Talk:Blasphemy law in the United Arab Emirates

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Blasphemy law in the United Arab Emirates. 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/20130408115123/http://gopher.state.gov/ERC/democracy/1993_hrp_report/93hrp_report_nea/UnitedArabEmirates.html to http://gopher.state.gov/ERC/democracy/1993_hrp_report/93hrp_report_nea/UnitedArabEmirates.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090902130211/http://report2009.amnesty.org/en/regions/middle-east-north-africa/uae to http://report2009.amnesty.org/en/regions/middle-east-north-africa/uae

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:28, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Blasphemy law in the United Arab Emirates. 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/20050515134500/http://www.orbitmoving.com/Index.asp?ArticleID=82&CategoryID=84 to http://www.orbitmoving.com/Index.asp?ArticleID=82&CategoryID=84

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) 19:28, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Introduction and selected cases
Hello. I have noticed your restoration of some content and I think I may have an idea behind it, but would like to inquire more. If its acceptable with you, I'd like to go over with you on certain re-additions that you have restored to better understand your reasoning.

Starting with the introduction:


 * "The United Arab Emirates (UAE) has Islam as its official religion, and the federation regards blasphemy as a very serious matter."
 * I don't believe this is a proper encyclopedic introduction, might be proper for a magazine but not wiki standard in my opinion.


 * "The UAE uses the school system as well as censorship and control of the press and the broadcast media to prevent blasphemy."
 * bold claim, and not supported by sources


 * "When blasphemy occurs, the Emirates have two court systems to mete out punishment. "
 * no source again

Now with the selected cases section. I have removed this section as it is not written objectively from the sources, and I fail to understand its point in an encyclopedia other than lending undue weight to certain ideas, incidents, or controversies. If you feel strongly about adding it I won't object, however it should be added according to the sources and written objectively per WP:OR and in a NPOV manner.


 * "In 1993, after an appeal, two of ten Indian expatriates convicted in 1992 of blasphemy for producing and performing in a play that was critical of Islam and Christianity had their sentences extended from six years to ten years."
 * I couldn't find this information in the source provided, neither on a quick web search. Hence, I removed it as its not verifiable. Please let me know if you have a source for it.


 * "In 2008, three Filipino workers were jailed in the Emirate of Sharjah allegedly for ripping a page out of the Quran and scribbling on the page. The allegation arose during a dispute between the workers and their employer. The government revoked the workers' permits to work."
 * Per source given: "three are accused, in the Emirates, of having ripped a page out of the Qur'an, according to an employee of the company that has fired them" the source further goes to say "controversy was underway with the head of the company, which ended with the firing of the three and of seven more of their colleagues". Also, the source states "But there is suspicion over the affair of the Filipinos, who have not been charged in court since their arrest". They even state "In Muslim countries where there are specific laws on blasphemy, in fact, accusations often have their true origin in personal animosity or in economic questions. ".. Now they might well be jailed for "blasphemy", however the source doesn't state that they were charged with blasphemy or that the government revoked their permits to work neither do we know if they were handed a sentence or simply arrested for "controversy", a complaint against them, or just because they felt like it. We don't have the full information here. If anything, this should be added as an allegation rather than a confirmed statement.


 * "In 2012, a French businessman was arrested for defacing the Quran by spitting on it before he assaulted and threatened to kill a new British Muslim convert after she refused to marry him. The Frenchman spat on the Quran and insulted Islam and all its prophets. He also threw on the floor a separate book that contained collections of Hadith. He was arrested and jailed for two years."
 * The defendant here was accused of insulting the Quran and Hadith, however the same source states "prosecutors charged R.J. with trespassing into S.M.’s home, threatening to kill her, assaulting and locking her up." The way it is written here implies that he was jailed for defacing the quran, which is not what the source states and is quite dishonest.


 * "On August 2021, an ex-Muslim from Kerala, Abdul Khader Puthiyandadi was arrested without bail and sentenced to prison for three years for criticizing Quran and Hadith in United Arab Emirates on the grounds of the blasphemy law.
 * I tried to look this up on the Human Rights Watch or Amnesty international however I couldn't find another source other than The Hindu or websites of Atheist Alliance International which I don't consider to be neutral here. A quick search brings up a lot of online activism on facebook with links to this page and his picture and particularly if you notice the single purpose account which added it here.

Anyways, these are my thoughts. Thank you for reading through my long text, I just felt like explaining my edits. Let me know what you think and I appreciate your thoughts. Gorebath (talk) 01:38, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm open to that. What wording would you suggest for the WP:LEAD section? If you think the Selected cases section sources aren't WP:RELIABLE SOURCES you need to tag them with . After discussion on this Talk page and gaining WP:Consensus you can remove them. Editor2020 (talk) 01:56, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * My previous lead was "The United Arab Emirates (UAE) law against blasphemy is governed by article 312 of the United Arab Emirates Penal Code." in which you have reverted. Let me know why that doesn't work for you. As for the selected cases sections its not just a matter of WP:RELIABLE SOURCE, as I mentioned above there is a lot of content which does not pass WP:VER and WP:OR which doesn't need consensus to be removed as well as WP:BALASP, and WP:CHERRYPICK. Would appreciate your opinion. Gorebath (talk) 02:06, 4 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I deleted the unreferenced material in the Lead section. In the selected cases section I think that Asia News and Gulf News are Reliable Sources and don't see any cherrypicking. As far as balance is concerned you are free to add any balancing referenced material that you want and don't get to decide that on your own, but only by concensus with the other editors. Now that you have presented your arguments, let's see what they say. Editor2020 (talk) 15:36, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll be away from my computer for about a week. Have fun. Editor2020 (talk) 15:56, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I never claimed Asian News or Gulf news were not reliable in this context. As for context to adding news reports I've quoted balancing aspect wikipolicy which states the discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about one subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to be added to the article topic. However, I agree with consensus building. As for cherrypicking read the cited source and the information added here, my comments up are for clarification and addresses each point. Gorebath (talk) 21:37, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Notes from new page patrol review
Came up for review due to undoing conversion to a redirect. IMO meets criteria for a separate article. Needs work and it looks like there is work in progress. Thanks for your work! Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:27, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:51, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Abdul Khader Puthiyangadi.jpg