Talk:Head covering for Christian women

message: 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)
thread_title: Merge to 1 Corinthians 11

message: 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)
thread_title: Merge to [[Veil]]

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Types and degrees of headcovering 

message: 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)
thread_title: Anabaptist faiths are not Protestant?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Further reading? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  1 Thessalonians 5 reference 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Jehovah's Witnesses 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Plain Catholics 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Interesting Interpretation of Corinthians 11 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Tamar reference 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Article goes downhill at the "Reasons" section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Bloated external links section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Earle, Alice Morse  

message: 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)
thread_title:  Untrue statement and inapplicable source.  

message: 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)
thread_title:  Decline and arguments against 

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

message: :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)
replies: text: Christian head covering →  – 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)

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

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

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

text: 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)

text: Support per nom, consistency Garnet Moss (talk) 07:32, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 5 January 2024