From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Burka, Burqa. This ia not limited to Afghanistan, It was also the Bengali term used in East Pakistan (Bangladeish) when I lived there (1965). It (to me) refers to the fully-sewn fully-enclosing (head and upper body or longer) womens clothing. Most have an eye port, usually covered with a lace fabric flap. Some are rather elaborate; though now used by poorer women, many are severely worn and tattered. In 1995, I was shocked to see almost no burqas (except worn by old women in Old Dhaka or remote villages). I was told that this was due to the revolutionary social reforms since the split from West Pakistan. Young girls, typically wore school uniforms in public.

See also the term Chador, which (in Iran, Farsi) was the simple (usually black and unsewn) sheet, thrown over the head, clasped at the neck, extending to the ground.

Chador vs. Burka[edit]

I'm not an expert on these things by any means, but isn't a chador different from an (afghan) burka? The article seems to suggest that it's just another word for it, but I don't think that's the case - or is it? -- Schnee 11:18, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You are correct, per my experience in the late 1960's. In Iran, the Farsi term "Chador" referred to a usually black {sheet-like} cloth, thrown around the body over the head, clasped at the neck, like a flowing full body cape. Some women liked it as they could go out without "dressing up."

Whereas, to my experience the "Burka" was a sewn tan-colored garment enclosing the head and upper body, with a minimal face or eye opening, coverable with a lace flap. The Burkae-type garment was common in East Pakistan, (posssibly West Pakistan) and Afghanistan. I'm not sure of the Urdu (Pakistan) or Dari (Afghanistan) name. Perhaps someone more familiar with Mideast/Asian clothing and language can clarify these terms.

It is possible that the distinction in some areas may be based on class; with the Burka worn by poorer, less educated, more (rural) conservative women, and the Chador worn by more urban, educated upper class women. -- Visitor 23Oct04

Comment by editor[edit]

I have removed the following sentences:

The term chadri needs to be defined when introduced. I think it is an older term for the Afgan burqa. A reference is -

Matthews case[edit]

The Matthews case in Australia is very poorly explained. Judges do not "consult" experts. Evidence is produced in court by the parties. If there was evidence from "forensic handwriting examiners", whatever they are, why wasn't this produced in court? Be very careful of accusing a court of being wrong. Finally it is insulting to call the judge by surname alone. This entry is very clearer POV and quite bigoted.


An editor is challenging the current text and has mutilated the text so that there is no context for the actions of Angela Merkel nor way of knowing the timeline. Was it 10 years ago, for example, that she called for the burqa ban? Please do not vandalize until context is reached. XavierItzm (talk) 00:05, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

@XavierItzm: Please take a look at WP:NOTVAND. What we have here is a content dispute, not vandalism. The current phrasing is actually a violation of WP:SYN. The source ("It comes as the country reacts with horror at the murder...") does not assert that Merkel's statement was in reaction to the crime. Eperoton (talk) 05:00, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
@Eperoton: Agree that your edit was bold and not vandalism and I apologize for the mischaracterization. I should have written "mutilation." Nonetheless, strongly disagree that WP:SYN applies here. You see, it is only Wikipedia editors that can successfully be accused of WP:SYN, never the WP:RS itself. In this case, It is the WP:RS that states that Merkel's call for the burqa bans "comes as the country reacts with horror at the murder...". XavierItzm (talk) 09:07, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
@XavierItzm: The earlier edit was made by someone else, but thanks for your cooperation. The phrases "comes as the country reacts with horror at the murder..." and "made in reaction to the murder..." mean two different things. If it was in fact made in reaction to the murder, you should have no trouble finding a source that states it explicitly, as WP:SYN requires. I've just skimmed through coverage of this speech in the German press, and couldn't find a single mention of the murder. She did make some statements about the murder in an interview with ARD and I don't see any mention of veiling. So, even the modified phrasing seems to violate WP:WEIGHT, as it is based on a passing allusion in one newspaper and does not reflect how the bulk of the sources cover the speech. Eperoton (talk) 15:08, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
I see the differences between "comes as the country reacts with horror at the murder..." and "made in reaction to the murder...", and have no objection to the article being edited to reflect whichever of the two versions are deemed best. On the other hand, I do not see a problem with WP:SYN as WP:SYN does not apply to WP:RS themselves, and here we have a WP:RS itself making the connection between both events. As to WP:WEIGHT, the issue could be discussed. Your quick survey seems to bolster the argument; on the other hand, someone could raise the same issue for the entire article each time only one WP:RS is cited. If one were to apply this extremely stringent criteria, most of the article would have to be blanked out until others took the time to come up with multiple WP:RS for each single citation. XavierItzm (talk) 00:01, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
The synthesis issue was just combining two statements from the source to reach a conclusion not stated explicitly in the source. Since you're ok with my change, we can consider that particular issue to be resolved.
There's no problem with citing only a single RS if it's representative of how RSs treat the point in question. When there's a concern that it may not be the case, we should make sure we reflect the RSs with due weight. I've looked at a few major German newspapers and also made some Google News searches for a combination of keywords related to the speech and the murder (of course, existence of results for a certain search doesn't help us establish due weight, but their absence can, as was the case here). If you're interested in the subject, you may want to check a sample of major English-language RSs and see if you disagree with my conclusion. Eperoton (talk) 05:19, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
I hear you. On a point separate to your most recent comment, I have just added a New York Times reference where the NYT reports Merkel called for the Burka ban the next day after showing up on national TV to discuss the Ladenburger murder rape. In the next sentence, the NYT explains the burka ban is "indicative of the political balancing act she is now undertaking" but while causality is implied, it is not stated. As such, I did not get into any of that and merely added the NYT citation to buttress the "aftermath" timeline. XavierItzm (talk) 00:23, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
@XavierItzm: I'm still concerned about due weight. In this instance, NYT judged the burqa ban to be significant context in an article about the murder, not the other way around. NYT's article about the proposed burqa ban (see the "related coverage" sidebar) doesn't mention the murder. It does mention that Merkel was making a previously scheduled speech that kicked off her reelection campaign in the aftermath of electoral gains made by the far right. This is also the context I remember seeing mentioned in other coverage of the proposed ban. So, I don't see why the murder should be mentioned here instead. Eperoton (talk) 04:34, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough. I think there is room for improvement, without necessarily de-contextualizing. Thanks for your patience. XavierItzm (talk) 22:14, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
We are having the same argument on the Talk:Murder of Maria Ladenburger page. In my eyes the cited sources do not justify connecting the rape and Merkels remarks as they just mention the rape as one example stirring up the current political climate in Germany and do in no way connect the two things. LucLeTruc (talk) 00:14, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
You are correct that some media reference not only the Maria Ladenburger rape, but also the Cologne sex attacks as the reasons for the anger that has resulted in Merkel proposing the burqa ban. So the better thing is to cite these sources, as the article already does. XavierItzm (talk) 09:24, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Merkel had exactly the same opinion before the rape (source) so it is totally misleading to connect the two things. Mentioning the Munich shooting with its most probably racist motivation in this context is equally misleading. If you really want to write something useful about the burqa debate in Germany here, it is necessary put the thing into a much broader context.LucLeTruc (talk) 10:53, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── A policy-compliant way to resolve this dispute per WP:NPOV is to review some RSs that are selected based on their prominence rather than cherrypicked for supporting a certain view on the subject, and then reflect with due weight their coverage of Merkel's announcement. I can help with that. Here are some names that come to mind: New York Times, CNN, BBC, Spiegel Online, Die Welt, Le Monde. I'm open to other candidates. Eperoton (talk) 17:38, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I already researched that. There is no doubt that Merkel made these remarks and that she wants to partially (!) restrict the wearing of the burka (Spiegel). XavierItzm just wants to connect this to the Ladenburger murder which I think is misleading (see the Talk page there). If put into the broader context of current debate about the influx of muslim immigrants (which the NYT article does quit well), this can be mentioned here. Ideally together with a description of the current state of law (that the burka is not banned) and the different political positions regarding the ban (only the AfD is probably in favour of really banning the burqa).10:45, 19 December 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LucLeTruc (talkcontribs)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The sources are:

(1) The New York Times — Title: Refugee’s Arrest Turns a Crime Into National News (and Debate) in Germany. Note: The arrested refugee is the rapist of Maria Ladenburger. The citations are: "Germans have grown more wary after prominent episodes, including widespread sexual harassment blamed on migrants in Cologne last New Year’s Eve and terrorist attacks this summer" / "Ms. Merkel’s measured comments, made just a day before she called for banning full-face veils “wherever legally possible,” were indicative of the political balancing act she is now undertaking." [1]

(2) The Irish Sun — Title: LIFTING THE VEIL What are the European laws on the burka and what is the difference between a burka and a niqab?. Citation: "Incidents like the Cologne sex attack scandal, the Munich shootings and the alleged rape and murder of 19-year-old student Maria Ladenburger by an Afghan teen has fuelled anger in the country"[2]

(3) The Sun (UK) — Title: MERKEL'S U-TURN Angela Merkel calls for Germany BURKA BAN saying ‘the full veil is not appropriate here’ in astonishing U-turn. Citation: "It marks a U-turn for CDU party leaders, who have previously expressed scepticism of a full ban despite growing calls for it among rank and file members" and "It comes as the country reacts with horror at the murder of 19-year-old Maria Ladenburger"[3] XavierItzm (talk) 20:58, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

(4) The News (Australia) — Title: Tragic death of young student Maria Ladenburger used as fuel for political debate in Germany. Citation: The case has also been front of mind for Ms Merkel who won re-election as candidate this week and pledged to ban the burka. XavierItzm (talk) 21:08, 19 December 2016 (UTC)


  1. ^ MELISSA EDDY. "Refugee's Arrest Turns a Crime Into National News (and Debate) in Germany". The New York Times. Retrieved 9 December 2016. Ms. Merkel’s measured comments, made just a day before she called for banning full-face veils “wherever legally possible,” 
  2. ^ NEAL BAKER. "LIFTING THE VEIL What are the European laws on the burka and what is the difference between a burka and a niqab?". Retrieved 13 December 2016. Incidents like the Cologne sex attack scandal, the Munich shootings and the alleged rape and murder of 19-year-old student Maria Ladenburger by an Afghan teen has fuelled anger in the country. 
  3. ^ Steve Hawkes; Corey Charlton (6 December 2016). "MERKEL'S U-TURN Angela Merkel calls for Germany BURKA BAN saying 'the full veil is not appropriate here' in astonishing U-turn". The Sun. Retrieved 6 December 2016. 
Amongst these sources, only the NYT can be considered a RS for such claim. None of the 4 sources, however, claims that the rape and Merkels remarks are directly connected. After repeating this argument on the Murder of Maria Ladenburger Talk page together with another editor over and over again I would now strongly vote for a closing of this discussion. I know that we do not vote here, but 4 editors (@Ronnierocket, Eperoton, and Pincrete:, correct me if I misinterpret you) have either reverted your edit or told you exactly what I just told you. In my opinion, this strongly indicates that you have failed yet to create the consensus that would be necessary for your sentence to be included in both articles, XavierItzm. I strongly vote for removing it from both articles. As I said, I am totally fine with mentioning Merkels remarks here, the context is just much bigger than the Ladenburger rape. We could, for example use the German article about Verschleierungsverbot as a basis and include a brief summary of that here in the article. What do you others think?LucLeTruc (talk) 02:09, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
I don't intend to repeat arguments made already above or elsewhere, but this appears to me to be even more blatant WP:SYNTH and WP:COATRACK than other articles where these sources are being used. We are obliged to use the best available sources, and it is IMO simply not supportable that the best sources about the 'burqa in Germany', nor even about Merkel's possible ban, (very partial and in specific public contexts, such as court cases) are being used. I suggest WP:RSN is the way forward, since the question is a fairly simple one, (does ths source support this text?). I will initiate if I have time, or others are free to do so. Pincrete (talk) 11:48, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
If RS do not make the link neither can we.Slatersteven (talk) 19:03, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
The reliability of the UK and Irish Sun is certainly questionable, but it shouldn't be necessary to argue that point. Regardless of their status, there's still a major problem in complying with WP:NPOV. The cited sources are pretty much the only ones that come up in searching Google news on the combination of key words "burqa" and "Ladenburger". If among the hundreds of RSs that covered Merkel's announcement, only a handful even mention the murder in the same article, let alone spell out a connection, including it here is giving the issue undue weight. I still want to review an impartially selected sample of RSs and see what context for Merkel's announcement does reflect RSs with due weight, when I can find a but more time. Eperoton (talk) 05:03, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
No comment about the Australian source? Wikipedia says "News Corp Australia (formerly News Limited) is one of Australia's largest media companies, employing more than 8,000 staff nationwide and approximately 3,000 journalists." In any event, it would be interesting if the article ends up citing no context, no temporal relationship for Merkel's burka ban. Hey, maybe she just woke up the morning of 6.december.2016 and randomly decided to ban the burka for no reason at all! I've again edited the article to provide context and sources. XavierItzm (talk) 08:55, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
It does not matter if they are RS or not, what matters is if they make the link. Do they?Slatersteven (talk) 13:15, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
@XavierItzm: No comment about the Australian source or NYT because I think what's disputed is not their reliability. It will indeed be interesting to see what comes out of an impartial sample of RSs. I appreciate your desire to provide and now extend the context for this announcement, but I would suggest adjusting your method for choosing it to be in line with NPOV. Starting with a personal viewpoint and then searching out sources to cite in support for it is not what we're supposed to be doing as WP editors. Eperoton (talk) 14:57, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
None of the sources (wheter RS or non RS) draws a connection between the rape and the burqa remarks. Merkel voiced similar views before the rape happened (see above) and most German RS who cover Merkels remarks do not mention the rape case at all.
How do we end this discussion? I personally see no willingness of XavierItzm to reach any consensus here, we just keep repeating the same arguments over and over again. What would be a wikipedia compliant way to resolve this? I have started a RFC on the Talk:Murder_of_Maria_Ladenburger page and most voices there also argue against mentioning the burqa thing. Again, putting Merkels remarks into the context of the bigger debate about Islam and immigration may make sense here on the page but this should be done in a different and more objective manner than now. I would just end this discussion now as no new arguments seem to be appearing. I am just not sure how? LucLeTruc (talk) 13:10, 24 December 2016 (UTC)


In an attempt to gauge what context for Merkel's annoncement would reflect RSs with due weight, I've reviewed stories about Merkel's speech from the sources I picked above. Here's what I found:

  • NYT writes that Merkel was "trying to deflect challenges from far-right forces [...] clearly some of her party's members wanted more". [1]
  • CNN writes: "Merkel's comments come weeks after she announced she would be seeking a fourth term in next year's elections[...] Merkel has angered many voters with her decision to open Germany's borders to migrants [...] In September, her party suffered a significant defeat in local elections." [2]
  • BBC writes: "Mrs Merkel was re-elected CDU leader but faces a tough challenge by the right-wing anti-immigration AfD party in next year's polls. She has seen her approval ratings slip since her decision to allow about a million asylum seekers into Germany during last year's Europe-wide migrant crisis [...] She expressed support for a proposal, outlined in August by Interior Minister Thomas de Maiziere, to outlaw the burka or any full-face veil in public buildings." [3]
  • Spiegel Online notes only that the CDU wants to ban the burqa in certain settings [4]. I've also come across a couple of other commentaries in SPON regarding Merkel's speech, which analyzed the political theater of the convention but not the political context.
  • Die Welt writes that Thomas de Maizière, the interior minister, is aiming for at least a partial ban. A complete ban, which many in the party would like to have, is difficult to achieve according to legal scholars. [5]
  • Le Monde writes that Merkel announcement didn't go as far as the demands of the right wing of the conservative camp and doesn't come as a real surprise, given earlier statements by Thomas de Maizière. [6] [7]

Based on this sample, I see no evidence that mentioning Ladenburger's murder, or in fact any specific crimes, would reflect RSs with due weight. Several pieces of context seem to be mentioned more commonly (in no particular order): Merkel's reelection campaign, Thomas de Maizière's earlier statement, the support for burqa ban among CDU party members, public anger over Merkel's approach to the migrant crisis, the electoral losses of her party and gains of the far right.

In reponse to LucLeTruc's question above, per WP:ONUS, the "onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." I believe XavierItzm has made a good faith effort to achive consensus for inclusion of this material. So far, this effort has not succeeded, although I'm willing to continue discussion. In any case, we need to get consensus for inclusion of some context, or else the announcement itself would be the only part that we can keep. I think we should rewrite the section to mention those more commonly mentioned factors instead. What do the others think? Eperoton (talk) 16:18, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the effort, Eperoton. I totally agree with you to put this into a broader context. Merkels remarks at that party conference are in total not that surprising (even though the british tabloids try to frame it that way) as the whole debate has been ongoing for some time. A much wider description of the whole debate (lacking the current debate caused by the refugee influx in 2016) can be, however, found here: Islamic_dress_in_Europe#Germany. I would propose to add the info there. In total, this whole burqa/hijab thing seems to be horribly scattered over many articles (see my merging proposal below).LucLeTruc (talk) 17:04, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
"trying to deflect challenges from far-right forces [...] clearly some of her party's members wanted more". This is like saying the Titanic was trying to deflect the challenges of the Atlantic after it hit the iceberg; true enough, but then again, that's what all boats do. What's behind the "challenges"? What are the underlying causes? Well, maybe the NYT on its other article was much closer to the truth: "Germans have grown more wary after prominent episodes, including widespread sexual harassment blamed on migrants in Cologne last New Year’s Eve and terrorist attacks this summer" (it all evidently under the heading about the Ladenburger rape-murder).[1] But hey, fight by the sword, die by the sword. One guesses that if a majority of WP:RS would rather skirt the basal issues amidst a sea of euphemisms, maybe one must simply go with the exact text of the WP:RS. Let's just say the burka ban is the result of "electoral challenges," in a "reelection campaign" amidst "party losses" as if these are spontaneous items that pop out of nowhere. After all, that's what the WP:RS want to say! I'm not going to argue against it anymore on this particular article. I would like to thank Eperoton for taking the time to look at various sources from multiple countries, though I must wince at the wholesale censoring out of private (not state-owned) British media that seems to pervade Wikipedia these days. XavierItzm (talk) 20:55, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
Aftermath = The consequences or after-effects of a significant unpleasant event according to the OED. Do any of these sources come anywhere close to saying that the proposed ban was the 'consequence or after-effect' of these cases? I think not. I knew nothing about these cases or the burqa in Germany until a few days ago, however the sources make it clear that 1) The right to wear any religious attire is guaranteed by German law 2) Burqa wearing is rare in Germany 3) Despite this the issue has raised strong feelings and some German parties have proposed bans 4) Merkel has for some time voiced dislike of the burqa, seeing it as 'un-German' 5) She recently announced her support for a limited ban, such a ban would necessarily ban all face-covering in certain situations (ie also ban motor-cycle helmets or carnival masks in certain contexts, such as courts, where visibility was deemed necessaray) 6) Merkel's ban speech has been interpreted by some as seeking to appease the right-wing in the run-up to an election, this last is RSed, but doesn't have that much to do with the burqa, except as background. the article isn't about that election nor about 'foreigner/German' relations/tensions.
Instead of any of the above (which may not be perfect, but which is an attempt to relate the bigger picture of 'the burqa in Germany'). What there is at present is a tendentiously phrased and synthed statement that the proposed ban was a 'direct consequence' of several recent crimes If I find a source that says Aleppo fell shortly after Donald Trumps's election, do I conclude that one happened as a result of the other?. No attempt to give the 'fuller picture'. What I suggest is that someone come up with an improved text, and if it isn't acceptable to anyone, the matter is RfC'ed as a text A/Text B question.
I RSN'd this, but the only comment wasn't very helpful. Pincrete (talk) 17:06, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure we need to continue this particular argument. XavierItzm has expressed his dissatisfaction with the prevailing coverage of Merkel's announcement, but also wrote that he would not continue pressing those objections here. I've drafted a version that seems to me to reflect the RSs with due weight. If there are outstanding concerns, let's continue the discussion. Eperoton (talk) 17:56, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
First, thanks, Eperoton for the really balanced proposal. It is rather short, however. To cover the whole debate I would add the aspects 1-5 that Picrete mentioned (i.e. that only a tiny minority of people in Germany wear the burqa, that religious freedom is guaranteed by the constitution, the voices against a ban). last but not least I totally agree with Pincrete that this has nothing to do with the burqa in particular but with face covering headscarves in general so it should ideally be not covered in this article. But as Eperoton mentioned elsewhere, we can easily wait with moving this after we finished this discussion here.LucLeTruc (talk) 13:22, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Eperoton, your edit is a vast improvement IMO, though I second much that LucLeTruc says. I note that many of the country sections are not primarily about the burqa, so much as about banning it or not. Pincrete (talk) 17:30, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
There are 3 related questions we can discuss here: how to report Merkel's speech; what should be in this section; and how to organize this material across the various articles that cover it. For now, I've tried to concentrate on the first question. For the second question, the additional aspects both of you point out don't seem to have enough coverage in sources devoted to Merkel's speech, but of course they may well have more coverage in sources discussing face veiling in Germany more generally. In part, it's just a matter of someone finding the time to cast the net wider and expand the section. For example, we could use a source that discusses the prevalence of face veiling is in Germany. On the third question, as LucLeTruc has pointed out, there's further information on the subject available in Islamic_dress_in_Europe#Germany. We can keep one of these locations as a repository for detailed discussion and summarize it in the other location. I don't yet have a clear opinion on what that summary should look like, so I'll just add a further link here for now. There's also a fourth, more general question, which is LucLeTruc's merge proposal in Talk:Hijab_by_country#merge_proposal. It seems like a good time to segue into that discussion, so I'll comment there shortly. Eperoton (talk) 18:36, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Burqa. 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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:39, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^ MELISSA EDDY. "Refugee's Arrest Turns a Crime Into National News (and Debate) in Germany". The New York Times. Retrieved 9 December 2016. Ms. Merkel’s measured comments, made just a day before she called for banning full-face veils “wherever legally possible,”