Talk:Islamic veiling practices by country/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

bcc

Egypt

About 75 percent of Egyptian women wear a headscarf, and an increasing number also wear the face veil, but small numbers of people wear the niqab. The secular government does not encourage women to wear it, fearing it will present an Islamic extremist political opposition.[58] There has been some restrictions of wearing the hijab by the government of which it views hijab as a political symbol, in 2002, two presenters were excluded from a state run TV station for deciding to wear hijab on national television.[59]

[[9]]

This link seem to imply even the religious group are against the attire, so it may not be correct to say only secular government is involved

Dupattas, Ornamental Sashes, and Headscarves are NOT Hijabs

the article and the infographics assume a great many things based on pure cultural ignorance, and imply sexist social taboos and mass prevalence where there aren't any. the infographics imply that most muslim women wear hijab, even in turkey which is unheard of. Dupattas and shalwar kameez for example is worn throughout the region by many people of different religions, and not loosely draping something over your head in a *FORMAL* setting is akin to wearing socks with sandals or wearing the wrong shoes, unless you can pull it off, which implies really that it's fashion. it is not a sign of immodesty. this needs some amazingly serious mopping up. it is either blatantly misinformed or biased towards presenting muslim women as all subscribing to this practice.

Orphaned references in Hijab by country

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Hijab by country's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "news.bbc.co.uk":

  • From Aishah Azmi: Veil row woman challenges sacking BBC News, 20 January 2007
  • From Hijab: Rainsford, Sarah (2007-10-02). "Women condemn Turkey constitution". BBC News. Retrieved 2008-08-04.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 11:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

United Muslim Nations International (UMN) Fatwa

The UMN Intl Governing Body aka (Ulama-e-Haqq) made Fatwa that Niqab is a Fard (Compulsory) and is to be imposed upon Muslim Women as soon as they reach the age of puberty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.202.5.104 (talk) 12:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Legal sanctions

I put this in the Burqa article. It seems better here.

There is little about what these laws would look like. I am intrigued as to how you can make a law that prohibits the burqa without prohibiting other 'western' types of dressing. Will motorcyclists be banned from wearing those big helmets? How about police in riot gear and soldiers and others in coverall safety gear? Some Christian nuns and monks come quite close too. In the winter, I wear a woollen hat and sometimes a scarf over my nose and face. Perhaps the burqa would be allowed in cold weather. Otherwise I could be arrested. - And what about skiers on the public ski slopes, or a nun in sunglasses? I note that a woman in France was fined E22 for driving while wearing a niqab. The police said her vision was obstructed.

This article has something more about the details of the laws. It raises more questions:

Is it true that you cannot wear sunglasses in the street in Flanders because they cover your eyes? And nuns in wimples must be banned too. It would appear, from the article, that I could not even wear a hat or a scarf.

In Germany, can men cover themselves and still drive? In France, can covered men "access public services"? Myrvin (talk) 06:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia

Someone added some claims cited to "Moqtasami (1979), pp. 41-44". What is that source (google never heard of it)? Also, a 30 year old source is not good enough since lots of things changed in the past 30 years. For example, I am fairly sure that covering the face is not a legal requirement in Saudi Arabia even though it is strongly encouraged. Many women in the cities and even news readers on state-run TV show their faces. But where can we find a recent reliable source? Astarabadi (talk) 08:34, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Definently right! In Makkah for the Hajj pilgrims it is even forbidden to wear a Niqab, due to islamic rites. The status of pilgrims is called ihram in islam. Women who are in the ihram must put their face veil off! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.34.172.179 (talk) 16:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I have slapped an 'unreferencedsection' template in there, and I have also removed most of the unreferenced stuff, in particular that which smacked of original research (or wild imagination). Two sections which were partially referenced were also removed as the references were not appropriate (two cleric's comments, which are personal opinions and not jurisprudence). —Preceding unsigned comment added by At612 (talk • contribs) 14:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Israel and the Palestinian areas

In the 'Israel and the Palestinian areas' it says "activists proposed a bill to the Knesset banning face-covering veils in France". Does the Knesset have legislative powers over France or has the wrong country been named? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.92.189 (talk) 23:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. 129.120.177.8 (talk) 22:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Image of terrorist

Like Mitch Ames (talk · contribs), I find the image inappropriate. --Ronz (talk) 23:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Specifically, I disagree with the image because:
There is no specific source cited. "released by UK police force/government" is not specific enough for me to verify.
The picture ("before the 2005 London attacks") does not appear to match the references cited for "man wanted on terrorism charges ... dressed up in a Burqa... to escape the police" - the only text in the article that could relate to the picture - for both date and context.
Mitch Ames (talk) 09:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Opinion pieces as sources

I've removed twice information sourced solely by opinion pieces [10] per WP:UNDUE, WP:PSTS, and WP:NOTOPINION. Maybe some small part of it could be included if better sources are found. --Ronz (talk) 19:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm rather sick of your trolling of making edits without explaining your reasoning behind those edits. I'm also rather sick of your stalking across pages to further your personal agenda. 129.120.177.8 (talk) 19:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Removed was=
Similarly, commentator Bill O'Reilly of The O'Reilly Factor has stated that supporters of restrictions are in the minority.[1] In the U.S. media, commentators Elise Jordan, former U.S. National Security Council communications director and speechwriter for Condoleezza Rice,[2] and Laura Ingraham, Fox Network personality, have voiced support for a ban on the burka.[3][1]
  1. ^ a b "Should Muslim Women in America Wear Burkas?". FoxNews.com. July 14, 2010. Retrieved August 4, 2010.
  2. ^ "Stories by Elise Jordan". FrumForum. Retrieved August 4, 2010. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  3. ^ "Could the Burqa Ban Come to America?". FrumForum. July 13, 2010. Retrieved August 4, 2010. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
If the removal was done by an editor without your negative personal history, I would be inclined to think that it could be undue weight to the thoughts of minor figures. So, I'm going to be unreasonably and illogically charitable and say that it makes sense to keep this out. 129.120.177.8 (talk) 20:02, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposed split

Islamic dress controversy in Europe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) did have its own article but is now a redirect. It is a notable enough topic to justify it own article. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Lybia - nothing?

Wondering why there is no info on Lybia? Especially since there is a civil war going on, there is probably increased interest in Lybia, including this topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.160.176.210 (talk) 00:13, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

A summary table would be a good addition, and don't be prejudice against a single religion or sex

A summary table would be a good addition.

Country; Head Covering Required; Head Covering Prohibited; Full Face Covering Required; Full Face Covering Prohibited

Maybe add a second table with "religious sect" as the first column (religious sect/number of members) and do male and female -- because there are religious sects (non-Islamic) that mandate head coverings for men.

It is important to realize that the concept of mandatory head coverings only appears Islamo-centric when you use a specific name for them, and that caters to promoting racism and genocide -- not something anyone here wants to do, I hope.

If you forgo prejudice and translate into English, then it becomes clear that head covering rules are not the exclusive province of Islam, do not only apply to women, and then you can start to understand what causes them to arise and what causes them to disappear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.71.35.204 (talk) 22:13, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Iraq?

Why isn't Iraq on this page? -- Christopher C. Parker t c 21:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Because, along with everyone else, you didn't put it there. Myrvin (talk) 14:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Why aren't Vatican City and Israel on this page? Should we not mention sikhs, nuns, shakers, etc? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.71.35.204 (talk) 22:15, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

India

where is India?It should be mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ovsek (talk • contribs) 04:48, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

No section on the Americas and / or the U.S.?

How come? Granted the muslim population percentage wise isn't as high, but living in New York I still see Niqāb and Burqas everyday so there must be some form of citable information on it.

Particularly Hijab controversy in Quebec about Canada should be added to this article.24.190.34.219 (talk) 16:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I live in Texas. A person who wore Islamic robes or a veil would also certainly face physical violence, if he or she walked down a public street. Here in America, we can try to pretend that we're the "land of the free" and have more freedom than, say, Europe. But, here in Texas and in other southern states, there really doesn't need to be any sort of official ban on Islamic dress. That's because nobody in their right mind would go out into public, wearing this sort of dress---sooner or later, they'd face injury or death. Anyone reading this who disagrees: feel free to don an Islamic outfit and walk down a public road in some place like Texas or Georgia. I mean, let's just skip the B.S. and get real for a moment. America in the 21st century is NOT a tolerant nation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.86.120.41 (talk) 00:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
I live in Texas. The people have treated me with amazing hospitality and caring, espcially for someone who is openly gay and you would think would recieve bigotry. I see women in Islamic clothing all the time, and they are also treated nicely. Texas is a highly tolerant place, as is the vast majority of America. I feel so proud to live here. 129.120.176.206 (talk) 21:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Texas is a big place and neither you nor I can make blanket statements about how everyone in Texas peacefully accepts women wearing face or head coverings. Which is kind of ironic because it is only 100 years ago that a woman in Texas not wearing a head covering would be persecuted.50.71.35.204 (talk) 22:18, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

there should be a section on America. I know in parts of Canada a hijab is commonly seen in the cities but rare in many rural areas. I have also heard that some but by no means all people in the US do view obvious Muslims as potential terrorists. I'm sure there are many who want to know more about it this is why there should be a section on America

Tydoni (talk) 23:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Ambiguous section - "America"

A new section "America" has been added, but America could mean/include United States of America and/or South America and/or Canada (which gets a mention in the new section), and/or any of the other countries in North America. I suggest the section needs to be split up and/or renamed. Mitch Ames (talk) 06:38, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

the America section includes both the US and Canada as I don't have anywhere near enough information to put them in separate sections. I'll retitle this to make it clearer. I agree that this should be split in to US and Canada when there is enough information to justify including two separate sections. Tydoni (talk) 20:33, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Reading the US and Canada sections today, they both appear to be extremely biased. It really appears that the language in the US section makes it sound like the head covering is more widespread and accepted than I believe it actually is in that country (see comment from Texas above) while the Canada section makes it sound more restrictive than it actually is (I have lived there and see them frequently). Shouldn't the article be about the prominence and habits of hijab wearing, rather than whether you're allowed to wear one in situations such as taking an oath or getting identification photos done? --Guava (talk) 15:01, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Niqab vs Hijab

The "America" section refers to the Niqab, but the article is about Hijab. Mitch Ames (talk) 06:42, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Europe

The article says that apart from the Balkans and some areas of Eastern Europe, hijab an Islam generally is linked to immigration. However there are two important issues related to this. Firstly, a second, third or fourth generation "immigrant" is not considered an immigrant anymore, he/she is just like any other European citizen, having certain (perhaps even mixed) origin. And which of any common European does not have for example a German, a Russian or an Italian great-grandpa? If that is normal, what makes it less normal, if someone's ancestors - or some of them - came from Tunisia and not Sicily? To start this kind of issue "who is what origin, of what percentage", it reminds most of us to the darkest times of European history, the rule of the Nazism. No one in a free country is supposed to be judged by their ancestry and origins. The second topic is also inseparable from the spirit of European Freedom. It is the freedom of choosing one's religion. In every country there is an ever growing number of people choosing Islam as their lifestyle. Whether influenced by grandparents tales of a sunny country where everyone greeted each other, or just happened to read the Quran and found some answers not found elsewhere, European young people of any origin are interested in Islam, and many are choosing it as their lifestyle. So if a Polish or an Italian girl accepts Islam, she will wear hijab, though she has nothing to do with immigration. It is her free choice, as an European citizen.77.234.70.132 (talk) 11:37, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Yemen

The map marks Yemen - along with other countries - as "veiling face is possible". So to wear niqab (not burqa) in Yemen might be common, there is no compulsion whatsoever in wearing it. There is no law that would force any women to cover her face or head. The number of women wearing niqab are decreasing, due to the increasing number of educated women who learn that Islam does not require the covering of the face, though many are still wearing it due to cultural customs in certain Northern rural areas. The map also says "a country where certain special garments are required". What it refers to is the "abaya" or as they call it in Yemen, the "balto". Its a (somewhat) loose, (most commonly) black long dress that is worn with black headscarf and niqab (face-cover) or just with a simple colorful headscarf. Though 99% of women in Yemen wear this, it is again not enforced, and those who prefer not to wear it will not face any discrimination whatsoever. There are women living in Yemen of any origin who continue to wear whatever they did in their country and live a normal life, not facing any inconveniences (apart from some men's stare, but I think no one needs to go to Yemen for that)... So the balto is not required, and an increasing number of educated Yemeni women start chosing other colors, since religion allows it. Black is again a cultural custom.77.234.70.132 (talk) 12:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Possible error re: number of state sanctioned religions in Indonesia.

Wikipedia article on Indonesia and Religion in Indonesia site 6 religions as being state-approved. This article lists the number as 5. Confucianism is not listed here. I have no expertise in this matter, nor do I know how to edit and hyperlink and all of that. Just pointing this inconsistency out for someone else to fix if they care to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.119.79.84 (talk) 03:32, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Common in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Albania?

Umm definitely not. I see more hijabs in Canada and the States than these two countries.. What's the source of this map? --BignBad (talk) 07:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Definitely, in the case of Albania this map is absurd. There are much more hijabs (percentage and of course absolute terms) in UK and France, compared to Albania. Who did this map and what is the rationale/sources? 147.172.223.99 (talk) 15:48, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Iran

@MehrdadFR and KrakatoaKatie: The current entry for Iran is accompanied by an impressive set of references, but given its framing of the issue in terms of unambiguous rights and wrongs, and the overall style of writing, it's hard not to see it as direct advocacy against the alternative, supposedly "Eurocentrist" view of the situation that the author dismisses as "childish pseudo-history".[11] Could some attempt be made to reach a more NPOV synthesis of sources on this issue? -- The Anome (talk) 19:42, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

@The Anome:, my goal was to provide material from both Iranian and Western most prominent books, and considering they perfectly match each other I don't see any NPOV issue here. Section is about historical facts, not personal opinions by scholars. There's a lot of politicization and propagandist claims about Iranian clothing and I could use tons of sources about it, but still I avoided it. It is also mentioned inside that minority held Eurocentrist perspective about veiling and that minority have opposed changes (and left the country). You should keep in mind that there is a dichotomy between Eurocentrist and Iranocentrist perspective here, because both sides consider opposite as wrong (cultural relativism). However, article section is about Iran, not some Western country. Using Eurocentrist perspective when talking about Iran is equally bizarre as using Iranocentrist perspective for Western women, because development of their clothing was very different. --MehrdadFR (talk) 20:24, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
@MehrdadFR:, There is a huge NPOV problem here: nowhere in that heading is the simple fact flatly stated that hijab was made compulsory after the revolution, which persists to the current day.

Removed map

Hi, I removed the map at the top of the page. It was based on information from 2008 which is no longer valid. For example, there is no longer strong pressure in Turkey for woman to wear hijab. In fact the opposite is the case today. Furthermore the map gives no indication of sources for the information it claims to provide and that's a real problem. Still it would be nice to have this type of map so if anyone can help to create a new version it would be most welcome.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 17:50, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Northern Cyprus is LEGAL

1. Legality and Recognition are two COMPLETELY DIFFERENT things

Recognition is completely a political notion/act (as stated by Int'l Court of Justice, Kosovo 2010 decision) and has nothing to do with legality. 1/193 country recognizes Northern Cyprus; but even if 0/193 countries recognize NC, this has nothing to do with legality of NC.

The President of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) Hisashi OWADA (2010): "International law contains no "prohibition on declarations of independence."
the International Court of Justice (ICJ) (2010): "while the declaration may not have been illegal, the issue of RECOGNITION was a POLITICAL one" (Recognition is a political, not a legal matter.)
An Almanac of Contemporary and Comparative Judicial Restatements (OSHISANYA, ACCJR Supp., 2015, p.64):"The ICJ maintained that while the declaration may not have been illegal, the issue of recognition is a political one"
Andrzej JAKUBOWSKI, "State Succession in Cultural Property", Oxford University Press, 2015, p.221, "while the declaration may not have been illegal, the issue of recognition was a political one."
They Work For You, Lord CAMPBELL-SAVOURS, 18.03.2014, "the president of the International Court of Justice, Hisashi Owada, said that international law contains, “no prohibition on declarations of independence”. The court also said that while the declaration may not have been illegal, the issue of recognition was a political one."
UK Parliament, 2014, "the president of the International Court of Justice, Hisashi Owada, said that international law contains, “no prohibition on declarations of independence”. The court also said that while the declaration may not have been illegal, the issue of recognition was a political one."

That is to say, "being recognized/not recognized does not affect legality/illegality of a country". Recognition is a political action.

2. All laws of Northern Cyprus are accepted in Europe (European Court of Human Rights; ECtHR)

In Northern Cyprus, laws of Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus are valid:
ECtHR's 02.07.2013 Decision: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-122907 :
"...notwithstanding the lack of international recognition of the regime in the northern area, a de facto recognition of its acts may be rendered necessary for practical purposes. Thus, THE ADOPTION BY THE AUTHORITIES OF THE "TRNC" OF CIVIL, ADMINISTRATIVE OR CRIMINAL LAW MEASURES, AND THEIR APPLICATION OR ENFORCEMENT WITHIN THAT TERRITORY, may be regarded as having a legal basis in domestic law for the purposes of the Convention".

Note: In the related ECtHR's decision above, the case application of the Greek Cypriot was IMMEDIATELY REJECTED; i.e., his application was found INADMISSABLE. That is to say, he was expelled by ECtHR just at the beginning; therefore, his case was not handled (no sessions were held) by ECtHR at all.

ECtHR's 02.June.2015 Decision: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-155000 :
"..the court system in the "TRNC", including both civil and criminal courts, reflected the judicial and common-law tradition of Cyprus in its functioning and procedures, and that the "TRNC" courts were thus to be considered as "established by law" with reference to the "constitutional and legal basis" on which they operated......the Court has already found that the court system set up in the "TRNC" was to be considered to have been "established by law" with reference to the "constitutional and legal basis" on which it operated, and it has NOT accepted the allegation that the "TRNC" courts as a whole lacked independence and/or impartiality......when an act of the "TRNC" authorities was in compliance with laws in force within the territory of northern Cyprus, those acts should in principle be regarded as having a legal basis in domestic law for the purposes of the Convention.."
Note: Here, what ECtHR means by "laws in force within the territory of northern Cyprus" is the laws that TRNC published and put into implementation, as can be understood from ECtHR's above 02.July.2013 decision.

3. United States' Federal Court: "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus is a democratic country"

USA Federal Court (09.October.2014): "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus is a democratic country" "Although the United States does not recognize it as a state, the TRNC purportedly operates as a DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC with a president, prime minister, legislature and judiciary...TRNC is NOT VULNERABLE to a lawsuit in Washington" The news of the Court decision (13.10.2014); (Page of the Court case Note the Defendant: Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus!); Decision of the Court

4. There is "NO PROHIBITION" on declarations of independence in international law

The President of the Int’l Court of Justice (ICJ) Hisashi Owada, 2010: "International law contains "NO PROHIBITION" on declarations of independence."

Also: Northern Cyprus is a country is not disputed

Northern Cyprus being a country is not disputed. The definition of "country" is bigger than whether being a UN member or not. There are countries that are not member of UN. See, "country" definition in WP: A country is a region identified as a distinct entity in political geography. A country may be an independent sovereign state or one that is occupied by another state, as a non-sovereign or formerly sovereign political division, or a geographic region associated with sets of previously independent or differently associated peoples with distinct political characteristics.

That's why, even the sources from United Nations (UN) cite Northern Cyprus as a different country: World Happiness Report 2015 of United Nations' Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN) ranked Northern Cyprus 66th among 158 countries, directly above the Republic of Cyprus, which was ranked 67th. UN SDSN World Happiness Report 2015 p.27: 2012-2014 country rankings: http://worldhappiness.report/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2015/04/WHR15.pdf

Even if for a while one assume that Northern Cyprus is not de jure (as claimed by User:SednaXV), this does not affect the edit since the title of the article is "Hijab by Country", not "Hijab by De Jure Country". And, in WP, there are thousands articles in which the countries Cyprus and Northern Cyprus are handled in different headings/list items etc.85.110.119.125 (talk) 21:08, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

In Wikipedia, Northern Cyprus is a country just as it is so in all over the world, and hence in WP articles, C and NC are given as 2 items in the same articles

See "Country" definition in WP: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Country The term "country" is frequently used to refer to sovereign states. See List of 206 Sovereign States in the world: http://www.worldlibrary.org/articles/list_of_sovereign_states Note: Northern Cyprus is among 206 sovereign states.

"List of islands", "Foreign relations", "Sport", "Education", "Extreme points", "List of mammals", "Districts", "Human rights", "LGBT rights", "Women", "List of newspapers", "Television", "List of universities and colleges" and thousands others are all covered separately for Cyprus and Northern Cyprus in Wikipedia:

just as this was done so in almost all the other web pages/institutions in the world. Hence, putting "Hijab" to the same heading (Cyprus) does not only violates Wikipedia policies but also does not reflect the real situation: "Hijab in Cyprus" and "Hijab in Northern Cyprus" are 2 totally different things. There are different applications for Hijab in these 2 countries. There are two different Hijab regulations in Cyprus and Northern Cyprus, and the regulation in one does not bind the other (not only legally but also in practice: by the way, see above: "All laws of Northern Cyprus are accepted in Europe").85.110.119.125 (talk) 21:47, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

A standard: WP covers things of Partially Recognized Countries in separate articles, and covers things of PRCs and their Claimers under separate headings in a WP article

Item Separate Articles in WP for PRCs and their Claimers Separate Heading in a WP article
Television Television in Northern Cyprus,Television in Cyprus
Television in Kosovo,Television in Serbia		 NC and C are listed separately in Television in Europe
K and S are listed separately in Television in Europe
Women Women in Northern Cyprus, Women in Cyprus Women in Europe:Northern Cyprus, Women in Europe:Cyprus
Foreign Relations Foreign relations of Northern Cyprus, Foreign relations of Cyprus No WP article "Foreign relations of Europe"
Sport Sport in Northern Cyprus, Sport in Cyprus NC and C are listed separately in the bottom template in Sport in Europe
Education Education in Northern Cyprus, Education in Cyprus NC and C are listed separately in the bottom template in Education in Europe
Extreme points Extreme points of Northern Cyprus, Extreme points of Cyprus NC and C are listed separately in the bottom template in Extreme points of Europe
Mammals List of mammals of Northern Cyprus, List of mammals of Cyprus NC and C are listed separately in the bottom template in List of mammals of Europe
Newspapers List of newspapers in Northern Cyprus, List of newspapers in Cyprus NC and C are listed separately in the bottom template in Lists of newspapers

What about the UAE?

United Arab Emirates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TharosTheDragon (talk • contribs) 21:53, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Cyprus and Northern Cyprus are regarded differently in millions of contexts

Northern Cyprus is regarded as a different country than Cyprus:
1. 123rf Northern Cyprus: Country Stock Vectors
2. A1Cyprus Culture and sport in Northern Cyprus: ...The country...
3. Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education countries outside the United States... Northern Cyprus
4. Akademik Perspektif Northern Cyprus as a transition country...
5. Alamy country road in the NW of Northern Cyprus
6. Alibaba Polyester Northern Cyprus national flag silk screen print... Country flag
7. Amazon Northern Cyprus Country Coat Of Arms
8. Argophilia As for Northern Cyprus, the country...
9. Bicycle Supplies Select by Country: Northern Cyprus
10. Birmingham Mail Northern Cyprus – a country which...
11. Car Supplies Select by Country: Northern Cyprus
12. Citta Slow Countries Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus
13. CMS Dreams Country: Northern Cyprus
14. Colins Notes My first visit to an unrecognized country: Northern Cyprus
15. Country Kennels K9 Northern Cyprus
16. De Gruyter An Assessment of Output Performance in Northern Cyprus; Hakan Mihci, Devrim Karaman; An Assessment of Output Performance in Northern Cyprus: ...of the country...
17. Dusty Compass Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (a country...)
18. ebay Northern Cyprus Country Parking
19. Eslland Northern Cyprus, much of the country …
20. Flora Web Country: Northern Cyprus
21. Gallup Happiness Index of Countries 2014: (C:67 NC:64; NC is better) 22. Gallup Healthways 2014 Country Well-Being Rankings: (C:82 NC:49; NC is better)
23. Gesis Gesis; Country: 196 Cyprus 197 Northern Cyprus
24. Global Sourcebook for International Data Management Graham Rhind; Northern Cyprus - Country information
25. Global Taekwondo Federation Member Countries: Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus
26. Google Maps Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus
here as well
27. HART Joep deBOOKS: Religion and Civil Society in Europe; Paul Dekker,Loek Halma; The following countries... Northern Cyprus...
28. Heavy Surplus Parts Northern Cyprus (country)
29. IDEAS Within Country and State Rankings: Northern Cyprus
30. IFES [www.electionguide.org/countries/id/252/ Election Guide, Country Profile: Northern Cyprus]
31. International Practice Group Country: Northern Cyprus
32. Karpazbay Northern Cyprus .... the country...
33. OffStats The University of Auckland Library: Statistics By Country: Northern Cyprus
34. Philatelic Frog Display by countries - Stamps: Northern Cyprus (TRNC)
35. Pine Valley Northern Cyprus has been voted the 5th safest country in the world
36. Placebeam Northern Cyprus, Type: Country
37. Politics Resources Official Government Web Pages by Country: Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus
38. Purple Unions Northern Cyprus: Country Set to Repeal Sodomy Law
39. Quikr Northern Cyprus (English (as an educational language) Country)
40. Qposter What is the country code of Northern Cyprus?
41. Ramblers Holidays Northern Cyprus walking: North Cyprus is a country of great warmth
42. REDDIC Christopher G.BOOKS: Comparative E-Government; Country Background Information: ...Northern Cyprus...
43. Royal Mail (United Kingdom) Country: Turkish (Republic of Northern Cyprus)
44. Search People Directory Northern Cyprus country
45. SFRI Country textbox options includes Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus
46. Sunny Cyprus Homes North Cyprus is a safe and friendly country...
47. Talinn Tech University Country Specific Requirements: Northern Cyprus
48. Tanzania, Official Government Website, Visa Name of the Country: Northern Cyprus
49. Tel Code Country: Northern Cyprus
50. ThinkStockPhotos Northern Cyprus: Country Set of Banners
51. Travel to a New Country Northern Cyprus
52. Union Mondiale de Billard (UMB) Country: North Cyprus
53. United Kingdom, Official Government Website, Visa Countries textbox places 2 countries for Cyprus
54. United Nations (UN), Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN) World Happiness Report 2015 p.27; 2012-2014 COUNTRY rankings: Northern Cyprus 66th among 158 countries, directly above the Republic of Cyprus, which was ranked 67th
55. University Ranking by Academic Performance (URAP) 2010-2011 Ranking by Country: Northern Cyprus
56. Urapcenter University Ranking by Academic Performance: 2010-2011 Ranking by Country: Northern Cyprus
57. Voxeurop Can a country be built on casino revenues? Yes, say the leaders of Northern Cyprus 85.110.119.125 (talk) 20:41, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


Northern Cyprus is a country. There is no suspect in this, not only in WP but also elsewhere

User:SednaXV: Northern Cyprus is not an internationally recognized de-jure country under international law and the UN.
Ans: Even if none of the countries in UN recognizes a country, this does not make it illegal. See Int'l Court of Justice 2010 decision. Recognition/nonrecognition and legality/illegality are totally different concepts. Recognition is totally political one.

User:SednaXV: But since Turkish Cypriots are a distinct society, put Northern Cyprus as a subsection under Cyprus.
Ans: "Country" definition in WP: A country is a region identified as a distinct entity in political geography. A country may be an independent sovereign state or one that is occupied by another state, as a non-sovereign or formerly sovereign political division, or a geographic region associated with sets of previously independent or differently associated peoples with distinct political characteristics. WP def'n says "differently associated people", SednaXV says "distinct society".

There is not even a slightest suspect that "Northern Cyprus is not a country" not only in WP but also elsewhere. Even UN sources mentions Northern Cyprus as a country. See above UN SSN Happiness Index link among others.

Also, in all of the articles in Wikipedia, the partially recognized countries are listed separately from the countries that they claim them. This is the case for Northern Cyprus as well: Human Rights, LGBT rights, Women, Foreign Relations, Sport, Education, Islands, Extreme Points, Mammals, Districts, Newspapers, TV, Univs are all covered separately for C and NC: There are 2 different WP articles for them. Also, in articles like "TV in Europe" etc., C and NC are given under different headings.Woodgridge (talk) 21:49, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Legal requirements in Iran

@MehrdadFR: Could you please explain why you reverted the addition of information about Iranian legal requirements? —Granger (talk · contribs) 10:55, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Three reasons: first, its unnecessarily considering everything is already explained in text. Second, sources are pick-up from search-engines, while everything else is professionally referenced. Third, it is also a bit misleading because there is no such thing as female headscarf in Iranian legal requirements (it only says people should dress modestly). --MehrdadFR (talk) 13:09, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

SednaXV, stop misquoting sourced content (Ramezani, 2010). It says in 1983 a dispute regarding the veiling broke out, but not involving bare-head option at all. Public conflict was motivated only by the definition of veiling and it’s scale (so-called “bad hijab” issue), and it was sometimes followed even by clashes against those who were perceived to wear improper clothing. Government felt obligated to deal with this situation, so on 4th of Mordad 1363 AP (26th of July 1984) Tehran’s public prosecutor issued a media statement and announced that stricter dress-code is supposed to be observed in public places such as institutions, theaters, clubs, hotels, motels and restaurants, while in the other places it should follow the pattern of the overwhelming majority of people. In short, it doesn't imply any kind of legislation change. --MehrdadFR (talk) 11:47, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/29/female-chess-players-accuse-governing-body-of-sex-discrimination/

"Hijabs have been mandatory for women in Iran since the Islamic Revolution of 1979 and the strict law is enforced by the country's "morality police". Any woman found not wearing one in public faces arrest, a fine or public admonishment."

This is a source which could be used? And anyone with a source showing this is untrue could add that?

EDLIS Café 08:03, 2 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EdRicardo (talk • contribs)

Not only sentence is incorrect, but whole article is politicized yellow journalism (typical for right-wing British media such as The Telegraph). We have scholarly reviews and Iranian legal database, so such sources aren't needed. --MehrdadFR (talk) 11:47, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

The "Iran" section goes on a five paragraph digression about historical minutiae but never actually states, in plain English, that women are currently required by law to cover when in public. This sentence in particular reads like how the perpetrators would describe a pogrom:

"A very small, but vocal, minority of thoroughly Westernized women from the upper class who totally opposed wearing of headscarves was democratically overwhelmed and defeated, and many of them left the country."

It seems like someone with considerable personal investment in the topic has been here, and the entire article is suspect.

207.119.53.192 (talk) 16:29, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Law does not says that, sorry. Neither laws in Western countries says "genitals and breasts should be covered". They all state people should dress modestly, implied for both men and women. Tagging NPOV is based on your personal conclusions so it will be removed. --MehrdadFR (talk) 20:11, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
P.S. Regarding "pogrom", read Kashf-e hijab. --MehrdadFR (talk) 20:25, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Seems like a lot of protests for a law that doesn't exist.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]
Please stop trying to hide the truth about oppressive theocratic regimes. Vegemeister (talk) 10:19, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ [1]
  2. ^ [2]
  3. ^ [3]
  4. ^ [4]
  5. ^ [5]
  6. ^ [6]
  7. ^ [7]
  8. ^ [8]
Protests? LOL. Can you give us some proper source beside yellow journalism propaganda, or show us some photos of anti-veil protest in Iran? It sounds ridiculous, as same as male protests in favor of public shorts. Per argumentum ad googlum, you're showing us two examples. Older one is an Guardian article about gathering from March 1979, misrepresented as "anti-veil protest". First, it fails to mention that the event took place on the International Women’s Day, so women marched not only in Iran but all around the World, for various reasons. Second, it fails to point out that some of the women who indeed marched against the "veiling policy" were motivated by yet another false rumor about Khomeini’s supposed call for "immediately imposing of headscarf". Third, it fails to mention that rage of the manipulated women wasn’t directed against veil itself, but against the possibility that they won’t be able to decide their own future for themselves. Fourth, it fails to mention that the majority of women who marched were not only wearing headscarves or chadors but also chanting slogans against those who opposed it. Finally, it fails to mention that women with any skepticism about revolutionary intentions had their chance to vote against Khomeini and his comrades who were openly advocating restoring of original dress-code, because referendum about Islamic Republic was held three weeks later. Women participated in this referendum and it was approved by over 99% of voters, while only 0.69% voted against and additionally 2% abstained from voting. Newer, second example is Western campaign of Masih Alinejad, London-based journalist working for RFE/RL, widely recognized as US governmental propaganda instrument. Its main visual method includes cherry picking of photos featuring unveiled Iranian women in rural areas or nature (where dress-code isn’t even in effect), usually taken without permission from photo-sharing networking services, and misrepresenting them as "women protesting against headscarf" along with shabby descriptions of "seeking freedom". She was highly promoted by Western media and hundreds of thousands of followers are actually Westerners. This foreign campaign has been ridiculed inside Iran, and as a response, the Iranians have started a parody counter-campaign called "Men’s Stealthy Freedom" where young men are posting their own half-naked photos in nature, thereby mocking the original campaign and pointing out its manipulations and double standards. Regarding "oppressive theocratic regimes", you're actually fine product example of oppressive secular regimes: confident in his own ignorance (so called Dunning–Kruger effect). --MehrdadFR (talk) 11:16, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
>unveiled Iranian women in rural areas or nature (where dress-code isn’t even in effect)
So you admit that there is, in fact, a dress code? Vegemeister (talk) 14:14, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Of course, can you name me one country without dress code (→ written and, more often, unwritten rules with regard to clothing)? Beside, you want to tell me that Western dress code also doesn't have differences between urban public places and nature/rural areas? People wear undershirts in parliaments like in villages? Or is toplessness and shirtlessness widespread in theaters like on beaches? Is it explicitly defined by law or its just product of social pressure (like in Iran)? Does Chinese law say "do not show the bottom of your feet or your soles to others"? You have serious issues with understanding of ethnocentrism and cultural relativism. --MehrdadFR (talk) 19:53, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

@Artoxx, MehrdadFR, and SednaXV: Please stop edit-warring and discuss instead. MehrdadFR, the disputed material is reliably sourced, and there appears to be consensus for including it. Please don't remove it again without first gaining consensus. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:10, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Ok, now that the edit war is over, let's try to get a consensus. MehrdadFR, I don't see a case for removing this content based on reliability. LA Times, AP and Independent are all considered to be RSs on current events. So, if you have concerns, these need to be addressed via another rationale. If you think the statement isn't consistent with NPOV, then we need to consider a broader range of sources. For example, if academic sources tend to phrase this differently, we can give them more weight than news sources. I'm not entirely sure about the nature of your objection here, but based on our other discussion, this can hopefully be addressed by using a more careful formulation.
I myself am concerned about the sentence that starts with "A very small, but vocal". The phrasing is markedly polemical. I checked one citation which I can access online (Milani), and the coverage of the topic on p. 37-38 is completely different both in tone and content. If you have access to the other sources, let's take a closer look please. Eperoton (talk) 04:30, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

@MehrdadFR: I see that you are continuing to edit-war without discussing. The cited sources are reliable, as Eperoton said, and the disputed material is relevant to the article. If you believe there is some other reason why it shouldn't be included, please explain why. —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:11, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Answers:

  1. I did revert before I saw Eperoton left message, my mistake.
  2. LA Times, AP and Independent are basically good sources for current events, but not for interpretation of history and ethnography. There are dozens of scholarly sources, many of them already inside article. For leading sentence, at least ten of existing sources can be used. Beside it, claim that women are required to "cover their hair" is technically incorrect, more precise is "wear headscarf" (which don't cover all hair).
  3. My Stealthy Freedom is foreign campaign led by Masih Alinejad, London-based journalist working for RFE/RL, irrelevant for Iran itself. Articles claim there are "protests" against dress code, which is false. I'll remove it, and if you insist to stay, then I'll put Iranian sources about her activism to keep NPOV.

--MehrdadFR (talk) 11:20, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

@Eperoton:, I mostly took it from Algar:

I have had no communication with Kate Millett. I do not know what she thought her mission in Iran was. But, irrespective of her, let me say a few words about the so-called women's demonstrations in Iran which took place for four or five days in succession. The alleged cause of the demonstrations was the curtailment of women's rights by the Revolutionary regime. They coined a nice slogan for the occasion: "In the spring of freedom there is no freedom". Ayatullah Khomeini, I think in the last public address that he gave before leaving Tehran to return to Qum, in a speech that touched on many subjects, said "Now that we have in Iran an Islamic government, women should observe Islamic criteria of dress, particularly those that work in the ministries." There are two things to be noticed. First, this was a recommendation. Secondly, it was directed particularly at women in government service. It was interpreted willfully as a command to be enforced by coercive means if necessary and as meaning that all Iranian women must immediately cover themselves with the chador. The Islamic criteria of dress do not necessarily imply the chador, which is merely the traditional way of fulfilling those criteria in Iran, Seizing upon this distorted series of sentences in the speech of Ayatullah Khomeini, a weird alliance of people organised a series of demonstrations in Tehran. On the one hand there were the leftists, who, like most people who talk about equality, have a very elitist mentality. They, seeing their lack of support among the working class in Iran, have tried to seize upon a number of marginal issues and build them up as vehicles for their own attempts to gain power. One such vehicle was the women's demonstrations. Those taking part in the demonstrations were the upper echelons of Tehran society. It was interesting to see television footage of those demonstrations. These were women dressed in the latest fashions from Paris. Many had dyed their hair, which in the context is of significance. It shows a certain kind of self-hatred. It is the same kind of thing as one ha& seen in the United States, where Afro-Americans have tried to straighten out their hair. These were the people who were parading through the streets, led by Kate Millett and calling for women's emancipation. Far larger demonstrations in support of Ayatullah Khomeini and denunciation of these intrigues of the leftists on the one hand and the upper classes on the other went largely unreported in the Western press. This was a bubble that burst very quickly. (Algar:2001:83-84)

In past week, when I was busy, someone again misquoted content. There is no RS with denies restoring dress code was supported by vast majority of Iranian women and men, and also which denies it has been significantly politicized by opposition groups and the West. Still, if you find sentence "A very small, but vocal" as problematic, you may reword it. --MehrdadFR (talk) 11:45, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

From a quick skim of the article and discussion, I agree that there are POV problems. One problem is the lack of clear inclusion criteria for this article. Second, the "Iran" section is huge in comparison to the others. Maybe move it to its own article? --Ronz (talk) 16:34, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Me and Eperoton already discussed about it on Talk:Hijab (expanding Iranian clothing article). Not bad idea for sure, but it needs time and energy. --MehrdadFR (talk) 19:52, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
@MehrdadFR: Thank you for the quote. I have tried to summarize how the two sources at my disposal (Milani and Algar) cover this topic. If there are significant alternative views in the other sources, please let me know.
I'm not sure I agree with merging this material into Iranian clothing. It makes sense in principle, but that article is actually called Persian clothing and it is very short at the moment, which means that this content would lead to a balancing problem. Making a new article on Hijab in Iran and summarizing it both here and there seems to be a better option. Eperoton (talk) 01:37, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Islamic_veiling_practices_by_country/Archive_1&oldid=1174324191"