Talk:Burqa/Archive 1

Face veil?
Hi, I'm new to Wikipedia so if my entry here isn't right, please let me know. From my understanding, another use of the term burqa is for a piece that is only covering the face. It has three layers, the bottom one of which has a string between the eyes and the other two can be flipped up or down. An example is here: http://www.alhannah.com/products/ni133.html. So should this be included in this article? Thanks.

PS Are we allowed to link to pages like that Al Hannah page I did? Thanks :D

Hopeinmusic 01:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Someone who isn't all that familiar with English translated that ad. Burqa has always referred to a garment that covers the whole body, not just the head. The Afghan burqa has a grille; I think other South Asian burqas had slits for the eyes. Zora 10:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Isn't face veil forbidden in Muslim prayers too? As far as I am well-aware off, Muslim women are only required to cover all parts of their bodies except their hands and faces (see Aurat). So, I'm just wondering, for the Muslim women that are wearing burqas, why bother covering your faces up? After all, the Koran requires that Muslim women cover their heads, NOT faces, as a sign of protection against men that are not related to her by blood. I understand that his exception goes for women wondering around the desert to cover their faces from the sandstorm. So, I think it's silly that the Afghanistan government is implying laws that force all women to wear the burqa. --Fantastic4boy 06:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * What about laws that force people to wear clothes in public? Should there be laws about clothing at all? Zora 10:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

"Before the Taliban took power in Afghanistan, it was little worn in cities. During the Taliban's reign, women were required to wear a burqa whenever they appeared in public. Officially it is not required under the present Afghan regime, but local warlords still usually enforce it everywhere outside Kabul. In current unsettled conditions, women who might not otherwise wear the burqa must do so as matter of personal safety.

The full or Afghan burqa covers the wearer's entire face except for a small region about the eyes, which is covered by a concealing net or grille. Pakistani and Indian burkas may expose the face or eyes. It is usually sewn from light materials, and requires many yards/meters of material. Blue is a favourite colour for burqas. The cap from which the material hangs may be decorated with embroidery."

I'm confused as to why Afghanistan is featured so prominently in the introductory paragraphs. It seems to me that the above paragraphs (or at least the information contained within) belongs in a subsection of the main article not in the introduction.

I am in no way an authority on the subject but from my limited understanding the burqua is a part of Islamic societies that are not limited to the those which exist within the borders of Afghanistan.Kinema 11:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The burqa is an Afghani dress. For other countries, there is Niqab.--Kirby♥time 22:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Burqa / Chador, commentary.
I'm in the garment industry ( specifically ... the one we're discussing - Middle East/Muslim/Arabic.)  So, I do this for a living.

Here's how I refer to the garments you're discussing:

- Burqa : A cover for the face - usually covers from the forehead down to the chin or sometimes as far as the chest. Will cover the face to the ear, or wrap around the head. Multiple layers of fabric conceal the face and eyes. Has a slit for the eyes to allow sight. Eyes may be exposed, or covered.

- Niqab : A small veil that covers from the nose down over the chin, and ties around the back of the head. (Think - a 1800's US Wild-West bandit robbing a train - wearing a bandanna over his face - from the nose down.  That's the best I can visualize it for you.)

- Chaddor / Chador : The big blue garment that Afghanis wear. (In my opinion, it's a mistake to call this a "burqa")

If you want to buy these items in the Middle East - they will recognize these terms, and provide items as I have described based on the words above ( Assuming that they stock these items in the store you visit. Chadors are an Afghani cultural item - so - you most likely won't see these. )

Iran, I'm not an expert on, unfortunately. So I can't provide input on that.

But I do know this - the black overgarment that would be worn in Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and surrounding areas - typically called an "Abaya".

[ On a side note, I've been keeping my eye on these sections. I don't have a world of time to provide Wiki, however I'm willing to lend my hand when I have some time - either my insight - or some worthwhile edits where deserving (and I feel confident of the information that I supply. :) ) ]

Hope this was of help.

[ SELF-EDIT ] :: If you need photographs, just drop me an e-mail. I can take good quality photos (8MP) of many items that I'm willing to GPL.

KasemO 07:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Untitled
Is this article necessary? There is already the burqa article.HyperrealORnot 13:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I moved HyperrealORnot's comment here from the main article --Bob 19:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I changed the "worn by Muslim women in Afghanistan" etc. to "worn by most women in Afghanistan", since most women in Afghanistan are forced to wear the burqa regardless of whether or not they are Muslims. Also I clarified the current situation in Afghanistan a bit (it hasn't actually changed all that much yet), and I added some more details about the Netherlands. Carl Kenner 05:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

health risk section
I have moved all of the brief new section to here until it can be better sourced. The free Metro newspaper is NOT an encyclopedic source, and its article makes it sounds like an allegation -- not enough for inclusion here. If a better source (for the claim, not fo the fact that someone made the claim) can be found, then re-add.


 * Doctors have warned of the health risks that burka-wearing women are at due to the fact that they do not get enough sunlight. It was reported that a large number of women who wear the hijab and the burka suffer from bone deficiencies due to lack of vitamin D which is obtained through sunlight acting on the skin. Women with dark skin are most at risk because it takes their bodies longer to produce the vitamin. Because of the practice of wearing a burka, avoidance of exposure of any skin to sunlight, and the fact that few foods are fortified with vitamin D, upward of 35–80% of children in Saudi Arabia, India, Turkey, New Zealand, Israel, Egypt, Hong Kong, China, Libya, Lebanon, Spain, Australia, San Diego, California, and the southeastern United States  are vitamin D deficient. When the deficiency occurs during fetal life, there is data to suggest that this may cause an increased risk of hip fractures and bone loss later in life.

BrainyBabe 15:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Abaya/burqa differences
The abaya article states in the introduction "The abaya is an overgarment worn by some women in Muslim-majority countries [...] The abaya should cover the whole body save face, feet, and hands." The burqa article states in the introduction "A burqa (also transliterated burkha, burka or burqua) is an enveloping outer garment worn by women in some Islamic traditions for the purpose of cloaking the entire body." So, what's the difference between an abaya and a burqa, (because as described, they seem to be the same)? These two articles need to make that clear. &mdash;Lowellian (reply) 06:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion
I think the article should say that "majority" of Muslim women do not wear burqa and that it is mostly restricted to certain societies such as Afghanistan, Pakistan, UAE, Qatar. It is non-existent in Iran, Turkey, Lebanon, Malaysia, Indonesia. Alot of people these days seem to think burqa is required by Islam or that all Muslims wear this (or even that Quran dictates this clothing), but this is not true. Khorshid 11:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Good point. I completely rewrote the article. Whoever had written it had confused burqa with hijab, of which there are many different forms. I erased all the links to "Cultural conflicts" because those are better discussed in other articles, and because I suspect that none of them referred to burqas. I'm guessing it was either jilbab and khimar, or abaya and niqab. You just don't see burqas in the West.


 * I should probably add the El-Guindi book as a reference here too, but I'm tired. If you want to do that, it would be appreciated. So far, it's the best academic reference on hijab that I've found. Not that I've read all the relevant books. Zora 12:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I should add and stress that if we include Indian population of Muslims, the term "majority" remains no-where. Plus, majority of Indian muslims do wear Burka.--Jahilia 14:54, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Blue?
'Blue is a favourite colour for burqas.' .. not only does it sound like a 12 year old added that portion, can someone explain why? Favorite colour or not, there's still other colours in the spectrum. Black is a popular colour for business suits, however you'll still see people wearing browns, all shades of greys, blues, et cetera. I've only ever seen blue burkas, why? Jachin 20:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I would think, walking around, say Kabul (now full of people from all over Afghanistan) that I have never seen a burqa that was not blue. It is a bit like saying that dinner jackets (tuxedos) are normally black - or like saying it in the 1950s, when it was. 88.97.15.184 16:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

"...one of Afghanistan's rulers..."
From the article:
 * The burqa was created by one of Afghanistan's rulers trying to stop anyone from seeing his wives' faces.

First, can we have a reference? Secondly, can we name and link to the article for this ruler, please? 70.20.175.189 21:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

According to "The Bookseller of Kabul" (Åsne Seierstad) the burka (sic?) was introduced as a social symbol during the reign of Habibullah from 1901 to 1919 to hide the faces of his harem of 200 women from other men when outside the palace. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Forbidden Alchemist (talk • contribs) 04:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Criticism
I am not expert in this area by any imagination, but shouldnt there be a criticism part of the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.77.85.254 (talk) 18:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Pakistan
I think the number of women wearing the Burqa in Pakistan has grown in recent years, not declined. In the Punjab, you will see most of the women in the villages and smaller cities wearing the Niqab, not the blue Burqa but the black face veil which has the eyes free. If you may walk through different locations in London, UK, which are mostly populated of South Asians, you will sometimes see even every 10th Pakistani woman wearing it (especially Tooting, Whitechapel which is more Bangladeshi, and the Green Street in East London). In Faisalabad in the Pakistani Punjab, you won't find many women not wearing the Niqab. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.34.172.179 (talk) 16:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Malaysia
The government of the Malaysian state of Kelantan has suggested a ban if it's deemed necessary Nil Einne (talk) 09:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Only around since 1996?
I've heard that the Burqa has only actually been around since 1996. Is this true? If so, i think it should be included on the main page.


 * No, I've found references to it in 19th century British works re India. Zora 07:55, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

How about the Middle Easterners that have been wearing burqas for a long time? You'd see movies, books and internet websites regarding the women during the Ottoman Empire, Arab countries, Iran and those in the Arabian (1001) Nights wearing burqas. So, I'd disagree on the statement that it has only been around since 1996. --Fantastic4boy 06:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I saw dirty worn "burqa's" in E.Pakistan (B'deish) in 1964 that looked decades-old on very old village and older poorer urban women. Thus I'm very sure they had long historic tradition. The revolutionary change was that I saw almost none in 1995, only 30-yrs later (after the separation of the "Peoples Republic" of Bongladeish from the previous "Islamic-Republic" of Pakistan. HalFonts (talk) 08:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

New phrase
There's been a lot of references in the media to a new slang term for this type of dress --- the 'beekeeper'. Shouldn't it be mentioned in the article? --137.186.246.247 (talk) 18:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Belgium parliament passed burqa ban
In whole Belgium burqas and nikabs are banned.
 * BBC:Belgian lawmakers pass burka ban 80.226.26.167 (talk) 15:08, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I corrected and updated the article: the proposed law was approved by the Belgian "Chamber" of Parliament on 30 April 2010, and it has now to be approved by the Senate. However, on the very same day, the Belgian government finally collapsed due to other political issues so that both Chamber and Senate will be dissolved soon and there will be an election in June 2010. It is highly unlikely that this bill will become a law any time now. KathaLu (talk) 14:17, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Jewish women wearing burka
There is some small amount of Jewish women wearign burka 1. Not sure though if it should go to the article.--Stansult (talk) 07:30, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Spelling...Please spell the cloak "burka" or "burkah" or "burkha", but not "burqa"...the latter is bunq
I see there are others who choose to spell "burka" for the article of clothing, but the article title is "burqa", which is pretentious in my view and a bit toadying. There are no proper words in English in which a 'q' is followed by anything but a 'u', and I think we should stop allowing foreign influence to corrupt the language.

173.54.37.223 (talk) 04:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Welcome to the English language, which has been adopting words from all over the world for centuries. You could accurately say that English didn't exist until a foreign influence came along.  Maintaining or simulating the original spelling of loanwords is a hoary tradition in English, and your crusade to stop it will have to go far beyond complaining on Wikipedia talk pages.   Elmo iscariot (talk) 19:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Israel
"They took their lead in this extreme modesty from a woman they considered holy, but who later was convicted of multiple counts of child abuse. "Nobody forced them; however, she clearly convinced these gullible and needy women that the ideal for a woman was not to be seen in public (and not even to be heard - she used to stop talking for days on end)." This seems awfully POV.--24.22.167.13 (talk) 03:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I've tried to rewrite it. I thought it was worth keeping as long as it was obvious what was opinion. Myrvin (talk) 11:19, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Islam
"some Islamic traditions" it not part of islam never has been should that not be mentioned as is not part of the holy text or part of islamic law and more culture arab clothes as this is a place/website for information that needs to be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.24.51.238 (talk) 11:18, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Misleading text
I edited political parts of the text because it gave no religious perspective at all. It made the whole subject of the veil rather a vague subject, while in reality it is a tradition carried on for many centuries and based upon well established religious texts in the Quran and hadith. It also suggested "many" Muslim groups sympathised with Jack Straw! Which is far from true. His comments caused an outrage because the women in UK who wear a veil do so out of religious conviction and belief, from their own choice. While Jack Straw could not understand this side.

YOUR ARE WRONG read it proper if its religious then it would be backed up but a reilgon BUT ITS NOT!!!!! NO ISLAMIC LAW SAYS ANYTHING ABOUT IT nor does the quran says woman wear it should wear it as it was around before then so to add false opinions goes agianist PPOV rules on wikipedia, your own opinions of islam are not the actually pratice or islam and the burqa veil etc.... HAS VERY POLITICAL backround and yes most wont tell you but are actually wearing it as a way of going agianist west culture no matter how vein its become "wear a veil do so out of religious conviction and belief" it not always the case and yes of course they would say it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.24.51.238 (talk) 11:51, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Spain
Is there a reason why Spain hasn't been included in this article? I was just doing some research and found the following article from 2010 about various places in Spain which have banned the burqa in various ways:

http://www.spanishnews.es/20100623-senate-gives-green-light-on-burka-ban-in-spain/id=2713/

Halflistening (talk) 20:39, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Image
On 28th November, Dwp49423 replaced Image:Woman walking in Afghanistan.jpg with Image:Burqa Afghanistan 01.jpg (diff). I believe that the former image is better because it shows the whole body. On the other hand, the latter image show better details of the textile from which the burqa is made. I'd just appreciate a general discussion, what are the pros and cons of each of these images? Puchiko (Talk-email) 23:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I think both images are beautiful. However, in the first one her bare feet are showing with sandels and I think a woman should be covered completely -- head to toe -- to show her purity and her beauty. God is great. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.155.110.74 (talk) 13:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

A woman should not be covered from head to toe, she should have the right to be clothed as she wishes. If it were gods wish and a sign of purity we were not born naked.77.11.182.241 (talk) 13:32, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Air Flow?
I am certainly not making fun or light of the Burqa or the people that wear them. I just can't understand how someone would want to be covered from head to toe in something (especially black) when temperatures and most likely humidity can be unbearable.

Can anyone who wears one explain this?

Allaccesspasses (talk) 13:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

^^ Actually, the Burqa os usually made of a very light material like Chiffon , so nobody feels uncomfortable wearing it. Btw, most Muslim areas are not so humid either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.203.53 (talk) 11:19, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Nobody is feeling uncomfortable? I doubt woman like to wear significantly more clothes than men in public.77.11.182.241 (talk) 13:33, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Misleading text
I edited political parts of the text because it gave no religious perspective at all. It made the whole subject of the veil rather a vague subject, while in reality it is a tradition carried on for many centuries and based upon well established religious texts in the Quran and hadith. It also suggested "many" Muslim groups sympathised with Jack Straw! Which is far from true. His comments caused an outrage because the women in UK who wear a veil do so out of religious conviction and belief, from their own choice. While Jack Straw could not understand this side. Plumfroot (talk) 23:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

What part of the Quran mentions this garment? Oh, I can tell you right away. Not a single line. There is a couple of non-Quran texts that make vague references to clothing that *could* be interpreted as a burqa - but those texts are the subject of theological debate among muslims. Valois63 (talk) 00:23, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

@Plumfroot: Did you ask them if they are wearing it out of their own choice? I doubt many people would want to wear clothes that limit themselves.77.11.182.241 (talk) 13:37, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Legal sanctions
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. Myrvin (talk) 17:41, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * See my addition to the ban in France. It's as if someone there read this. I still wonder about the cold weather scarf and the sunglasses. Myrvin (talk) 11:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It has been banned because many women don´t wear it as a sign of their free choice. Also nuns etc. wear working clothes but may wear normal street clothes on under circumstances. Also it is impossible to tell for police etc. to tell who wears the burqa.77.11.182.241 (talk) 13:40, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

France
I find it interesting that France has illegalized the burkha in order to prevent the "separation and marginalization" of women, yet logically, if the burka-wearing woman in question has strong beliefs that Allach requires this practice of her, the only possible response for her is to stay in her home at all times and never appear in public. So much for freeing her from restrictions and allowing her to live as a part of society. Personally, I can see how some people would find it comforting to wear concealing garments in public. Of course, I seriously doubt that the law was really passed for anything like the reasons the politicians gave (are they ever?). Undoubtedly, it was ploy to pander to Western women voters, or simply to be a dick to Muslims. AnnaGoFast (talk) 23:38, 3 February 2016 (UTC)


 * It was illegalized because a) it limits muslims women´s rights compared to western woman ( why would anyone want to be restricted)

b) authorities cannot tell the identity of the person wearing the burqa77.11.182.241 (talk) 13:42, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

merge proposal
I propose to merge the multiple descriptions of legislation or cultural norms which may dictate to wear or to ban the wearing of any form of Islamic which are described on this page and multiple other pages to be merged into the article Hijab by country. Please do not discuss here but on the talk page there: Talk:Hijab_by_country. LucLeTruc (talk) 12:50, 24 December 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LucLeTruc (talk • contribs)

Germany
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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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 (talk • contribs)

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."

(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"

(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"  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)


 * 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 (, 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)
 * 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".
 * 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."
 * 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."
 * Spiegel Online notes only that the CDU wants to ban the burqa in certain settings . 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.
 * 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.

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 's question above, per WP:ONUS, the "onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." I believe 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. 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).  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. 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. 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. 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
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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120317155939/http://hamshahrionline.ir/news-8213.aspx to http://hamshahrionline.ir/news-8213.aspx

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

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

History and creation?
Where is the history and creation and first uses of the Burqa? When was it first ordered in these areas mentioned in these sections, was it brought in by migration, what is the history of the first verifiable use of this garment? Mjp1976 (talk) 09:24, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Uzbekistan
On Radio 4 (BBC) the other day one of Boris Johnson's supporters said that the burqa was banned in Uzbekistan. A quick google suggests that some sort of ban was brought in back in 2012, but I'm not sure that the sources are reliable.  Tigerboy1966  09:04, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Armeen.junaid's additions
Thanks for your contributions. Unfortunately, there were a number issues with the added content, and the current version had to be reverted. Please help addressing the problems listed below, so we can restore an improved version.


 * 1) In the addition to subsection, "Reasons for wearing", please clarify whether the source is making a generalization about burqa wearers around the world or in a particular region. It appears that the study is of women in the Netherlands only, but the relevant pages seem to be unavailable in preview.
 * 2) Please cite a more specific page range for this passage.
 * 3) In the same section the passage "someone who wears the burqa should have good intentions" needs an attribution. Who is asserting this: the author? the women? Islamic scholars?
 * 4) In the added subsection "Non- Muslim Views", the citation is uninformative. Please correct.
 * 5) In the same subsection, there are some dubious passages. Please provide quotations from the source, so we can ensure that it's reflected correctly: a) "Discrimination ... can be seen all over the world" (including Afghanistan?); b) "Muslim women see it as a respect towards their religion" (all Muslim women?); c) "They are not only discriminated just for wearing the burqa, but rather because it identifies them as a Muslim in society." (the syntax is inconsistent, starting with "not only" and ending with "but rather")
 * 6) "===Canada===[116]" This broke the section layout by introducing a citation on a section title, which is not WP style.
 * 7) Unfortunately, the text added on the US has multiple problems. Aside from the defective citations, the text uses unclear and sometimes contradictory phrasing and is generally not up to encyclopedic standards. If you'd like to try and improve it, I'd willing to help you. It's better to work incrementally, so we can get consensus on one passages before moving on to the next. Eperoton (talk) 22:49, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 January 2019 and 18 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Armeen.junaid.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:25, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

hi
no 2601:147:200:3F10:5C43:48BC:CB73:BFCF (talk) 23:52, 10 June 2022 (UTC)