Talk:Head covering for Christian women

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.[1] 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)

Biased citation

Near the beginning of the article, a reference from Orthodox Ethos was used. This site is known for being very opinionated and non-canonical within the Orthodox Christian community. Jess87245 (talk) 18:02, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Removing incorrect statements

Both the Reformed and Luther sentences I removed have references that say nothing about the supposed factual content of the sentences. I’m not sure why an unregistered user shouldn’t be allowed to make no-brainer edits like this without a discussion. 173.73.91.143 (talk) 20:58, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

No, the sources do not explicitly say, "at the beginning of the 20th century, it was common for Lutheran (or Reformed) women to wear coverings." But, the sources do not need to say those words explicitly to give support to the idea that Lutherans and Reformed are included in the many Christian groups that have historically practiced it. The point is that these sources show that among both Lutheran and Reformed, the practice of wearing a head covering has been or even still is among them. Those denominations were part of the many (majority) Christian women who covered their heads before the 20th century. I know it is hard for some people to admit that was the way it was, but anyone who reads church history knows better. Things changed quickly in the 1900s on the matter, and today most people have no idea that 100 years ago most Christian women across the world covered their heads. I am going to restore the page. If you have sources to show that Lutherans and Reformed historically did not use head coverings on their women before the 1900s, then by all means bring them to the discussion. Mikeatnip (talk) 23:27, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

And, while unregistered editors are free to make edits, edits that removed sourced materials will be generally taken more seriously if done by registered users. Mikeatnip (talk) 23:32, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Regardless of whether it was common for Lutheran women to wear coverings, the sentence about Martin Luther should stay removed: there is no evidence that Martin Luther encouraged women to wear coverings "during public worship." The referenced quote has nothing at all to do with public worship.

"Those denominations were part of the many (majority) Christian women who covered their heads before the 20th century" — this conflates wearing head-coverings with observance of 1st Corinthians 11 as a binding mandate, which was certainly never a majority view among Reformed Churches:

The widely subscribed Augsburg Confession notes that "such ordinances it behooveth the churches to keep for charity and quietness' sake, that one offend not another, that all things may be done in order, and without tumult in the churches (1 Cor. xiv. 40 and Phil. ii. 14), but so that consciences be not burdened, so as to account them as things necessary to salvation, and think they sin when they violate them, without offense of others; as no one would say that a woman sins if she went into public with her head uncovered, provided it were without the offense of men" (Westminster of course, never even mentions head-coverings at all).

At its National Synod, the Reformed Church in France (pre-revocation of the Edict of Nantes) required that everyone (women included) to uncover their heads during prayer.

The Synod of Dordt (very important in the Reformed Tradition) commissioned a full annotation of the Bible and on 1st Corinthian 11 they wrote that "[N]amely, forasmuch as the uncovering of the head was then a sign of power and dominion, as on the contrary now at this day those that have power over others, will keep their heads covered, and they that are under others will uncover their heads before them. But in all these things, we must always have the respect to the use of divers times and countries, and what is honorable and edifying therein."

John Calvin's own successor Theodore Beza thought 1st Corinthians 11 was not binding, saying that it was "onely for the circumstances of the time that Paul lived in."

A Westminster divine, Daniel Cawdry, believed that no interpreters thought head-coverings were a morally binding matter, saying that "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." If 1st Corinthians 11 was some sort of binding moral rule widely held by the Reformed Church, how is this possible?

I think you're mistaking the fact that culturally women wore head-covers up until the 1900s for the idea that Reformed churches made them wear them based on an application of Corinthians 11, which you can clearly see above is not the case. Doesn't it make more sense to you that women wore head-covers for social and practical reasons until there were social and practical reasons not to where head-coverings then "the Church made women wear head-coverings until they mysteriously almost all turned belly-up on this issue at the exact same time?" 173.73.91.143 (talk) 21:00, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I will split the conversation into two parts, Luther and Reformed. I may not be able to respond much for a couple of days, but that will also give other editors a chance to speak into the discussion. The quote from Luther is a primary source, and secondary sources are preferred by Wikipedia. The onus would be on you to provide a secondary source that shows that Luther did NOT mean it for public worship, but home only, since the majority of known sources tend toward saying that prayer and prophesying (which often happen in public worship) are the most important contexts for wearing a veil. It would be odd for Luther to feel the opposite, even though that would be possible. But something that goes against the usual would need a definite secondary source. Mikeatnip (talk) 02:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Concerning "which was certainly never a majority view among Reformed Churches". Could you supply any solid secondary sources for that statement? Also, this point was simililarly hashed out above here on the talk page, with a consensus that the cultural view was a minority view that did have its proponents, and that listing supporters of that view would be valid. Which is why there are lists of men holding both views. Mikeatnip (talk) 03:01, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Just as a personal note, I would love to see scholar do a Ph.D. on the who, when, and where of the change from the use of veil as an enduring biblical injunction to the current (Western) majority opinion that it was only a cultural thing for Paul's day. In between there (starting mid 1800s, to mid-1900s) is a period when the long hair was seen as the veil. This was the main view among Holiness and Pentecostal churches. Who, when, and where that view morphed into the cultural view (probably with some overlap among different denominations) would be interesting to see. But I know of no one who has taken on such a project. Until then, we deal mostly with primary documents, piecemeal. Mikeatnip (talk) 03:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree with User:Mikeatnip. An article in Gottesdienst: The Journal of Lutheran Liturgy states:

The reality is that women covering their heads - whether with a chapel veil, a mantilla, or a hat - was the universal custom among Christian women of every denomination until the revolutionary days of the 1960s. Until 1983 (when it was quietly revoked), the Roman Catholic Church technically required women to cover their heads during Mass under canon law . All one has to do is pull up old photos of women in churches - from Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, High Anglican, and Lutheran, to Reformed, Methodist, Baptist, and Pentecostal - and you will see all, or nearly all, women with heads covered.

Also, as a side note User:Mikeatnip, the original divines of the holiness movement continued to teach headcovering, especially in the 1800s. The writings of the Free Methodist bishop Walter Ashbel Sellew are a good resource for that topic. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 17:05, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Christian vs Islamic tradition

The current WP article does not clarify the difference between Christian and Muslims: Christian tradition mandated the covering of the hair as a sign of chastity and morality, but not the covering of the face. 2.196.188.41 (talk) 09:54, 4 April 2025 (UTC)