedia of History, Culture, and Social Influence, published by the academic publisher Routledge, which states:

During the Protestant Reformation, reformers John Calvin and John Knox interpreted Saint Paul's New Testament worship styles as requiring women to cover their heads on holy ground. In Germany, the typical white modesty shield trailed from the head to the heels. For peasant women in Terni, Italy, the embroidered linen veil projected over the forehead on a whalebone eyeshade.

What this article should reflect is the teaching of various Churches through the ages, rather than be a list of minor theologians whose views were in conflict with the practice of their denomination. The places where polemical works might be used as sources are where a particular Church tradition's teaching is being discussed. "1 Corinthians 11: Head Coverings Are Not Perpetual & They Were Hair Buns, with or without Cloth Material: Proven" teaches a fringe view—that a hair bun is the headcovering spoken about in 1 Corinthians 11, a teaching that has no basis in Church History as evidenced by the writings of the Church Fathers. That being said, I will consider a compromise with you if you are able to provide the aforementioned academic source for the same and we can figure out the wording of a proposed addition here. I hope this helps. Kind regards, Anupam^Talk 03:44, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Using a citation that advocates the "bun view" is a nonstarter; Mike Winger does touch on it in his discussion of head coverings.[3] Williams' text could be replaced in the future, but differs from Fentiman's because the former corroborates what scholarly works say on the subject while the latter quote-mines to justify a recent nonscholarly viewpoint. --1990'sguy (talk) 04:32, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

User:Anupam how many quotes would we need? I can start with one for now, I'll see how much time I can give to tracking down more. Theodore Beza: “It appeareth that this was a politike law serving onely for the circumstances of the time that Paul lived in, by this reason, because in these our daye, for a man to speake bare-headed in an assembly, is a signe of subiection.” (comments on 1 Corinthians 11:3)[4] Daniel1132 (talk) 05:03, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing that. Though this is a primary source, for balance in the article, I could add his view in as a quote, with wording such as the following: "However, the Reformed theologian Theodore Beza taught with regard to headcovering that it 'appeareth that this was a politike law serving onely for the circumstances of the time that Paul lived in, by this reason, because in these our daye, for a man to speake bare-headed in an assembly, is a signe of subiection.'" That being said, Beza's view was not reflected in the practice of the Reformed Churches, which drew from Calvin, as evidenced in their practice of women wearing headcoverings until modern times. Let me know if you can agree to this. If not, we would have to let the status quo stand as it appears that User:1990sguy also opposes your additions. Kind regards, Anupam^Talk 05:16, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Anupam, I'm happy for you to include the Beza quote alongside a counterpoint from Calvin. However, it's important to note that "the Reformed Churches" were not a monolithic entity. The English Reformed Tradition was certainly influenced by Calvin, but they had their own theologians, confessions (The Westminster Confession of Faith), and traditions. I would prefer the sentence said this: "That being said, Beza's view was not reflected in the practice of those Reformed Churches which drew from Calvin." However, I think the last part of the sentence is an overgeneralization: "the Reformed Churches ... in their practice of women wearing headcoverings until modern times." This kind of overgeneralization is what I am seeking to correct here, and it is not substantiated by the Routledge article you cited. If there are recognized scholarly secondary sources that say this, I will gladly stand down! But the sources cited in this Wikipedia article as it stands do not. Daniel1132 (talk) 13:54, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

William Whitaker (1548 – 4 December 1595) “was a prominent Protestant Calvinistic Anglican churchman.” Here is a quote from Whitaker's disputation with the Catholic Cardinal Robert Bellarmine. This is a very important source, because it shows that the tradition of head coverings was an example of the difference between the Catholic and the Protestant views of “tradition”:

“He desires men to pray with uncovered, women with covered heads: which injunctions are not of a perpetual obligation; for they are not now observed even by the papists themselves; so as to make it plain that all churches are not bound to the same ceremonies” (A Disputation on Holy Scripture, Against the Papists, Especially Bellarmine).[5] Daniel1132 (talk) 13:55, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Daniel Cawdry (1588–1664) "was an English clergyman, member of the Westminster Assembly." I hope there is no debate on the importance of the Westminster Assembly and the resulting Westminster Confession of Faith for the "Reformed Tradition," at least in the English speaking world. Here's what Cawdry said:

“Question: “Whether the Synod has power to enjoy things both in their nature and use indifferent." …I answer: that for men to pray or prophesy with their heads covered, or with long hair, and women uncovered, were things in their own nature indifferent (unless you make it necessary, as a moral duty for men to pray or prophesy uncovered, and women contra; which no interpreters upon that text do)…”

Cawdry goes on to say that even though this is a thing “indifferent” yet the Synod does have the right to enjoin it, and then goes on immediately to discuss whether preachers should wear a gown or not when preaching, again, a matter that is “indifferent,” and says that the Synod could require them to wear a gown (preach “covered”) even though Paul in 1 Corinthians says that men must be “uncovered.” (A Vindication of the Keys, 96–99)[6] Daniel1132 (talk) 14:18, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Two more English Puritans and Westminster Divines: Daniel Cawdry((1588–1664) & Herbert Palmer(1601–1647), with a crystal clear distinction between "variable, or temporary" and "invariable and perpetual":

“Divine Apostolicall Institutions (that we may draw to our purpose) were again of two sorts: First, variable, or temporary, which were such injunctions as were prescribed, either for some speciall ends, as that law for abstaining from blood, and things strangled, Acts 15.1, for avoiding offence to the Jews, or to some special nations, or persons, as agreeable to the customs of those places and times, as that of women being vailed in the congregations, and some other the like. Secondly, invariable and perpetual: such as concerned the whole Church”

Sabbatum Redivivum: or, The Christian Sabbath Vindicated (London, 1645), page 463[7] Daniel1132 (talk) 22:07, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Francis Turretin (1623–1687) was a very influential reformed theologian, both in his own time, but also for 19th century American Presbyterians, as his Institutes of Elenctic Theology was the main theology textbook at Princeton Theological Seminary and Union Presbyterian Seminary (in the South). In his section of the Institutes on The Lord’s Day he compares what he considers the “temporary” nature of an ordinance like headcoverings with the “invariable and perpetual” institutions, like the Lord’s Day itself:

XIV. Although certain ordinations of the apostles (which referred to the rites and circumstances of divine worship) were variable and instituted only for a time (as the sanction concerning the not eating of blood and of things strangled [Acts 15:20]; concerning the woman’s head being covered and the man’s being uncovered when they prophesy [1 Cor. 11:4, 5]) because there was a special cause and reason for them and (this ceasing) the institution itself ought to cease also; still there were others invariable and of perpetual observance in the church, none of which were founded upon any special occasion to last only for a time by which they might be rendered temporary (such as the imposition of hands in the setting apart of ministers and the distinction between the offices of deacon and pastor). Since the institution of the Lord’s day was of this kind, from this we infer that the Intention of the founders was that the observance of this day should be of perpetual and immutable right.

(Institutes, vol. 2, 11th Topic, The Law of God, 14th Question: The Lord’s Day)[8] Daniel1132 (talk) 22:34, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

@Anupam @Mikeatnip Here is a scholarly secondary source on the reformed tradition. Richard A. Muller is a leading authority on the reformed tradition:

Examination of occasion and context also led the annotators of the Geneva Bible to recognize that the Pauline statement, “Everie man praying or prophecying having any thing on his head, dishonoreth his head” (1 Cor. 11:4) as reflecting a customary rather than an apodictic standard. The annotation reads, “This tradition was observed according to the time and place that all things might be done in comelines and edification." A similar annotation is found in the previous chapter with reference to the eating of meat previously dedicated for sacrifice: the text refers to a practice of the time." Nor was the importance of the historical context of these verses forgotten in the seventeenth century: Poole comments on the problem of covering the head in prayer and prophesy indicated by 1 Cor. 11:4 that “this and the following verses are to be interpreted from the customs of countries" and that the Christian practice of uncovering the head during prayer probably originated, as Lightfoot had argued, as an alternative to the Jewish custom of covering the head. Poole also notes the variety of customs in his own rime and indicates that, even in the case of the following verses concerning the covering of a woman's head, that the Pauline text so reflects a historical situation that it cannot provide a rule for contemporary practice. Indeed, it is incumbent on the exegete that he avail himself of “humane histories" in order to clarify the divine history.

(Richard A. Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics : The Rise and Development of Reformed Orthodoxy, ca. 1520 to ca. 1725, vol. 2: Holy Scripture (Grand Rapids: Grand Rapids, Mich. : Baker Academics, 2003), 489–90)[9] Daniel1132 (talk) 14:01, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

User:1990'sguy I disagree that I misrepresented a primary source. I wrote: "The following week, the Milwaukee Sentinel published a letter to the editor from “Mrs. M. E., Milwaukee,” who felt that the protest was “immature exhibitionism” and that “there are more vital issues to work for in the church than whether or not to wear a hat.”

Here is Mrs. M. E.'s letter in full:

To the Sentinel: This is in reference to immature exhibitionism of the 15 members of NOW (National Organization of Women) at the St. John de Nepomuc church on Easter. Certainly there are more vital issues to work for in the church than whether or not to wear a hat. It is out of respect that men don’t wear hats and women show their respect equally by wearing a head covering. IT doesn’t make me feel unequal or humiliated, so I believe there must be something else that makes these 15 women feel inferior and this silly idea about hats is a coverup. Mrs. M. E., Milwaukee.

My edit showed that she "felt the protesters were in the wrong" ("immature exhibitionism"), but the whole point of the last half of her letter ("there must be something else... this silly idea about hats") only makes sense because of her first statement "certainly there are more vital issues to work for in the church." I never said she thought it was "unimportant."

I'm only elaborating on this because you've tried to discredit me as "misrepresenting" sources -- I don't think that's the case at all here, in fact, it appears you've misread Mrs. M. E. on this point. Daniel1132 (talk) 04:54, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is that you replaced a secondary source published by Princeton University Press, which captured the crux of the comment and replaced it with an analysis of your own that left out the main point of what was being said. Wikipedia always prefers scholarly, secondary sources to original research. --1990'sguy (talk) 13:26, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, I did *not* replace the secondary source (Katzenstein)--I left it right where it was. I moved the quote on "immature exhibitionism" from the footnote into the body of the paragraph, and added a direct citation for it.[10] Daniel1132 (talk) 13:45, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

I tend to agree with @Anupam that the additions by @Daniel1132 are not in the best interest of the article, at least in the form presented. On the other hand, specific quotes that present a possible "counter-view" could be incorporated into the article. But here is the problem: The contended issue with some Reformed theologians seems to be centered more on whether it was permissible for a Christian man to wear a cloth covering/hat. The idea of a non-cloth-covered Christian woman never seems to be promoted, much less practiced. Artwork (and later photographs) show a continual Reformed use of a cloth covering for women from the Reformation up until the 20th century, so even if some of the Reformed theologians questioned whether the 1 Corinthian 11 teachings were to be perpetual and universal, the practice of their churches was "perpetual and universal" for several centuries after the Reformation when it came to women wearing a cloth covering. So perhaps the quotes promoting non-perpetual/non-universal application are being taken out of broader context? I have not read the full original sources to catch this broader context, but something does not give when you have a person promoting an idea that goes against the universal practice. Either the promoters were outliers or are being misunderstood. Until this is discrepancy is accounted for, I am opposed to the additions that @Daniel1132 has proposed, at least in the form they were proposed. Also, the idea that 1 Corinthians 11 is promoting the wearing of a bun is "fringe" as far as I am aware. Mikeatnip (talk) 16:35, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

@Mikeatnip thanks for this. I want to clarify why I think it's important to show that the "cultural" interpretation of headcoverings goes back at least to the 16th century, and on until the present, even if it was still being practiced. The article as it stands contains several claims about the "interpretation" not just the practice. In the very first section of the article: "the practice of Christian headcovering was countercultural in the Apostolic Era, being a biblical ordinance rather than a cultural tradition"; "This may indicate that headcoverings were considered a standard, universal Christian symbolic practice (rather than a local cultural custom)"; "A modern interpretation is that Paul's commands regarding headcovering were a cultural mandate that was only for the 1st-century Corinthian church." -- but, I'm claiming (and, I hope, demonstrating) that this is *not* just a "modern interpretation" but rather an interpretation that is nearly 500 years old. Your point about artwork and photographs is interesting, but probably a separate discussion. I would be curious what the standards of proof are for relying on artwork to support a claim about practice. "Individual research" is frowned upon at Wikipedia, so "I did a Google image search and here's what I found..." wouldn't suffice, I imagine. Are there any reliable secondary sources who make this same claim regarding artwork/photographs? Daniel1132 (talk) 21:15, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Concerning "but, I'm claiming (and, I hope, demonstrating) that this is *not* just a "modern interpretation" but rather an interpretation that is nearly 500 years old." If there were those who clearly promoted that interpretation, then you will need to provide the sources. Then, it will be incumbent to explain why and how they personally held that interpretation while the practice (and official doctrine) within their own churches was otherwise.

On the artwork: I am not aware of anyone (academic or non-academic) who has promoted the idea that the Reformed (or any other group prior to the mid to late 1800s) had an official theological position and practice that women should not wear a cloth head covering. Now to be clear, I do not know everything despite reading tens of thousands of pages of church history, and if there was a group, then it could (should) be cited here and included. If there were individuals who held such a position, then they could be noted as individuals who spoke against what appears to have been the nearly universal practice and theology. Mikeatnip (talk) 22:27, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm creating a separate topic for this, as it came up in the other topic about my edits, and I don't want to unnecessarily complicate that topic. I would like to suggest that any claims in the article that rely on Paul K. Williams's e-book, or Greg Gordon's article, ought to be either (a) deleted, as neither of those are scholarly secondary sources, or (b) at least qualified by a statement like "some proponents of headcoverings claim that ..." I'm posing this here, instead of simply making these edits, in order for users like User:Anupam to weigh in first. Daniel1132 (talk) 14:01, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

I would not be opposed to the idea of adding "some proponents of headcoverings claim" if there are major dissenting views. One problem with this article is finding peer-reviewed, secondary sources, since those who continue to promote the "perpetual and universal" application tend not to be the scholarly type who publish their writings in academic journals. If peer-reviewed, secondary sources are available, then they could replace the self-published sources. Meanwhile, Gordon and Williams do promote a view that is held by many individuals and church groups (numbering hundreds of thousands of people or even millions perhaps), while the view promoted by Fentiman (the bun view) is not a commonly held view. That difference, in my opinion, would be sufficient to continue to use Gordon and Williams as less-than-desirable but still valid sources (until better are found), while Fentiman is the opinion of a few people. If every "fringe" view is included in Wikipedia, it could be bloated fast. Mikeatnip (talk) 16:46, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Again @Mikeatnip, thanks for engaging. I should clarify here that I actually didn't put anything about the "bun view" in the article. I merely cited a source from a guy who holds the "bun view" because his footnotes on the views of reformation and post-reformation figures were pretty solid. I honestly don't care either way whether Fentiman or the "bun view" are part of this article, so long as it accurately reflects the range of views on this topic, instead of painting what I think is an oversimplified, and in some cases simply inaccurate, history of this topic, based on dubious sources. Daniel1132 (talk) 21:19, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

If those footnoted sources are valid sources indicating a different exegetical position, the sources could be cited directly while bypassing the Fentiman document. I have not looked at the sources he cites to see if he was cherry-picking from the original author's intent (which is why secondary sources, overviewing the entire situation, are preferred on Wikipedia). Not saying Fentiman was cherry-picking (I honestly do not know) but his document as a whole is a "fringe" view that tends to make the overall value of his document become dubious from an academic standpoint. AGain, as mentioned above, it will probably need explained that those who held this differing position were within churches that still maintained the practice of a cloth head covering for hundreds of years afterward ... and perhaps an explanation of why this was so would need to be included. Mikeatnip (talk) 22:37, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, they would need to be reliable secondary sources that claim that certain Churches held a cultural view against the universal and historic position, not User:Daniel1132's own synthesis of primary sources or original quotes from various theologians whose beliefs were not reflected in the practice of their denomination in any meaningful way. The amount of space given to this material could be about that of a sentence or two given our due weight policies. --1990'sguy (talk) 00:08, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

It boils down to whether a few Reformation-era Reformed theologians may have held the "cultural view" as a personal view that did not agree with the mainstream view of the Reformed Church. If some did indeed hold this view, I would be of the opinion that such could be noted in the article, but it would need to be clear that their views were apparently minority views that were never made official church doctrine nor practiced. The question then is, if they were minority views, does Wikipedia need to note every minor minority view held personally by people within a movement? In some cases this may be profitable, but obviously not every Tom, Dick, and Harry with a personal view would need to be given notice in Wikipedia. Mikeatnip (talk) 03:19, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

@Mikeatnipthis seems reasonable to me. I agree with you that "not every Tom, Dick and Harry" is worth notice in the article. However, the quotes I've begun listing and citing in the other topic include Beza, Whitaker, multiple Westminster Divines, and Francis Turretin--hardly "minor figures" in the reformed tradition (and this is just what I've had time to do for the 16th and 17th centuries). As to a clear delineator for who is worth mentioning, could we say that "If a figure already has an article dedicated to them, they are significant enough to mention"? And for my own part, I would be happy with a single sentence (with footnotes) saying something like "Beginning in the 16th century, Reformed figures like Beza, Whitaker, and Turretin, as well as some of the Westminster Divines, taught that headcoverings were a "cultural" practice." I still do not think that Gordon and Williams meet the standard that is being applied to my own edits. Daniel1132 (talk) 13:08, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

If they have a Wikipedia page then I would be of the opinion that they would be notable enough to be cited. Beza is the only name I am familiar with myself. Although I have read a lot of church history, the Reformed tradition is not one that I have spent a lot time in, so perhaps some of those other names are more notable (within that tradition) than I am personally aware. My other concern here is that they (those who are purported to uphold the "cultural practice" view) are being properly understood and not cherry-picked. Were there debates within the Reformed tradition about the issue during Beza's (et. al) time? Why did their churches continue to (as I understand it) universally practice a cloth head covering for women up until the 20th century? That is where peer-reviewed, secondary sources are supposed to come into play; sorting out the historical information in an objective way. If Beza and others did hold that view personally, the best link would be directly to the original source with the quote, until a good secondary source becomes available that objectively interprets the context. Mikeatnip (talk) 21:31, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I have looked at the Fentiman book added by Daniel1132 and it is thoroughly unreliable. It should not be used to support any claim in this article, like the sentences Daniel1132 entered. An entire section of this book is devoted to him repenting about the use of head coverings, due to his shifted opinion. Its claims of certain people advocating a cultural view fly in the face of what reliable sources have stated. Also, I endorse not including a list of Reformed clergy who might have held a cultural view b/c this article is not the place for it. The founding fathers of the denomination, like Calvin (Continental Reformed) and Knox (Presbyterian) are enough. Otherwise, we would have to have a giant list of the significantly higher number of Reformed clergy who followed Calvin and endorsed head covering as a transannual practice! Abhishek0831996 (talk) 17:11, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

User:Daniel1132, based on the input here of multiple editors, in addition to the sources you have provided, I think we have consensus to add one sentence (which you are agreeable to), regarding certain Reformed theologians endorsing a cultural view. The sentence could take the following form:

Nevertheless, certain Reformed clerics of the 16th and 17th century have held that head covering was a cultural institution for the Apostolic Age, including Theodore Beza, Daniel Cawdry, Herbert Palmer, and Francis Turretin.

If this is fine with you, you are welcome to format the primary sources from those theologians that support this statement and place the sentence directly after the source you added the parameter to here. It should be kept in as part of the same paragraph discussing Calvin, rather than being a separate paragraph. After this, this discussion can be closed. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 00:19, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I can agree to a single sentence per WP:DUE, and the above looks okay to me. That said, as User:Mikeatnip states, these theologians did not have any major effect on the practice of the Reformed churches, which observed head-covering until the 20th century. In the future (when I have time), I might modify the sentence to include other Reformed theologians of the Reformation era who affirmed Calvin's and Knox's teaching, such as George Gillespie. Though it fell out of favor in the 20th century, mainly in the West, those Reformed denominations that broke from their slowly-liberalizing mainline bodies continued to practice head-covering, as taught by both Calvin and Knox; this is easily seen in Presbyterian denominations such as the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland and Continental Reformed denominations like the Old-Reformed Congregations in the Netherlands. That said, this article is about the historical practice of Christian head covering. It is not an argument about what 1 Corinthians means and/or different views on the chapter; there will be some information on this, but the article mainly focuses on explaining the practice from a historical perspective. --1990'sguy (talk) 01:32, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

@Anupam These were just the figures I found (so far) for the 16th and 17th centuries. Could a similar sentence be added for the 18th and 19th centuries, perhaps in the paragraph mentioning John Wesley? Also, could the secondary source (Muller) be added? So, two sentences in Calvin paragraph ("Muller notes that certain ... . Some of the Reformed figures who held the cultural include ..." and one in Wesley ("18th and 19th century figures who held the "cultural" view include ..." I'm not trying to bloat the article with paragraphs, just those sentences would suffice for me. Daniel1132 (talk) 03:02, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

@Anupam - I want to challenge the R. C. Sproul quote you've included in your most recent edit[11] but rather than just delete it myself, I figured I'd mention it here and see what you think. The source you linked to is a review of Jeremy Gardiner's book, Head Covering: A Forgotten Christian Practice for Modern Times. Gardiner quotes Sproul on page 51 (which you can read on the Amazon "preview"[12]). However, Gardiner's citation for the Sproul quote is a website: "Greg Price, "Headcoverings in Scripture" (which is already linked on the Wikipedia page[13]. Price's web-page offers no citation for Sproul's quote, and I have scoured the internet looking for it, and can't find an original source anywhere. I think the R. C. Sproul quote needs to come down until the actual source can be located. Daniel1132 (talk) 03:09, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

User:Daniel1132, I think mentioning the 16th and 17th figures (who could be seen as contemporaries of Calvin and Knox) is sufficient for now since they could be argued as the theologians who contributed to the establishment of the Reformed tradition. There are other users who felt that even that was unnecessary, but I considered this a WP:COMPROMISE to develop consensus. I will not object if you add the secondary source after the one sentence that was agreed upon; you can include the quote parameter for that. Additionally, you may remove the Sproul quote if you leave the rest of the sentence intact, including the reference, which is useful with respect to the National Organization for Women claim. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 03:21, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

@Anupam - this all sounds good to me. I appreciate your engagement with me on this. Blessings - Daniel1132 (talk) 03:30, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Girls

Has this practice been required of girls, or only adult women? -- Beland (talk) 02:02, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

This aspect has been debated some through the centuries, starting with at least Tertullian. I don't have the citations offhand, but in his day it was questioned by some whether unmarried girls should cover their heads or only married women. Tertullian argued for even unmarried girls to cover their heads. Mikeatnip (talk) 13:28, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 5 January 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (non-admin closure) Kiwiz1338 (talk) 04:11, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

---

Christian head covering → Head covering for Christian women – It seems like "women" or "female" should be in the title of this article, because it does not discuss Christian head covering rules for men (of which there are some). The proposed title would be consistent with Head covering for Jewish women. We have Hijab for Islam, which is nice and concise, but as far as I'm aware there's no equivalent word for Christians? We also have Islamic veiling practices by country, but I don't think we have by-country articles for Judaism and Christianity. -- Beland (talk) 02:11, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Christianity has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:21, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Fashion has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:22, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Women's History has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:22, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I could see this either way: 1) The present page could be enlarged to discuss men being uncovered, and whether that means not wearing a hat, for example, which is a question debated within some conservative Anabaptist churches. 2) Rename this page and then another page could be created to talk about the men's application. Mikeatnip (talk) 13:32, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Support per nom, consistency Garnet Moss (talk) 07:32, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support per nom. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:13, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support Makes sense. Completely Random Guy (talk) 03:43, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Eastern Orthodoxy and Head Covering

The section on Eastern Christianity is not an accurate reflection of current practices of the church and seems to be biased toward a view of the importance head covering that is outside the norms of most Eastern Orthodox communities. The large block quote in the article is from an opinion piece by individual clergy rather than statements of church policy. This is further complicated by the fact that the individual bishops have significant autonomy in establishing rules within their dioceses. Common practice is that many women cover their heads during worship, but is not required in large parts of the Orthodox community. In many jurisdictions (e.g., Greek Orthodoxy) head covering during worship is rare.

Provided below are the dress codes for actual Orthodox churches illustrating that head coverings are in many cases not required and in some cases not even mentioned:

https://www.saintjohnchurch.org/dress-code-orthodox-church/

https://www.dormition.nc.goarch.org/welcome/frequently-asked-questions

http://ww1.antiochian.org/christianeducation/etiquette

This section would benefit from the removal of much of the detail and a simpler statement that head covering is practices in many communities during worship.

73.200.28.97 (talk) 02:52, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

The fact is that historically, headcovering has been enjoined in Orthodox Christian communities and was normative not only for worship, but when walking about in public. This continues to be true in certain parts of Eastern Europe, where Orthodox Christianity is the majority faith; one reference present in the article states this:

For elderly women in a more conservative orthodox region in the Eastern part of Romania, called Moldova, or Western Moldavia, the batik is a sign of modesty and keeping up tradition. It is said to be the umbrella of God upon them, a piece of clothing that connects them with divinity. Women don’t need to worry about the way they arrange their hair, a mundane practice that would distance them from God. When I asked women in Moldova if they would go bareheaded if they had the choice, most of them refused to imagine this. Even today, the picture of bareheaded women is not accepted in the region of Moldova.

Additionally, in many Orthodox Christian denominations, such as the Russian Orthodox Church, the wearing of a headscarf during the Divine Liturgy is normative. That being said, you are correct, that in many Orthodox Christian parishes (especially those in North America), the headscarf is not required and I will add a sentence, along with a reference, to balance the current information. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 22:21, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

This article grossly overstates the importance of head covering not only in Orthodoxy, but in Christianity more broadly. This article is severely slanted toward the most conservative possible interpretation of practices and completely neglects the fact that most Christian women in most places no longer cover their hair during worship and almost no Christian women any where cover their hair outside of worship. A person from a part of the world that is not predominantly Christian would, after reading this article, be left with the impression that head covering is a common practice in the Christian world when it in fact is not. As an Orthodox Christian person from Eastern Europe, I find this article baffling. 73.200.28.97 (talk) 04:05, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I completely agree. The article fails to emphasise the difference between historical customs and the present day, and also to distinguish clearly between head covering in church, and in outside public spaces all the time. Where head coverings were worn all the time, this was probably not just a religious matter, given that other religions in the same societies (Judaism, Islam, Hinduism etc) had the same customs, without worrying at all about Timothy or Paul's views on thwe matter. There's also too much in the lead about small denominations. Johnbod (talk) 11:58, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I am from Palestine and have traveled extensively throughout the Arab world and also in Turkey. Around 95% of our women wear a scarf when in the church. In more rural areas, our women wear the scarf outside the church. This is taught as Christian dogma and not as any cultural concept. When foreigners from London, Paris and New York come here to visit the holy places, the women are asked to put a scarf over their head and if their dress is too short, they cannot enter. If they do not cover their head, our priests do not let them come inside. The same goes for men wearing shorts. In Egypt, Turkey, Iran, Syria, and Iraq our Christian women are taught that wearing a scarf is obeying what God wrote in the Bible and what the saints have practiced so we do it too. The world does not revolve around what Americans do and we see the American practice of Christianity as being strange and many of us would say, not Christian at all. Covering is still very much practiced over here and if anything, is being enforced more as an opposition to Western culture. 2A0D:6FC7:503:8E0A:378:5634:1232:5476 (talk) 19:10, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Article reads like an apologetic, not an encyclopedia

This article breaks NPOV. It makes assertions that headcovering is a biblical ordinance, downplays or ignores the opposing view, and celebrates a revival of headcovering that it poorly cites. I appreciate the article length and footnotes but it is not balanced. Dirkwillems (talk) 07:34, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. This article seems dedicated to normalizing and encouraging the practice of veiling in public, a practice that is actually very rare among Christians. It completely ignores the differences between historical religious practices, traditional folk dress, current religious requirements, and the current prevailing culture. The focus of the article is completely imbalanced to highlight small minority denominations like Anabaptists that require it or niche cultural traditions followed by the elderly in Balkan villages. 12.205.218.127 (talk) 13:36, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

It would be good if 12.205.218.127 could sign in with a user name to make sure this is not merely the same person replying as an anonymous. The article clearly presents the historical position of practically all Christian churches through the ages. It also shows that the practice is widespread even today, even if it is disappearing in mainstream western Christianity. I simply do not see how the historical realities of this practice could be more truthfully explained. The historical theology of the practice was consistent until the last 1.5 centuries. If someone wants to expand on current theological positions that go against the historical theology, that could be incorporated into the article. What we have to realize is that the last 100 years of history are only about 5% of the history of how the church interpreted and practiced 1 Corinthians 11. So while today's mainline western interpretation and practice can seem overwhelmingly the majority view, historically it is a very insignificant minority view. Mikeatnip (talk) 15:23, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

@Mikeatnip I'm not asking for the article to falsely elevate non-covering either, I'm asking for it to be balanced to reality. It's only natural for advocates of head covering to have a special interest in it but this shouldn't come out as a preference in the article.

By the way, this commenter wasn't me, but his logging in wouldn't actually ensure the same person wasn't double-posting. Accounts are free. Dirkwillems (talk) 15:32, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, @Dirkwillems. First, I tend to put less weight on anonymous comments because of the possibility of signing out and then commenting anonymously; but anonymous comments should not be totally disregarded just because they are anonymous. And yes, sockpuppeting happens with registered accounts.

Secondly, your phrase "balanced to reality" could be debated, but perhaps the best way is for you or someone else to expose that unbalance is to become more specific as where the overbalance lies; specific sentences or wording. The page is oriented toward explaining the traditional Christian viewpoint, which seems out-of-skelter to those who are not familiar with the history of the practice. Those unfamiliar with the history may think it is biased, but we all (myself definitely included) need to ask ourselves if our bias is determining the balance of an article.

As I think about it, I can explain it this way: I personally disagree with infant baptism. Yet to be honest with history, I have to admit that ever since the 2nd or 3rd century after Christ, infant baptism has been practiced, according to the historical record. And, for about 1,000 years (a.d. 500-1500) it was overwhelming majority practice. Since the 1500s, adult believer's baptism has grown in practice in some parts of Christendom. So, historically speaking, adult believer's baptism is a minority view ... as much as I would personally wish it was not.

With the headcovering, historically we have to admit, whether we wish it were so or not, that practically all Christian women covered their heads up until the mid-1800s, and from that point on in western Christianity the practice began to lose ground. So from my perspective, the article clearly establishes the historical realities ... whether I like it or not. This is what I want from an encyclopedia: truth, or reality.

That said, the theological explanation for not using a headcovering could be expanded upon in the appropriate section. The reality is that presently in western Christendom, that practice largely prevails, so that reality can be reflected in the article ... as long as it does not damage the truth/reality that it is a relatively new explanation and practice. Mikeatnip (talk) 16:02, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

@Mikeatnip I have made some edits to change the tone from "this is what scripture teaches" to descriptive, "this is how x y and z interpret scripture". I think the counterpoint needs to be expanded and the article overall needs to be formatted along its sections, which are already good. There's a lot of listing of denominations, which is fine but I think should be entirely located in "denominational practices".

It just feels disjointed, like someone trying to persuade you with a false consensus. Many sources are persuasive pieces which should only really be cited in reference to the belief of that given church. Dirkwillems (talk) 16:13, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I see more edits, which is fine. But I would suggest breaking large edits up (next time) into smaller chunks so other editors can follow better what all is being done (especially if the edits may be controversial). Perhaps @Anupam will want to go through the different changes and "challenge" some. He has put a lot of time into this page over the years and has done a very good job of gathering and citing sources. As for me, I honestly got lost in the shuffle of the rearrangement on the first large recent edit, with somehow a few hundred bytes getting deleted in the process that I haven't figured out what exactly all was lost. At the moment I don't have time so maybe later I will go through it better. Working together, we can make the article be accurate, full, and relevant. Mikeatnip (talk) 18:42, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

@Mikeatnip you're welcome to take a look. I haven't deleted any sources. Dirkwillems (talk) 22:00, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

My view is that the article as it stands reflects the historical and present reality of the practice of head covering. Keep in mind that this article is about the practice of headcovering for Christian women, and not a debate about modern post-1960s interpretations on 1 Corinthians 11. All sources confirm the fact that headcovering/veiling was the universal practice of the Church, though in recent times, it has faded (in the Western Europe and North America only). In India, Egypt, Syria, Eritrea, Lebanon, as well as many other Middle Eastern, Asian, and African nations (from which Christianity originally spread), headcovering remains the normative practice. This may not be the case in Western Europe and North America, but per WP:GLOBALIZE, that does not matter because Wikipedia should reflect the practice historically and globally. It cannot be Western-centered, despite certain readers from this part of the world being surprised that this practice still continues in the rest of Christendom. The references are quite clear about the reason why the practice has waned in the Western world. Due weight is given to the practice for 1950 years of Christianity (in which the practice of headcovering was mandated and ubiquitous) and the small period of 70 years in which much of the world continues the practice, and many people in the West do not. Anupam^Talk 23:38, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, it seems that most western Christians are ignorant of the history, and they seem to be shocked to find out that historically their current theological position and practice is the odd position. I think we have seen this same pattern here on this page over the years: western Christians come to this page and think the article is totally unbalanced. But the article's presentation is well-sourced throughout. If an editor does find a source that contradicts what is said in the article, he/she is welcome to present that source. While I am sure that the article can be improved, the general historical presentation is solidly backed and I personally doubt that a source will be found to say (for example) that Christian groups existed in the early church or middle ages or even Protestant Reformation where the women went without a covering. It simply is not the historical truth (from my reading of church history, which has been rather extensive compared to the average western Christian), whether we agree with that position or not. Mikeatnip (talk) 00:01, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

@Anupam I am not suggesting a recenter around western practice, I'm saying the article reads as a persuasive piece or at least is unbalanced. "Balanced" wouldn't mean equal time spent on every view if that doesn't reflect reality, but it's still lopsided.

You might yourself practice the minority view on this issue in your broader religious culture (Catholic American) and so they way you talk about this subject usually involves proving yourself or persuading your friends. That's great and I'm glad for your expertise, but as an outsider myself it feels like I'm being persuaded. You bring up the 60s again - that just isn't an inflection point for others the same way it is for traditional Catholics.

I would like to see the article dispassionately report scholarly consensus rather than appear like it has something to prove.

thanks for going along with certain edits I've suggested. Dirkwillems (talk) 00:28, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I have added a sentence to the lede of the article that talks about the decline of the practice in the Western world, with reference to the view that non-observing churches see this as a cultural practice of the time. That should provide the balance you sought. With regards, Anupam^Talk 02:17, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Your reference for Lebanon is a photo from Brooklyn, NY at a Maronite church. Here is a picture from an Orthodox church in Beirut during Easter. Please note that these women do not have their hair covered - https://imagelinkglobal.com/products/ILEA000726870/. Many of the references in this article are similarly cherry picked to support a particular point of view. 73.200.28.97 (talk) 03:19, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Here is an additional picture from a service during Easter in Kerala India where Christianity is widespread - https://english.mathrubhumi.com/news/kerala/kerala-celebrates-easter-with-mass-and-feasts-1.8467307. It is notable that many of the women do not have their heads covered and this is reflective of the practice in many non-Western churches where some women choose to cover their heads and others don't, but both practices are acceptable. 73.200.28.97 (talk) 03:30, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Here is another picture from a church service in India this time in Delhi where almost none of the women have their hair covered - https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/atonement-for-past-deeds-kerala-chief-minister-on-pm-modis-church-visit-3937326 73.200.28.97 (talk) 03:34, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Your original research is not helpful. You ignored the rest of the links that were provided that show that in general, to a large degree, that headcoverings are worn by Christians in certain parts of Eastern Europe, northern Africa, the Middle East, and the Indian subcontinent. You do realize that the seat of the Maronite Church is in Bkerke, northeast of Beirut, correct? The example is therefore paradigmatic of Lebanese Christian practice. With regard to the Middle East, there are several scholarly sources that state that headcovering is practiced there. This includes "Social and Cultural Anthropology for the 21st Century" authored by social anthropologist Marzia Balzani and socio-cultural/linguistic anthropologist Niko Besnier (published by the academic press Routledge), which states: "Head covers are generally associated with Islam, but until recently Christian women in Mediterranean countries also covered their heads in public, and some still do, particularly in religious contexts such as attending mass." With regard to your link from Kerala, almost all of the women in the photograph are wearing headcoverings! Besides that point, this article from NJ PBS states: "Although she attends a mainstream evangelical church today, she grew up attending church in Brooklyn with fellow Keralan Christians. They would sit separated by gender, the women with their hair covered, as is the common practice in South Asia across religious traditions." Furthermore, this article notes that women in Delhi who present themselves without a veil are denied Holy Communion. Have you even ever traveled to India? Have you visited Pakistan? Reliable sources confirm what is present in the article whereas you offer your own interpretation of unreliable photographs. Anupam^Talk 03:42, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I fully realize where the Maronite church is based. You are the one who linked to a photo from Brooklyn to a claim about practices in Lebanon. I simply responded with a photo of an actual service in Beirut. You are doing exactly the same thing that I am. You are cherry picking sources that reinforce your personal view of what normative practice should be in these countries.

I would ask you - have you been to Greece? It has a 10X the number of Christians that Pakistan does and veiling is no longer commonly practiced. If you are going to assert that the decline in head covering is limited to the West, you need to be able to demonstrate that that claim is true everywhere. 73.200.28.97 (talk) 03:58, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

No, you're incorrect. I simply need to provide references that state that headcovering has declined in the Western World, which I have done. There are plenty of sources about Eastern European countries, such as this article, that demonstrate that headcovering is normative there. The article states: "Visit any church in Russia, and you will see women covering their heads. Visit an Orthodox church in Serbia, Georgia, Ukraine, and many other parts of the world, and you will see the same thing." If you are claiming that headcovering is not practiced there, you are obligated to provide sources that state that, not random website links with images that are likely stock photographs. Anupam^Talk 04:20, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Here is a photo from a service in Syria. Again note that almost none of the women present have their heads covered - https://cnewa.org/magazine/a-letter-from-syria-33908/. The assertion that there has not been a decline in head covering during worship outside of North America and Europe is simply false. 73.200.28.97 (talk) 03:48, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

The article you cite makes no reference to headcovering and even the photograph is hard to view. On the other hand, this article provides a clear photograph of Syrian Christians worshipping and states explicitly "Assyrian youth women wear traditional Yalkhtas to cover their hair, as a sign of respect and rank in church, as they follow along in worship at Saint Mary’s Assyrian Church of the East". Either way, photographs are not used to write articles on Wikipedia. Anupam^Talk 04:03, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Suggested major edits

I didn't want to do this unilaterally, so here are some thoughts.

-The opening section jumps into the issues. It feels like it's trying to preempt objection. I suggest the current first paragraph be treated as the entire introduction, and the content of the second be relocated to other sections (or deleted if already there). Lists of denominations should stay in "denominational practices", discussion of the text direction should stay in "scripture".

-History -> Bible and the Early Church should be renamed "Early Church". Content under "bible" should be relocated to "Scripture" heading.

-Scripture heading should come before History heading and should be much less technical. Let a curious reader follow the footnotes. There are too many quotations and names of books in the paragraph body (my opinion). The logical flow of the article could look like this: Brief Introduction, Scripture, History, Styles, Denominational Practice.

Dirkwillems (talk) 22:29, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with reorganizing the article. The way that it is organized now is already logical and the lede of the article summarizes the major points of headcovering in Christianity. Also, the quotation parameters are very helpful when readers wish to verify whether sentences are based on a reliable source. As such, they will not be removed. There is a difference between where scripture references headcovering and an exegesis of 1 Corinthians 11; the two sections on "Bible and the Early Church" and "Scriptural basis" thus serve two different purposes, with the latter allowing for discussion on interpretation. The Bible preceded the Early Church, which preceded the Medieval Era and the Modern Era. I hope this helps. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 23:26, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I would let good enough alone. The suggested outline of @Dirkwillems is not wrong per se, but as the saying goes, "there is more than one way to skin a cat," and the present layout has served well for a good while. The second paragraph is a summary of the various aspects, a genuine preview that a reader can read through and get the takeaway without having to go through the details. Interested readers can continue reading for fuller exposition of the topic. Again, while the proposed changes would not be a totally wrong way, I see no reason to change. This article has been fleshed out over the years and I think it covers the history of the theology and practice well, although that is not to say it could not be improved in any way. Many other Wikipedia articles would be glad (so to speak) to have their topic fleshed out as fully as this article is. Mikeatnip (talk) 23:39, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you User:Mikeatnip, I agree. Anupam^Talk 23:48, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

@Anupam thanks for your consideration. what do you consider the distinction between "history-bible" and "scripture"? can "scripture" be renamed along the lines of "interpretation"? Dirkwillems (talk) 23:57, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Dirkwillems, you're welcome! If you look under the "Scriptural basis" section, you would see a "Interpretive issues" subsection that discusses the various issues that contemporary clerics use in interpreting the passage. As such, I do think that the heading is fine as "Scriptural basis". I do accept your categorization of the former paragraphs into sections by denomination, however and per WP:COMPROMISE, will not be challenging that. Kind regards, Anupam^Talk 00:06, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I would propose a renaming of the "History" section to "Historical Practice". "Scriptural basis" could be renamed "Theological basis". That is my take on the difference between the two sections: one deals with practice while the other deals with theological exegesis. Yeah, it can be confusing to see two sections about "Bible," but there is a reason for the two-fold use. So @Dirkwillems concern does carry some weight. But to put everything under one "Bible" heading would need a major rewrite to mix the two aspects (theological and practical). So I would leave it as it is, except rename the headings to clarify. Mikeatnip (talk) 00:08, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I would have no objections if "Scriptural basis" is renamed "Textual basis" (though I do think that it is unnecessary). I do think the "History" section should stay under that title, however, given that that is what is normally used throughout Wikipedia articles for concepts. Anupam^Talk 02:18, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• The lead certainly needs rewriting. I'll repeat what I said 2 sections up, since nobody seems to have read it: The article fails to emphasise the difference between historical customs and the present day, and also to distinguish clearly between head covering in church, and in outside public spaces all the time. Where head coverings were worn all the time, this was probably not just a religious matter, given that other religions in the same societies (Judaism, Islam, Hinduism etc) had the same customs, without worrying at all about Timothy or Paul's views on the matter. There's also too much in the lead about small denominations. Johnbod (talk) 14:30, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments User:Johnbod. The issue is that the reliable sources we have do link the historic practice to Christian religious practice. For example "Women in Eighteenth Century Europe", authored by Margaret Hunt and published by Taylor & Francis, states:

Today many people associate rules about veiling and headscarves with the Muslim world, but in the eighteenth century they were common among Christians as well, in line with 1 Corinthians 11:4-13 which appears not only to prescribe headcoverings for any women who prays or goes to church, but explicitly to associate it with female subordination, which Islamic veiling traditions do not typically do. Many Christian women wore a head-covering all the time, and certainly when they went outside; those who did not would have been barred from church and likely harassed on the street. ... Veils were, of course, required for Catholic nuns, and a veil that actually obscured the face was also a mark of elite status throughout most of Europe. Spanish noblewomen wore them well into the eighteenth century, and so did Venetian women, both elites and non-elites. Across Europe almost any woman who could afford them also wore them to travel.

In parts of Eastern Europe, where it is practiced today, this article notes that the reason is religious:

For elderly women in a more conservative orthodox region in the Eastern part of Romania, called Moldova, or Western Moldavia, the batik is a sign of modesty and keeping up tradition. It is said to be the umbrella of God upon them, a piece of clothing that connects them with divinity. Women don’t need to worry about the way they arrange their hair, a mundane practice that would distance them from God. When I asked women in Moldova if they would go bareheaded if they had the choice, most of them refused to imagine this. Even today, the picture of bareheaded women is not accepted in the region of Moldova.

I am not opposed to certain changes in the lede (I have mentioned the decline of the practice in the West there, for example). However, we should not forget that culture is often influenced by the dominant faith there. Additionally, the mention of Conservative Anabaptism is important because they are largely known for following this tradition (even elevating it to being an ordinance). I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam 14:52, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

As others have said, there needs to be much more emphasis in the lead (and coverage of the decline below) on the decline. Referencing will probably be harder to find, paradoxically, than for the situation several centuries ago. The reason 'Conservative Anabaptism is ...largely known for following this' is because hardly anyone else does. This does not make them important; they are still a vanishingly small proportion of Christian women in the US. In societies of mixed religion where the practice is/was common, the idea that religion is driving this needs to be scrutinized, using less narrow sources. Also, again, more distinction between church wear and street wear needs to be made. I'm not sure why you are so sure the Hunt quote supports your position. There were also often distinctions made between married and unmarried women, and between covering the head with the hair coming down and covering with the hair tucked under the hat or scarf. Johnbod (talk) 15:04, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

We have to remember that this article is about Headcovering for Christian Women. It is NOT about Non-headcovering for Christian Women. Nor is it about Headcovering for Muslim Women, nor Headcovering in Antiquity. This is why the article should not give prominent time and space about the reason why some Christian women do not cover.

For a comparison, an article on Christian water baptism should not spend a lot of time explaining why Quakers do not practice water baptism. That could be mentioned, but an article on Christian water baptism should NOT spend a lot of time on non-water-baptism groups.

I am strongly opposed to changing the overall focus of this article. It does a superb job of explaining the historical position of the Christian churches, and then focusing on those Christian groups who have retained the practice in current time. To give a lot of time and space to current (mostly western) NON-head covering would make the topic of the article off-centered and unbalanced, although it needs to be clear that much of western Christianity rejected the historical practice starting a century or so ago.

As another example, an article on Duck Hunting should not spend a lot of time talking about people who do not go duck hunting, even if it could mention that some people are opposed to duck hunting for x or y reason. And it could briefly explain why some former duck hunters have abandoned duck hunting. But an article on Duck Hunting would be way off balance to spend much time on those who do not go duck hunting.

So let's keep the article focused on what it IS about (Headcovering for Christian Women) and NOT on what it is NOT about, (Non-Headcovering for Christian Women). Mikeatnip (talk) 15:24, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Both of your points are well taken. I do agree that the article should be focused on the historical position and practice (with WP:DUEWEIGHT being given to 1950 years of Christianity, rather than to the last 70 years in North America). For the balance suggested, I have added a large quote reflecting the modern Western Christian view opining that headcovering is a largely cultural practice of Corinthian society. Anupam^Talk 15:32, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

You can discount this since it is an anonymous comment, but the problem with this article isn't the focus on history and emphasis on practices related to head covering but with the tone of the article often subjective language like "nearly all", and strange choices of verb tense to create the impression that historical practices are current and vice versa, that statements of opinion from sources are universally accepted teachings, and that if there is a reported instance of a practice in a geography or denomination it is normative.

These factors combine to create the impression that this is intended to be persuasive article rather than reporting on fact. Some example of such issues include:

- The Denominational Practices section starts by talking about the fact that head covering continues in the present which is absolutely true and seems to indicate that the section is about current practice, but the proceeds to mix historical practices with current practices to create a confusing impression of both the history and the current state of affairs.

- In the Denominational Practices section the subsection on baptists discusses the teaching of the founder, but neglects to actually make any statement about practices either historical or current.

- The section on Eastern Orthodox practices mentions the practice of wearing white veils in Albania, but the quotes century old sources. Again it is unclear whether this section is addressing current practice or historical practice.

- The quote block quote in the section on Orthodoxy presents the view of one bishop. Orthodox bishops have considerable autonomy within their jurisdictions and . Head covering is neither canon law nor dogma in Orthodoxy. It is enough to simply state that it is normative in large parts of the church particularly in Eastern Europe, especially given that it is not in fact normative for significant elements of the church, Greeks for example. There is no reason to include persuasive opinionated material about it, especially given that the theological basis for head covering is addressed extensively in the following sections and the historical prevalence of the practice is covered in the preceding materials

- The section on Eastern Orthodoxy also seems to go to over-emphasize the practice of head covering outside of church in Western Moldavia. Again, this is an interesting detail, but even the source material indicates that this is a declining practice https://www.thegazelle.org/issue/116/the-batik-between-tradition-and-feminism. The selective use of source material in this way indicates a desire to push a particular point of view rather than report the objective reality.

As simple statement of facts on this topic is as follows:

- Head covering among Christian women has been near universally prevalent in history but head covering outside of worship has been declining in more recent times/ during the 20th century but is still practiced in some places. It has been influenced by both religious belief and cultural norms.

- Head covering during worship is still very much normative in many denominations and in many parts of the world with examples include x, y, z.

- There is a biblical and theological basis for head covering based on the following scripture...

- There are varying interpretations of these scriptures - the current version of the article does a good job of laying these out.

The current version of this article seems bury these straightforward points and seeks to make a point about the importance of head covering as a matter of Christian piety rather than taking a step back and describing Christian beliefs and practices, historical and current, about head covering. The entire opening paragraph of the article is a grab bag of scripture, quotations, and theological justifications rather than a summary of beliefs and practices that introduces the topic in a cohesive way for the reader. This alone positions the entire article as a polemic in favor of head covering rather than an objective report on the historical roots of the practice and its current status. 73.200.28.97 (talk) 20:45, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

By the way, if a good example to follow is needed, the article on Hijab does a tremendous job. The opening is clear and objective and the material that follows is well-organized, unbiased, and seems to appropriately balance points of view. 73.200.28.97 (talk) 21:09, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

You wrote, "You can discount this since it is an anonymous comment." If you are serious about helping to edit Wikipedia, you should get an account. Other editors can then interact better with your work and there can be accountability and thus more trust that there is no hidden agenda. Mikeatnip (talk) 23:49, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

The "Denominational Practices" section makes no claims of trying to separate historical practices from current practices in the denominations. In spite of that, some subsections do, and the paragraphs under "Western Christianity" make it clear that the practice "has generally declined" in the west. The Catholic subsection states in the first sentence: "Headcovering for women was unanimously held by the Latin Church until the 1983 Code of Canon Law came into effect." This presents the denominational historic view, and then implicitly says that since 1983 this has changed. Some of the other subsections do not mention if/when a change came in the particular denomination, and that information could be added in with specific denominational rulings that detail when the change occurred.

But as mentioned in another comment, this article is about women in Christianity who used or still use a headcovering, NOT about women in Christianity who do NOT use a headcovering. Thus the article focuses on those who historically did so and presently do so, and those Christian women who do not use a headcovering are quite correctly given only minor attention. To reiterate, an article on Duck Hunting should be about those who hunt ducks, how and why they do it, and the history of those who have done so. Those who do not hunt ducks do not belong in a Duck Hunting article unless they are protesting Duck Hunting or are somehow directly related to the topic. Mikeatnip (talk) 23:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

No here in my comments am I suggesting greater emphasis on women who do not head cover, I am merely suggesting a cohesive presentation of information about women who do head cover in a fact-based way that makes it clear what time and place each section is referring rather to rather than constant, seemingly random shifts in geography, time, denomination, and theological justification that just make this whole article muddy.

This entire article (as well as the discussion here) seems like it is debating with a shadow opponent that disagrees with your and the other primary editors personal beliefs about head covering for women rather than presenting plain facts. 73.200.28.97 (talk) 07:52, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

In the Arab world, we are taught that the Bible says that Christian women should cover their head and their body. The old generation and the priests say that the right way is to do this all the time and this happens in villages and rural areas where there is not a lot of Western influence. But almost always (I would say 95% of the time), when you walk into a church here, our women will have a scarf on at the minimum because of the huge respect we give to God. When foreigners from Paris, London and New York come here, if they are women, they will be asked to put on a scarf before being allowed by our priests to come inside. Even travel guides are giving notice of this since so many Westerners have no idea that this is written in the Bible.[14] 2A0D:6FC7:503:8E0A:378:5634:1232:5476 (talk) 19:16, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Denominational practices

For this section of the article, indications of when a certain denomination changed its position can be indicated. But my recent reverts are based upon the point that the article should be sourced with denominational-wide positions, and should indicate when the change was made, since it is pretty clearly established that all denominations that were established before the 1800s held to the use of a cloth head covering for women. Obviously, in the western world, most denominations no longer hold to that position, so documenting when the change occurred could be useful to give correct perspective. Mikeatnip (talk) 15:08, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

But is that "obvious" from the article? Many editors above think not. Straw hats etc were mostly ok too, btw. Johnbod (talk) 17:25, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

It is not obvious at all in the article. A straightforward reading of the article as it is currently written leaves one with the impression that head covering is still widely practiced in the West both during worship and outside of worship. A reader who isn't acquainted with the demographics of Christian denominations in the West would have no idea whether the mentioned denominations cover the entirety of Western Christianity or of the relative scale of these denominations. It would not be shocking if a naive reader were to conclude that most Christian denominations in the West still require head covering during worship and that many cover their heads at all times. Idempotent2022 (talk) 04:26, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

And the lede states, "However, in much of the Western world the practice of head covering declined during the 20th century ..." And the second paragraph under Western Christianity states, "This practice has generally declined in the Western world ..."? A reminder that this article is focused on those who did and do practice a head covering for Christian women, not on those who did not historically nor do so today. That said, the Denominational practices section could use more information to point out when the denominations that historically practiced it made their change. User @Anupam made a couple of improvements recently with some data along those lines. Similar info on other denominations would be great. Mikeatnip (talk) 12:44, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Honestly, the denominational practices section seems purposefully written to obfuscate current practices. Please read the section on Catholicism and put yourself in the shoes of someone who doesn't know any Catholics and has never been to a Catholic church. What is your takeaway? What do you think you now know about Catholic practice? The section basically says something happened in 1983 that is hard to understand if you aren't immersed in Catholic practice, but it definitely didn't specifically address head covering and here is a list of exceptions where people still head cover. Idempotent2022 (talk) 13:15, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I would agree that the latter part of the Catholic section could use some clarification. I had to read it twice to catch what was going on. The 1983 code essentially wiped the slate clean and made a new code, which new code did not specifically mention the head covering for women. Thus the previous requirement was done away with, but without explicitly saying, "Catholic women are no longer required to wear a head covering." That is my takeaway from reading it. So while it is a bit foggy in wording, on careful reading the point comes through that this was an official turning point in denominational practice, even if no one openly said, "Hey, look, we are dropping the requirement for women to wear a head covering!"

Honestly, I think you will find that same type of thing across many of the other denominations, where the requirement was dropped rather quietly. After all, to teach one way for a couple hundred years (in Catholicism, for almost two millenia) and then change would take some explanation; it is a lot easier to just silently let it drop and hope that no one asks why. But that is just a personal opinion of why it is hard to find documentation for the exact date when the historical practices changed.

I am going to adjust the wording in the Catholic section to see if I can make it clearer what happened. Mikeatnip (talk) 13:34, 20 March 2024 (UTC)