Talk:Head covering for Christian women

Merge to 1 Corinthians 11

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

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

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

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

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

Merge to Veil

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

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

Types and degrees of headcovering

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

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

Hopeinmusic 02:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

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

Anabaptist faiths are not Protestant?

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

Further reading?

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

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

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

1 Thessalonians 5 reference

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

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

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

Jehovah's Witnesses

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

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

Plain Catholics

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

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

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

Interesting Interpretation of Corinthians 11

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

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

Tamar reference

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

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

Article goes downhill at the "Reasons" section

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

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

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

RfC

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

Christian Head Covering is rooted in Patriarchy, not Complementarianism

Recommend correction to theological underpinning for Head Coverings. Patriarchy, not complementarian theology is the root theology. As a rule of practice, Complementarians do not practice head covering in SBC, PCA, OPC, or other complementarian denominations. Thank you.