Wikipedia's first sentence called it “case brought for the european court of human rights which ruled that the french ban on face covering did not vi”. Today it says “case brought before the european court of human rights which ruled by a vote of fifteen to two that the french”.
Measured, not asserted. Every count, date and revision on this page was taken from Wikipedia's own history and checked against the live article. The words quoted are theirs.
Machine-checked against the full current article on 2026-08-03.
We saved snapshots of this article over twenty years; you are reading the 2025 one. Red dashes: removed from Wikipedia since.Pale dots: rewritten; the numbered note shows what it says now.Red text: written in or rewritten since the previous snapshot.1 tap a number or a side note to jump between them
The opening as it read in 2025
France was a case brought before the European Court of Human Rights which ruled by a vote of fifteen to two that the French ban on face covering did not violate European Convention on Human Rights 's (ECHR) provisions on right to privacy or freedom of religion . The two judges in the minority expressed their partly dissenting opinion. The Court was unanimous in dismissing other related claims of the plaintiff, S.A.S. The French ban against face covering, loi n° 2010-1192 du 11 octobre 2010 interdisant la dissimulation du visage dans l'espace public , was adopted on 11 October 2010 and went into effect on 11 April 2011. While the law bans all kinds of face covering, it was generally understood to especially aim at banning the niqab and burqa . On the same day the law came into force, a French woman born in 1990 of Pakistani origin, referred to as S.A.S., filed a complaint against the French state as the law prevented her from wearing the niqab in public places. The woman argued that the law violated Articles 3 (against inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment) , 8 (on the right to privacy) , 9 (on the freedom of religion) , 10 (on the right to freedom of expression) , 11 (on the right to freedom of assembly) , and 14 (which prohibits discrimination) of the ECHR. On their side, the French state argued, with regard to Articles 8 and 9, that the exceptions in paragraph 2 of these articles applied. Paragraph 2 of Article 9 allows limitations on the right to religion if the limitations "are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others." Specifically, France invoked three grounds for limiting the right to wear burqa : "respect for equality between men and women", "respect for human dignity" and "respect for the minimum requirements of life in society". The court did not uphold the French government's position that the ban was valid due to gender equality or human dignity concerns, but accepted that France's claim that a ban was necessary for "living together" harmoniously was within law. It underlined that the states had a wide margin of appreciation in cases like this.
This is Wikipedia's own text, saved in our repository. Their copy of it is revision 1267919032.
The opening as it stood in 2015
France was a case brought for the European Court of Human Rights which ruled that the French ban on face covering did not violate European Convention on Human Rights 's (ECHR) provisions on right to privacy or freedom of religion , nor other invoked provisions. Two of the seventeen judges dissented. The French ban against face covering, loi n° 2010-1192 du 11 octobre 2010 interdisant la dissimulation du visage dans l'espace public , was adopted on 11 October 2010 and went into effect on 11 April 2011. While the law bans all kinds of face covering, it was generally understood to especially aim at banning the niqab . On the same day the law came into force, a French woman born in 1990 of Pakistani origin referred to as S.A.S filed a complaint against the French state as the law prevented to her from wearing the niqab in public places. The woman argued that the law violated articles 3 (against inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment) , 8 (on the right to privacy) , 9 (on the freedom of religion) , 10 (on the right to freedom of expression) , 11 (on the right to freedom of assembly) , and 14 (which prohibits discrimination) of the ECHR. On their side, the French state argued with regard to articles 8 and 9, that the exceptions in paragraph 2 of these articles applied. Paragraph 2 of article 9 allows limitations on the right to religion if the limitations "are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others." Specifically, France invoked three grounds for limiting the right to wear burqa: "respect for equality between men and women", "respect for human dignity" and "respect for the minimum requirements of life in society". The court did not find the French government's position that the ban was valid due to gender equality or human dignity concerns, but accepted that France's claim that a ban was necessary for "living together" harmoniously was within in law. It underlined that the states had a wide margin of appreciation in cases like this.
Red text was written in or rewritten since the previous snapshot. Their copy is revision 666767102.
The opening as it stood in 2020 1 passage from the previous snapshot no longer appear
France was a case brought for the European Court of Human Rights which ruled that the French ban on face covering did not violate European Convention on Human Rights 's (ECHR) provisions on right to privacy or freedom of religion , nor other invoked provisions. On these two points, the Court held her decision by fifteen votes to two.The two judges in the minority expressed their partly dissenting opinion. The French ban against face covering, loi n° 2010-1192 du 11 octobre 2010 interdisant la dissimulation du visage dans l'espace public , was adopted on 11 October 2010 and went into effect on 11 April 2011. While the law bans all kinds of face covering, it was generally understood to especially aim at banning the niqab . On the same day the law came into force, a French woman born in 1990 of Pakistani origin referred to as S.A.S. filed a complaint against the French state as the law prevented to her from wearing the niqab in public places. The woman argued that the law violated articles 3 (against inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment) , 8 (on the right to privacy) , 9 (on the freedom of religion) , 10 (on the right to freedom of expression) , 11 (on the right to freedom of assembly) , and 14 (which prohibits discrimination) of the ECHR. On their side, the French state argued with regard to articles 8 and 9, that the exceptions in paragraph 2 of these articles applied. Paragraph 2 of article 9 allows limitations on the right to religion if the limitations "are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others." Specifically, France invoked three grounds for limiting the right to wear burqa: "respect for equality between men and women", "respect for human dignity" and "respect for the minimum requirements of life in society". The court did not find the French government's position that the ban was valid due to gender equality or human dignity concerns, but accepted that France's claim that a ban was necessary for "living together" harmoniously was within in law. It underlined that the states had a wide margin of appreciation in cases like this.
Red text was written in or rewritten since the previous snapshot. Their copy is revision 889366814.
Today
Wikipedia's first sentence called it “case brought for the european court of human rights which ruled that the french ban on face covering did not vi”. Today it says “case brought before the european court of human rights which ruled by a vote of fifteen to two that the french”. Read the current article and compare.
2015
2020
Oct '23
2025
Counts in the opening at each snapshot. Green: the word gained ground. Red: it was cut. Grey: no change.
What Wikipedia says this is
Every article opens by defining its subject. This one was redefined since 2015, and today's defining sentence is their current revision.
Then
case brought for the european court of human rights which ruled that the french ban on face covering did not vi
Now
case brought before the european court of human rights which ruled by a vote of fifteen to two that the french
Struck red text is no longer in the article; dotted amber text was rewritten. Every revision id links to Wikipedia's copy; the text shown is our own saved copy. Data: /data. Wikipedia text is CC BY-SA; quoted for the record; not affiliated with Wikipedia.
