Talk:French ban on face covering

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

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 3 September 2019 and 12 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jillrobins, Jakeldiamond.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:52, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Responses[edit]

I note that all of the thinkers in the "Responses" section are men, though the ban is about the dress choices of women. Are their voices that could correct this oversight? Thanks--140.247.14.239 (talk) 19:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have there been any news/media updates since the paper by Friedman and Merle mentioned in the Media Coverage section? I would imagine it could probably be updated, but I don't have the insight. Thanks Jillrobins (talk) 19:40, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Exact wording of law[edit]

It would be useful if someone could provide the exact wording of the bill. Does it ban covering the face with anything or specifically Muslim related coverings? The devil is in the detail here, and newspaper particularly have been very unclear about the actual truth behind this band.--Hontogaichiban (talk) 22:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccurate article title[edit]

Not wanting to get into a move war here. So I'll explain. The most commonly worn type of Islamic head covering is the hijab. Despite some earlier inaccuracies in this article, the hijab is most certainly not covered by the ban. So a broad article title "French ban on Islamic head coverings" is wildly inaccurate. It should either be "French ban on burqas", "French ban on full length facial veils" etc. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

also the current title implies that the ban only applies to Muslims. I dont think that is accurate and when this ban goes into effect nobody ( man or woman, Muslim or non muslim) will be allowed to cover their face in public in France. would prefer "French burqa ban" or "French ban on full length facial veils" for that reason. "French burqa ban" would likely be the search term readers use to find more info on this subject so that would be my first choice.--Wikireader41 (talk) 01:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, lets call a Spade a Spade. Every one and their brother knows what the ban is about. Its like saying the Jim Crow laws were not about whites not whating to let blacks vote. The french Press is not even debating whether or not its is about muslims.BB7 (talk) 02:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this is an issue - yes the law was more likely than not aimed at Muslim face coverings, but the text of the Bill makes no mention of "Islam" or "Islamic". The title needs to be changed for accuracy's sake. – ukexpat (talk) 20:01, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What if you want to wear a ski mask in winter? Would this be illegal?99.120.57.121 (talk) 14:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating question, as I have often wondered what the reaction would be if I as a UK citizen were to walk around in a balaclava down my local high street. I suspect I would be promptly ordered to remove it by a police officer (or at least I would hope so). Obviously this will now be true in France wrt. ski-masks, burkas, balaclavas or whatever. No-one should be able to hide themselves in such a manner, as the criminal ramifications are obvious (as demonstrated by the attempted escape of one of the London 7/7 v.2 bombers).
In anticipation of the 'this is not a forum' statements, I would like to suggest that this article would be usefully expanded by anyone who has any statistics regarding any research (if the is any) of the incidence/rate of burka wearing amongst muslims in various EU countries. I suspect that a country like Britain will have a far higher incidence than France. My personal anecdotal evidence would suggest that there are probably more than 2000 Burka wearers in south Birmingham alone, never mind the whole country! 1812ahill (talk) 20:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you possibly "hope" that a British police officer would order you to change how you dress? I suspect you may be right that some would try, given the current tendency for police on the street to abuse powers they do have and make up ones they do not. But this should not be encouraged, should be resisted where possible, and should certainly not be hoped for. 93.97.184.230 (talk) 11:31, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Despite your attempts to sidestep 'this is not a forum' you immediately contravene it with extremely tendentious, provocative and uninformed anecdotes about the number of Burka wearers in your immediate area. A little research of your own would have uncovered an initial police estimate of 367 in France, suggesting your figure of 2,000 for South Birmingham indicates hyperbole, inaccuracy or perhaps just a love of inflammatory misinformation. Moloch09 (talk) 01:32, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly south Birmingham isn't France and as this new law shows the french aren't exactly encouraging people to wear them. As the Islam in England article shows Birmingham has got a large muslim population but I haven't seen any figures on Burka/Hijab wearing. Living in Leicester I see a lot of people wearing Burkas to but on this subject Birmingham and Leicester aren't exactly representative of the whole country 86.23.49.153 (talk) 11:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hijab[edit]

The London Daily Mail a world class newspaper says "This means that a measure banning full face Islamic veils, also including the niqab, taken by the National Assembly, the lower house, in July was ratified. "

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1312016/Frances-Senate-bans-women-wearing-burka-public.html#ixzz0zXOcmdE0 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1312016/Frances-Senate-bans-women-wearing-burka-public.html

Hijab. Hijab. All of those women in the picture are wearing hijabs. Not niqabs. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
oops apoliges BB7 (talk)
No worries - so now you understand why we need to move the article title as well? The hijab is the most common form of "Islamic head covering" yet is not covered by the ban. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies minunderstanding on my end. I still disagree with moving it to Burqa as more than the burqua is banned here BB7 (talk) 20:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"full length Islamic veils" works too :-) BB7 (talk) 20:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent - I thought "ban on burqas" would be a bit catchier but I think this new non-catchy title is the most accurate. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:45, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
maybe French burqa ban can be redirected here.--Wikireader41 (talk) 21:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that "face veils" or "full face veils" is the most appropriate title; whatever the technicalities, that is clearly what is intended. I don't think the picture needs to be altered. It appears that "Muslim style" covering of the rest of the body is not at issue. (OTOH, I must agree that the law is de-facto aimed specifically at Muslims, if only because no other major religion advocates (let alone requires) covering of any part of the face. And even Islam does not speak of covering any part of the male face, though among the Tuareg of the Sahara, it is the men who wear veils.)

An American perspective, fwiw: In my medium-size community, I have seen many "full body + hair" coverings - in my city informally known as "burqas" - though no face veils. I do not believe that any American state, let alone the U.S. federal government, would allow a ban on any clothing that was not "indecent" (i.e., offensive to some people for *insufficient* coverage!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.227.140.45 (talk) 22:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC) oops, I hadn't meant to be "anonymous". I'm Thomas Ahlswede, from Mt. Pleasant, Michigan, USA[reply]

This kind of ban would indeed be very difficult in USA would most certainly be thrown out as unconstitutional even if congress were to pass it.--Wikireader41 (talk) 01:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As per above, would the wearing of balaklavas (or whatever they are called in the US) be tolerated on any Americanhigh street?1812ahill (talk) 20:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the USA, as long as the "naughty bits" are showing (i.e., genitals, nipples and most of the butt crack), you can where anything you want.108.69.160.39 (talk) 02:26, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, but The London Daily Mail is NOT a world class newspaper. it's a little englander right wing rag little removed from the tabloids. the Times, Guardian, and, at a pinch, Telegraph, would count as reliable British newspaper source, but not the Mail HieronymousCrowley (talk) 05:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I agree 100%. The Mail is only "World class" among fascists and bigots. People who think "the world" stops at the UK coastline. Vile. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.198.33.252 (talk) 11:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Mail, Guardian and Telegraph are all widely used as reliable sources on Wikipedia. They don't have to be 'world class'. The Telegraph is very reliable, there's no 'at a pinch' about it. The Times is not used as frequently now, due to its paywall. 188.28.71.61 (talk) 11:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources to incorporate[edit]

Foreign Police magazine

Title[edit]

As the issue seems to be the face, and the covering thereof, I think the title should include and reference the term "face". -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 19:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move proposal[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Page moved to French ban on full-length face covering  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

French ban on full length Islamic veils → French ban on full length face covering — Folks, I propose that this article be moved to French ban on full length face coverings, or something similar that does not refer to "Islamic" and "veils". – ukexpat (talk) 20:10, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • SupportI agree, as long as the article contains language dealing with the consensus that this is primarily if not solely aimed at Muslim women. The previous comments were correct, the bill does not refer only to Muslim women or specifically to Muslim veils. However, to ensure due weight, I think the commentary should, as it does, primarily consider this legislation aimed at Muslims.Jbower47 (talk) 20:33, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • OpposeSeriously, lets call a Spade a Spade. Every one and their brother knows what the ban is about. Its like saying the Jim Crow laws were not about whites not wanting to let blacks vote. The French Press is not even debating whether or not its is about muslims veils. BB7 (talk) 22:32, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In the long run, the civil rights implications of such bans may have little to do with Islam. Whether France has installed such technology yet or not, such a ban seems most useful when a state runs video cameras in all public places and uses them to track all movements of residents. Without such a ban, an unrecognizable face defeats the system, but with it, it becomes reason for arrest. See also balaclava (clothing). I think it is very important for the article to deal with these other sorts of face coverings, not just go for the bait. Wnt (talk) 22:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What is a "full-length" face veil? I support "Islamic" being nixed, because the bill doesn't mention that, but the "full-length" should be omitted as well because it doesn't mean anything. -- tariqabjotu 22:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree, regardless of outcome, that full-length shouldn't be in the article title. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support agree that "Islamic' and "full length" needs to go. I agree that probably nobody would be allowed to wear balaclava (clothing) in the winters in public places in France when this goes into effect.--Wikireader41 (talk) 00:57, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hyphen Whatever is decided, full-length + noun needs a hyphen. Ericoides (talk) 06:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hyphen ditto e.g. French ban on full-length Islamic veils or French ban on full-length face covering. That should be uncontroversial. --RA (talk) 07:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, It seems a little more accurate. The ban does not necessarily refer to Islamic veils, it is just that they will fall foul of the law. Mtaylor848 (talk) 11:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, for the same reasons as Weaponbb7. If it turns out that the law will be enforced against those who wear balaclavas in winter, or at nightclubs, or in blizzards, or sand storms, then perhaps the issue could be revisited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1f2 (talk • contribs) 13:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Something along the lines of French ban on face covering in public places, as this is what the law actually does. Alternately, if there is a number to the law, it could just be listed as that, or under a translation of the law's formal name, if that exists. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Daily Mail translated it as Forbidding the Dissimulation of the Face in the Public Space. I orignally in the Draft stage was going to name it that but it sounded awkward and poorly translatedBB7 (talk) 19:08, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on the grounds that this proposed move is avoiding the elephant on the room, that this is in practice a measure against the Islamic veil, whatever it might be called on paper. PatGallacher (talk) 00:00, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would it be an option to move this to the official name of the bill (whatever it may be), instead of inventing our own circumscription of it? Ucucha 14:39, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The official title is PROJET DE LOI interdisant la dissimulation du visage dans l’espace public[1], which roughly translates as "BILL prohibiting the concealment of the face in the public space"[2]. The name would presumably change once it is ratified by the President to become an "Act" rather that a "Bill". I'm all for neutral language and this is consistent with many other articles named after the title of Acts of Parliament, but I'm still not sure whether I would prefer this over the current proposed title. —sroc (talk) 15:19, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The article doesn't mention any of the numerous exceptions on face covering, eg motorcycle helmets, Santa Claus costumes, carnival face masks, etc. The current title, and text, imply that this is an even ban over face covering, while the actual text of the law makes it clear that it is a specific ban over certain types of face covering. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.58.253.57 (talk) 11:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Police forces[edit]

I heard that police forces in N.America are very concerned about this type of dress because criminals like bank robbers could use it as a perfect disguise to gain entry sereptitiously and without much notice. Who would be suspicious? A bunch of banks getting nicked by people dressed like this would sure cause an uproar! I can't seem to find the source on the article I read about police chiefs' concerns --- hope someone here can find something. --66.222.252.20 (talk) 23:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the veil debate in France, this was one of the arguments from the supporters of banning full veils in public. For security reasons. Yet they also mentioned womens' dignity, secularity in France and simple politeness/sociability. - Munin75 (talk) 02:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some criminals already used burqa for robberies in the past [3] [4] UltimaRatio (talk) 19:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV in "Response"[edit]

I read the response section, and all the responses show a view against the ban. Perhaps we could add some pro-ban responses to even it out? Jmfriesen (talk) 04:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno if it was there when you placed the tag, but the response from Egypt supports the ban. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 10:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was. interesting that Muslims dont seem to agree about the appropriateness of Niqab. looks like they were banned in Egypt also but ban was overturned on constitutional grounds.--Wikireader41 (talk) 12:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are the carnival masks now banned in France?[edit]

--MathFacts (talk) 04:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, they aren't. It's one of the specific exceptions listed in the law: "les tenues qui s'inscrivent dans le cadre de fêtes (déguisements de carnaval, de père Noël) ou de manifestations artistiques (acteurs de cinéma, de cirque ou de théâtre) ou traditionnelles (processions, notamment religieuses)." Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to move the article to "French ban on the concealment of faces in public places"[edit]

Or something like that, I'm not a French speaker but here's the Google Translate of the relevant parts of the bill:

  • Article 1er
    • Principle that "no person may, in public, wear clothing designed to conceal his face."
  • Article 2
    • Definition of the concept of public space as comprising public roads, public places and places affected by a utility.
      • Definition of the four exceptions to the prohibition:
        • - Uniforms prescribed by statute or by regulation (helmets for motorcycles);
        • - Uniforms authorized to protect the anonymity of the individual (status of certain witnesses in criminal trials);
        • - Uniforms justified by medical reasons (masks in case of epidemic, respiratory masks, bandages) or professional reasons (officers law enforcement, welding, sandblasting, asbestos removal, rat control, pest of vessels);
        • - Outfits that are part of festivities (carnival costumes, Santa Claus) or artistic (film actors, circus and theater) or traditional (processions, especially religious).

I.e. the law itself isn't explicitly targeted at veils, it's targeted at any concealment of the face with a few exceptions. Although obviously veils were the target of the bill, the bill doesn't limit itself to them. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 11:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See move proposal above. – ukexpat (talk) 17:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is it legal to wear such masks during, say, BDSM activities in a club?--MathFacts (talk) 11:00, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Who knows? I doubt that's a likely application of this law, so it'll probably never come up. But judging from the text above, I guess the key questions would seem to be 'is this considered a public place?' and 'if so, is this clothing covered by the festivities/artistic/traditional exception?'. Robofish (talk) 16:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Full text of law[edit]

I don't believe the link given contains the full text of the law, unless it's buried somewhere I'm not noticing. All I'm seeing is a summary of the law (saying there is a definition in X place, but not actually giving the definition, etc.). Is the full text available online anywhere? Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do believe its a relatively short lawBB7 (talk) 18:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Picture removed[edit]

I removed the following picture from this article: File:Women in shiraz 2.jpg. This is because I felt it was pretty misleading: firstly, because it shows people in Iran, not France; and secondly, because the dress worn by the woman in that picture isn't covered by this law. The only reason for including it would be as an example of what's not banned by this law, but even if that's necessary, I think a picture taken in France would be preferable. Robofish (talk) 16:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Effect of the bill[edit]

Has the President of the French Republic already signed the Bill? It has been a long time since the legislature of France passed the Bill and the Article should be updated (if he has signed it, but I'm unable find any source about this due to inconvenience). ---Aristitleism (talk) 15:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The bill has now been signed, and will become law on the 11th of April.[5] The article will need to be updated. Robofish (talk) 23:48, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Background in Belgium[edit]

The "Background" section starts with "Earlier in 2010, the Belgian lower house of parliament banned the burqa", but this proposal did not pass in the Senate because of the fall of the government a few weeks later. The current wording could give the impression that the Belgian ban drove the French ban, but I believe it was the other way around. The later sentences discussing Sarkozy's statements of 2009 also tell us that this discussion first lived in France and then came over to Belgium. The current legislature took up the proposal again, and it may be passed in both chambers in the future, but France is (afaik) the first country with such a ban. Can someone with more knowledge about the situation rewrite the "Background" section? -- Jan Fabry (Cheezycrust) (talk) 14:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have done this. Thanks for pointing out the issue.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 12:17, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image bias?[edit]

It seems to me that the images used in this article are not as encyclopedic and neutral as they could be. Specifically, the images of prohibited facial coverings depict dark fabric colors and (in the case of the first image) a dark background, enhancing a sense of darkness and concealment. The image of an "acceptable" veil shows a lighter fabric color and emphasizes the subject's (happy and attractive) face. These images seem to convey the message that the prohibited face coverings are inherently threatening. This might seem like nit-picking, but I would advocate a more neutral selection of images.

Also, is the first image caption accurate? Does the image truly depict an "Islamic face covering", or is it more of an example of a regional/cultural custom of dress? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Augurar (talk • contribs) 17:25, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you find better photos? I'm sure most would welcome them. I agree with your second paragraph. This is NOT about Muslims. It's about a very small cultural group who happen to be Muslim. Some Muslim people I know think this is a good move which can only help the image of Islam in the medium to long term. HiLo48 (talk) 21:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

fr.wikipedia[edit]

The French Wiki has, somewhat surprisingly (or not) only a small section on this ("Loi interdisant la dissimulation du visage dans l'espace public" finds http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affaires_du_voile_islamique#Loi_interdisant_la_dissimulation_du_visage_dans_l.27espace_public )

doktorb wordsdeeds 20:03, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Motorcycle helmet[edit]

I plan to ride my motorcycle into France. Is the fine for not wearing a motorcycle helmet less than the fine for covering the face? (I feel either way I'll be breaking the law?!)--24.222.82.111 (talk) 03:24, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are supposed to wear a helmet while riding. Fullface helmet is permissable. But you must remove it when you get off the bike. It is clearly stated in this article that a facemask worn for safety reasons is permissable. It metions motor bikes riders specifically. Read the article more carefully! Amandajm (talk) 02:07, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The veil[edit]

  • Hi Amanda. This is not a forum for expressing one's personal views about the subject. Kindly propose on how the article should be improved. Thank you, WhisperToMe (talk) 07:21, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are right of course. I should probably delete the above comment which is not directly related to the improvement of the article. The article has already been improved, firstly by making it clear that the law does not just apply to one group, and secondly by the removal of an opinion that was not by a) an affected party, b) French parliament. Amandajm (talk) 10:10, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More stuff[edit]

WhisperToMe (talk) 12:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

hindrance[edit]

The article currently claims as a reason for the ban, "social hindrance within a society which relies on facial recognition". Can this be sourced? Tkuvho (talk) 15:00, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Law of 2010-1192[edit]

I think the specific law number or year should be included in the title. This title feels a bit too generic. We have articles such as Islamic scarf controversy in France already. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 16:40, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on French ban on face covering. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:34, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on French ban on face covering. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:44, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on French ban on face covering. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:16, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

POV March 7, 2019[edit]

This page is overly supportive of the ban by discussing the point of view of the dominant culture in France in many parts of the article without counterpoints. Many of the statements need to be further verified. I draw particular attention to the paragraphs dealing with violent reactions from the community. Although it does constitute rioting, there's a de-emphasis on the facts of the cases. notably, tearing a womans clothes off is likely to elicit some response from the community that shouldn't be regarded as a dramatic uprising of mujahideen who were hiding behind every bush. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Verify references (talk • contribs) 02:41, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

there were no objections so i have corrected the article.

Resolved

Verify references (talk) 16:57, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My changes[edit]

I'm not going to add or re-order things one at a time and clog up the edit history any more than I already have. The only major changes I've done is I re-added content from the lead as well adding back the Islamic Female Dress template. This was removed w/o explanation by an IP last year ([6]) so I was fixing that old vandalism. I also removed some images recently added by an IP sock (Special:Contributions/149.167.131.247). Sro23 (talk) 11:52, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tag[edit]

An editor keeps adding a "which?" tag to text about the impact of the face overing ban on Muslim women. As the abstract makes clear and as I said in my edit summary, it is about Muslim women, not subgroups of Muslim women (e.g. only women who wear face covering). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:05, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the placement of that tag, either. The current wording is very clear about the scope of the study. Neutralitytalk 20:16, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree and the source argues that the cause for this is likely that the perceived discrimination against Muslim women in general placed Muslim girls under considerable psychological stress and disrupted their ability or willingness to perform at school.VR talk 14:24, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Picture[edit]

The current picture is not in line with the article. This first type of scarf is not banned, but the second type. So if there is a picture it should clearly show this.

Thastme (talk) 14:10, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:French_ban_on_face_covering&oldid=1213954078"