This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights
This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Arab Emirates, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Arab Emirates on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United Arab EmiratesWikipedia:WikiProject United Arab EmiratesTemplate:WikiProject United Arab EmiratesUnited Arab Emirates
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Discussion re-started by WP:SOCK on same points discussed with prior socks, elsewhere on this talkpage
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Minor edit compromise most quotes are left in but all sources the community approved inside the conditions page gets placed in the summary as government controlled processes of legal punishments. The only quote combined and shortened is the one about interpretation of the law which is subjective and is not legal precedence, with no real legal standing so it is unfit for Wikipedia quotation. Laws are not open to "interpretation" they should be applied appropriately as written as that is why they exists and are written the way they are. If you disagree kindly give your reasoning here, 'please discuss here first' thank you.
155.137.183.249 (talk) 09:12, 28 December 2022 (UTC) [Block-evading sock using this IP, struck by AukusRuckus (talk) 16:39, 4 January 2023 (UTC)][reply]
@Jacob, my response: Laws are, of course, open to interpretation (that's the basis of so much litigation in many jurisdictions), just not by WP editors in articles. On Wikipedia, analysis and interpretation by experts is appropriate and helpful. Attribution for the analysis you dispute was included, and the source quote even gave both views. Reliable sources relay that even UAE lawyers themselves use the "sexual assault" interpretation, though they concede there's no legal certainty on this (as judges have so far not needed to make a ruling on any specific interpretation of the provision). AukusRuckus (talk) 07:16, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The quotes while they could be potentially somewhat helpful are too heavily emphasized we do not WP:RANT using the same piece in multiple section to take up a quarter of the page and so condensing it seems reasonable to keep the information concise remembering readability, avoiding WP:ARTI avoid source hijacking of the article so it stays on topic, and WP:TMI not letting one source take up too much overall. The interpretation of the law does not fit as WP:SPECULATION applies we are not here to interpret law we are not experts and WP:OPINION as how we think a policy and law applies is not valid either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.137.183.249 (talk) 09:40, 28 December 2022 (UTC) [Block-evading sock using this IP, struck 16:39, 4 January 2023 (UTC)][reply]
This is clearly rubbish, Jacob. Sources are used for whatever information they can provide, as long as it is relevant to the article, and the source is reliable. Quotes used here were a little more prominent than the average but were placed in response to your long-term campaign to insist that what the sources say, they do not say. Failing to realise your capacity to continue to say black is "white" in the face of the evidence, my attempts to satisfy your doubts were pointless. You were never going to concede, no matter how much evidence was provided.
I am unable to respond to you further. If you wish an edit made, please use the protected page edit request facility, and some other editor will respond. Please do not expect me to discuss anything on WP with you ever again. I can't bear it any longer. AukusRuckus (talk) 07:16, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As a start, I will restate what I think your arguments are:
You feel your change condenses the article to improve readability
You believe there's too much indiscriminate detail in the current version, per WP:TMI
Quotes from Amnesty International and ILGA, internationally known, credible experts, amount to WP:SPECULATION and WP:OPINION
Analysis of the legal situation in UAE by experts should not be included; it is the same as us, the editors of WP and non-experts, interpreting the law
I believe there is no current clear source to support the death penalty as a legal sanction: I've been searching. There were amendments to the code in 2021 and again in 2022, which seem to be aimed at world opinion, possibly ruling out the death penalty for these offences. Article 1 now says:
The provisions of the Islamic Shari'a shall apply to the retribution and blood money crimes. Other crimes and their respective punishments shall be provided for in accordance with the provisions of this Law and other applicable penal codes.
Does this mean 'definitely not'? 'Perhaps not'? 'Yes'? Who knows: I certainly don't, and neither do you unless you are an expert in UAE law or can supply an up-to-date, unambiguous, reliable source. Even before the amendments, that ILGA report [1] used to source it in the infobox [2] says any capital penalty is "theoretical", or legally unclear, and for that reason should not have appeared in the infobox, even back then: it needs context and discussion in the body. It is WP:UNDUE without that.
There is extensive discussion on this point in the talk archives, mostly in countering a block-evading sock who was determined "death" should appear there. This met with opposition even then, and that was before the penal code was changed twice; it seems a yet more tenuous penalty now. (Please don't make me go through this horror again! Only, sort of, joking.) Would appreciate it if this is not put into the box again unless there is a clear consensus to do so. AukusRuckus (talk) 08:33, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
^(it just says, in brief: "Death (P)" on a chart on the cited page, p. 328. There is a detailed explanation and discussion of the uncertainty on pp. 81–82)
The law said that only a report of husband or male guardian can be processed. Does it mean it's legal for homosexual men? -GogoLion (talk) 08:59, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
