Talk:Human rights in Jordan
|A fact from Human rights in Jordan appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 17 August 2006. The text of the entry was as follows: "Did you know
|WikiProject Human rights||(Rated Start-class, High-importance)|
|WikiProject Palestine||(Rated C-class, Mid-importance)|
"Jordan's laws against Jewish citizenship or land ownership"
The article refers to "Jordan's laws against Jewish citizenship or land ownership".
Regarding citizenship, the article selectively quotes one article of the law that is only concerned with the West Bank. This article grants Jordanian citizenship to non-Jewish residents of the West Bank, following its annexation in 1950. The rest of the law does not discriminate against Jews in any way. So essentially, all the quoted article really provides for is a preferential treatment of West Bank Arabs during a specific period in the past (between 1949 and 1954) with regards to acquisition of citizenship, hardly an issue in an article about human rights in Jordan.
Regarding land ownership, as far as I can tell, according to , this is a reference to a law passed in Jordan in 1973 which makes the sale of immovable property to an Israeli punishable by death (Israel and Jordan were in a state of war at the time). The law does not target sale to Jews. The law has since been repealed, and today there does not appear to be any discrimination against Jews or Israelis specifically regarding ownership of immovable property.
The quoted sources make these accusations without providing any reference, and at least two of the three authors (Netanyahu and Kellner) have no expertise in Jordanian law. The third, Dershowitz, though a law professor, writes his accusation in a commentary column, not an academic publication. For such a grave accusation, that Jordan has antisemitic laws, I would expect a more substantial source.--Doron (talk) 07:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Questions about dramatic changes to the lead made on 19 May 2011?
At 10:23, 19 May 2011 changes were made to the lead of the article by 18.104.22.168 that dramatically changed its long standing meaning (since 1 July 2009). No explanation for the changes was given and no sources were cited. I considered simply reversing the changes, but after a quick glance at recent information from Amnesty International on human rights in Jordan it seems as if the most recent changes may be at least as accurate as the older long standing version. So for now, I'm going to leave the recent changes in place, flag the article as in dispute or out-of-date, and see if we can sort things out here.
- The record of human rights in Jordan continues to be a matter of concern for many international human rights groups but there have been a series of reforms in order to address these issues. The Jordanian Government has proven to be very receptive to recommendations and reports issued by human rights watchdogs. Jordan has made extensive reforms in order to address human rights violations like prison abuse and torture in partnership with the EU.
- The record of human rights in Jordan continues to be a matter of concern for many international human rights groups, despite a few reforms in order to address such issues. The Jordanian Government has not proven to be very receptive to recommendations and reports issued by human rights watchdogs, and the country has not made any substantial reforms in order to address human rights violations like prison abuse and torture.
Done I changed the lead to read:
- Human rights in Jordan continues to be a matter of concern for many in and outside of the country, including international human rights groups.
This statement makes no sense
The following statement, taken from the Overview section, makes little sense: "legal and societal discrimination and harassment of religious minorities and converts from Islam are a concern, although Jordan is widely acknowledged as being a strong supporter of religious freedom."
How can the government engage in discrimination against religious minorities yet have a reputation as a strong supporter of religious freedom? It can't. The following statement appears in the Freedom of Religion section:"The Government bans conversion from Islam and efforts to proselytize Muslims. While proselytizing to Christians may not be banned, it is equally not favored and very hampered with bureaucratic red tape that renders it near impossible to legalize."
Again, that isn't exactly what I would call freedom of religion. Regarding the supposed "wide acknowledgment" of Jordan's strong support of religious freedom, none of the sources provided for that particular portion of the overview section mention that Jordan has a strong record of religious freedom. After looking through the sources, the only one that I can find that might back the ridiculous claim that Jordan is recognized far and wide for its religious freedom is reference 21, an article in the Jordan Times, which happens to be a dead link. I was able to determine that the Jordan Times article referred to a US State Dept. report from 2009. One country does not constitute wide acknowledgement. Furthermore, the 2010 State Dept. report on Religious freedom in Jordan is not what anyone would consider commendatory. Mentioning the 2009 report without mentioning the far more critical 2010 report is dishonest, to say the least. Incidentally, the Jordan Times is owned by the Jordanian government.22.214.171.124 (talk) 02:37, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
- I was able to find the 2009 US State Dept. report on religious freedom in Jordan, and the text of the report makes it apparent that the glowing claims made in the Religious Freedom section regarding that report are disingenuous bullshit. And, as I mentioned in my above comment, the source used in regards to the content of the US State Dept. report is a Jordanian state-owned newspaper, not exactly a paragon of objectivity. The following quote appears in the Religious Freedom section:
- "In fact, Jordan has been highlighted as a model of interfaith dialogue"
- This is what the report says about interfaith dialogue in Jordan:
- "The Government continued to play a prominent role in promoting interfaith dialogue and harmony, including by hosting a visit by Pope Benedict XVI for a full program that included a meeting with King Abdullah. However, the Government continued to harass some citizens suspected of proselytizing Muslims and a few converts to Christianity, including by attempting to induce them to revert to Islam. The Shari'a court, which has family law jurisdiction for Muslims, continued proceedings against a convert from Islam. Converts from Islam risk the loss of civil rights."
- Here is another gem of a quote from the same report:
- "Adherents of unrecognized religions and Muslims who convert to other religions face societal discrimination and the threat of mental and physical abuse."
- Yeah, so much for interfaith harmony.126.96.36.199 (talk) 03:01, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Most democratic in ME after Turkey and Israel?
What is the statement based on? I think Lebanon and Cyprus are considered more democratic than Jordan, see Economist Intelligence Unit's Democracy Index, for example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 01:34, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Human rights in Jordan. 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/20100725064836/http://www.jordaninvestment.com/JordanataGlance/SecurityPoliticalStability/tabid/72/language/en-US/Default.aspx to http://www.jordaninvestment.com/JordanataGlance/SecurityPoliticalStability/tabid/72/language/en-US/Default.aspx
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721000000/http://en.rsf.org/press-freedom-index-2010%2C1034.html to http://en.rsf.org/press-freedom-index-2010%2C1034.html
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.