Talk:LGBT rights in the United Arab Emirates

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. Student editor(s): Xwboy123.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:01, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Merge

This article should be merged into Human rights in the United Arab Emirates. — Hex (❝?!❞) 14:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Sodomy does not cover LGBT rights

This article is misleading, it addresses sodomy laws but does not consider LGBT rights. It should be removed or rewritten to address more pressing LGBT issues, such as discrimination, violence, and relationship recognition. The article doesn't even mention lesbians, or address non-sodomite males. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amornoguerra (talk • contribs) 22:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly sodomy defines primarily anal sex as well as oral and not all gay men have anal sex; also I think Quran doesn’t mention lesbians but only gays thus since UAE follows sharia law it remains silent on female homosexuality the same as Qatar where female homosexuality isn’t illegal Nlivataye (talk) 06:41, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Sources?

This article says homosexuality can be punished by forced chemical castration or execution. I've seen a few UAE citizens strongly dispute that this happens, and while I could find quite a lot of websites carrying this information, I didn't find anything that looked to be an obviously reliable source. Is there a source available for this? I'm not removing it yet, but it seems like the kind of statement that should be supported. 131.169.205.135 (talk) 10:25, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Have removed references to death penalty. Death penalty for homosexual rape does not qualify as death penalty for homosexuality. This was probably added by an editor who does not know the difference between homosexuality and rape -Sahir 10:09, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Following the source, it does say "Until recently, homosexuals were forced to receive hormone treatments and were chemically castrated in an effort to "fix" their sexual orientation" But there is no clarification on if this has stopped. It certainly has not been outlawed, so we can assume it is common-practice. If you asked the average American citizen before the Snowden leaks about the spying programme, they would have given equally mixed answers. This means nothing, especially in a place like the UAE. 85.210.109.176 (talk) 10:02, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Death penalty

There's no evidence that this is applied and no sources. Cornell's centre on the death penalty does not list it as an offence that incurs the death penalty in their comprehensive list.

https://www.deathpenaltyworldwide.org/country-search-post.cfm?country=United+Arab+Emirates

There are no extant cases of execution for this either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.218.140.146 (talk) 13:50, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

ILGA is a baised source

Under WP:SPS it would count as self punlished therefore "generally not reliable" plus it does not fall into the WP:RSR and their writing is one way opinionated opting to only express pro-LGBT opinions instead of being wp:neutral — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moneyspender (talk • contribs) 22:33, 4 July 2019 (UTC) So I vote to disallow this "source" from being quoted or referenced. Moneyspender (talk) 22:40, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Maybe you need to ask at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard about International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association. I expect the question has been raised before. History Today is written by historians. Does that make it biased? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:45, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Dude, wtf!!! Again? Will u just chillax please? U are the one who is biased and vandalising Its been a year that i'm in wiki i have more than 3000 edit majority are accepted in each lgbt rights page Ok so u are biased islamophobic arabophobic because u are somehow convinced that just bcos uae or qatar apply sgaria law this means excution for gays We established and said that unlike iran saudi Mauretania uae qatar and some others although they have death penalty for gays in the books not spcefic towards them but just cause of sharia law. ILGA yearly review is the best plus it is clear and i'm speaking as an ex muslim gay Arab who know and able to read Arabic living in a country where being a crime, i assure both countries are a secret heaven for gays compared to others, the govs doesnt monitor the beds or phones or secret meetings just public or tgose advocating or politivising issues or "parties" And also that the uae and qatar never excuted anyone for being gay whether muslim or not whether national or a foreigner Some incidents occur yes but none and i say again none Surprise me and i dare you to provide me a source that stated there have been an excution in uae or qatar just cos one is gay i dare u Plus the edit shows that yes the death penalty is possible I dream that these laws will change and be abolished but unfortunately its not anytime soon

Also i added that some face deportation if they are foreigners u reverted that too? Wtf? Will a country deport its nationals or foreigners?

Oh and all wiki pages use ilga so? Hope its clear?

Why is ilga biased how provide sources come on? AdamPrideTN (talk) 23:02, 4 July 2019 (UTC) One way wp:bias and WP:selfpublished also see the dispute with you tagged Moneyspender (talk) 23:19, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

@Jedi Friend: @Kwamikagami: @Panda2018 0: @Ron 1987: @Jdcooper: Please read the recent edit history of the page the talk and even the english national source he provided that it was male female adultry bcos of pregnancy and marriage and not homosexual relations and that his same source states Abu Dhabi Criminal Court has previously sentenced people convicted of adultery to death by stoning, but these sentences have not yet been enforced. And is ILGA really an unbiased sourve as he claims Come on!! Thx AdamPrideTN (talk) 11:28, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

AdamPrideTN, Moneyspender clearly claims that ILGA is a biased source, and further that it is a WP:SPS which sounds a little bizarre to me. But the edit summary here said: "while I work on that here is the 2019 edition of ILGA and I will write up my reasons why I think it's unreliable tomorrow in the talkpage". So we await an explanation. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:35, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Firstly the source may be Wikipedia:Advocacy since the article itself is written from the point of view of an organization is are for gay rights so therefore will write everything to be pro-gay or from the view of what gays experience. It can also be wp:coi since posting from pro-gay sources will also cause the wording and attitudes in the page to slant toward that political and social attitude and opinion. It also is a wp:blog since it is written an released by itself and cannot be considered an expert since anyone can just publish opinions and as defined an expert needs to have and use a particular skill and I'm not sure that definition would fit for ILGA. Moneyspender (talk) 04:16, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: Can you believe that he is saying that ILGA which is the biggest world federation of national and local organisations dedicated to achieving equal rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans and intersex (LGBTI) people across the globe.

Established in 1978, ILGA enjoys consultative status at the UN Ecosoc Council. It speaks and lobbies in international fora on behalf of more than 1,500 member organisations from 150 countries and territories,

who are based in our six regions: Pan Africa ILGA, ILGA Asia, ILGA-Europe, ILGALAC (Latin America and the Caribbean), ILGA North America and ILGA Oceania. That is equipped with worldwide highly equipeed lawyers and legal translators and all Is said to be "a blog" acvording to him

He still failed to provide a single source in English or Arabic or any language that states A man or two were killed for having a homosexual relationship whether they are married or not? He still didn't Still waiting The law says excution and Sharia yes But unlike Saudi unlike Iran and as Qatar and Mauretania There have been no known cases of excution because of homosexuality Please provide a teliable source @Moneyspender: AdamPrideTN (talk) 12:32, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

AdamPrideTN, yes, the logic there is also lost on me. I suggest that you ask about this at WP:RSN. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:13, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

@Moneyspender: Still waiting for any reliable source in Engkish or Arabic to prove that homosexuality was a reason for excuting anyone in UAE, Qatar or Mauretania??

So????

If not @Martinevans123: will have the authority to revert your edits to make it accurate

Ok! AdamPrideTN (talk) 20:35, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

AdamPrideTN, do you want ask about using ILGA sources at WP:RSN, or shall I? Looking specifically at this source the UAE section starts is on pages 479-481 and there is no mention there of execution. But the table on page 532 shows the maximum penalty in UAE is "DEATH (P)", whatever that means. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:08, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: the source is not wrong or contradictory , the section shows clearly that yes the excutions is P (possible) like in Qatar Mauretania or Pakistan (although i will never understand why this user is so fixated with the UAE page only although i edited all other pages accordingly too) but is not E (enforced) like unfortunately it is in Saudi Arabia or Iran amongst others.

It is P not E thats what i showed in my edits that there have been no known excutions akthiugh there is the death penalty in the law (hope it is clear) (for him especially) AdamPrideTN (talk) 21:35, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps you could explain to us the meaning of "(P)" and "(E)", after "DEATH", in that table? Perhaps there is a key somewhere, but I could not find it. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:40, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: hi yes as i said its written small there

E for effective

P for possible

is P (possible) like in Qatar Mauretania or Pakistan (although i will never understand why this user is so fixated with the UAE page only although i edited all other pages accordingly too) but is not E (enforced) like unfortunately it is in Saudi Arabia or Iran amongst others. AdamPrideTN (talk) 19:09, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

@Martinevans123:

Allright 3 4 days with no answer no rekiable source and apparently the dude is starting another pointless war edit in singapore with another editor where he didnt want to undeestand that law is on the books but not enforced and that singapore allows pinkdot one of the largest gay prides in Asia.

Would u be so kind and make the necessary back to my one showing on the whole article the true situation there. Thank you. AdamPrideTN (talk) 11:39, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Moneyspender, would you please respond here? Do you now accept that ILGA is a good source? If not, could you please raise the question at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard? I now have removed "execution" from the infobox, as the ILGA source you yourself kindly provided does not seem to support it. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:10, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Impatient I see, you guys should have expected that I would enjoy my 4th of July weekend in peace. Anyway, for now I'm reverting pending the noticeboard. Moneyspender (talk) 19:36, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Yes, a great day for speeches about airports. But I'm not really sure why your enjoyment, or even 4th of July itself, should have no respect for WP:BRD, let alone 6th July. I'm also not sure that your enquiry at WP:RSN will turn out the way you might want it to. But I have no intention of edit warring, so am quite happy to await for the result over there. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:58, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: Oh i totally forgot about him I mean really wow

Bro, So the dude went on crying at RSN

And got shut out by this experienced veteran editor that said: The most important piece of the reliable source guideline is "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". And judging by the references to the ILGA State Sponsored Homophobia reports in the academic literature, that reputation is excellent. If the ILGA says that something is a confirmed fact, I would support simply stating it as a fact. If it states that "no cases could be found of..." or "appears to be unenforced..." or similar, then I would attribute. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:39, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

So it's been again that he reverted that there are no cases of any excutions and still no sources yet to confirm that

He started another discussion on the death penalty for homosexuality page so really wow! He reverted my edits again no use i guess i mean the fuc**ing Amnesty report said so too, what's more does he want bro

I really don't understand.

And u @Moneyspender: just wow! No words! AdamPrideTN (talk) 01:02, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Moneyspender, the consensus at WP:RSN seems to be that ILGA is not a biased source. Do you now agree? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:56, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

yesMoneyspender (talk) 09:14, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. It should also be clear that it's a reliable source for any similar article, not just this one. By the way, it might be a good idea, to aid clarity of Talk page threads, if you could start new sentences with a capital letter? And if you could also indent your replies to show clearly to whom you are responding? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:30, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

AdamPrideTN pointed out this discussion in Talk:Death_penalty_for_homosexuality, where I've been involved in a dispute with Moneyspender about other sources on the same topic. Another relevant source is the WaPo article we've been discussing there, which says Lawyers in the country and other experts disagree on whether federal law prescribes the death penalty for consensual homosexual sex or only for rape. In a recent Amnesty International report, the organization said it was not aware of any death sentences for homosexual acts.. Another relevant reference is the Cornell Center on the Death Penalty Worldwide, whose entry on UAE doesn't mention consensual gay sex, but does refer to same-sex rape in a couple of places.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Eperoton (talk • contribs) 23:46, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Those look like perfectly good sources. That material could be added here. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:48, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

These seem to disprove those articles. 194.247.60.2 (talk) 04:48, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

References

"vigilante execution"

In my view "vigilante execution" is not a formal legal penalty and so should not appear in the infobox. That term does not appear in the source provided. If there are any reported instances supported by sources they should certainly be mentioned in the article main body text. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:03, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

it's pretty much a given (not OR) since the pattern among multiple Arab countries is that if they allow long jail sentences or have heavily anti-perceptions which the UAE is both it's fair to say they would not care if a homosexual is beaten to death in the streets Moneyspender (talk) 11:06, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Please indent your posts. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:15, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

unrelated
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@Martinevans123: u are right bro, i specefically told him that, plus we are talking about facts and sourced content and not its pretty much a given or i think or i guess or my view is or they are islamic so they kill or attack them Its about facts and i'm sure these kind of Attacks happen everywhere even in the deep south or europe or many african latin country and sometimes officials don't do anything or just enclurage it (Personal attack removed) AdamPrideTN (talk) 23:36, 16 July 2019 (UTC) AdamPrideTN you've been warned on as well as being given a formal warning on about personal attacks and making accusations against editors. If you continue I will have no choice but to add you again to the notice board, seeing as you refuse to be wp:civil Moneyspender (talk) 04:23, 17 July 2019 (UTC) Moneyspender ok no need sorry, didn't mean it, ok. It doesn't matter if you mean it or not, it's not ok and it's against Wikipedia rules. Moneyspender (talk) 18:19, 31 July 2019 (UTC) References

As stated above, in my view, "vigilante execution" is not a formal legal penalty and so should not appear in the infobox. But there is no advice at Template:Infobox LGBT rights, so I have raised the question at Template talk:Infobox LGBT rights. The term was first added to the infobox here by User:Moneyspender. I removed it here as unsourced. It was re-added three days later by User:Moneyspender here. I removed it again here and it was once again added by 78.108.38.157 here with the edit summary “sourced”. My latest removal here was re-added, now for a fourth time, by User:Moneyspender here. The supposed sources are this and this As far as I can see, the only reference to "vigilante" in the first source is this sentence: "In many Muslim-majority countries—including Afghanistan, where Omar Mateen’s parents came from—LGBT people face as much danger from their families or vigilantes as they do from the authorities." The second source, ‘’The Wall Street Journal’’ is behind a subscriber paywall, so I can't read it. Could someone who has access have a look at it? But, even if it is an adequate source for this claim, I still don’t think that "vigilante execution" belongs under "Penalties" in the infobox. Views from other editors are very welcome. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:50, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

p.s. there seems to be another questionable addition of "vigilante execution" to an infobox, this time at LGBT rights in the Maldives, here which seems wholly unsupported by the source. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:05, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I added another source for the Maldives but if you didn't notice it both the Freedom House source and this Independent article both state he was attacked and nearly killed for being openly gay and trying to push freedom to openly practice religions other than IslamMoneyspender (talk) 16:26, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Could you please indent your posts. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:57, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

And I see we how have "vigilante execution" being added here again, and over at Human rights in Dubai by an anon editor with an IP based in Allentown, Pennsylvania? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:45, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what happened here, but many claims in the article are based on simple speculating and linking general Sharia laws capital punishments to personal sexuality, I'll have to read the article thoroughly and review all reflinks in the next couple of days UA3 (talk) 21:59, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Your diligence is much appreciated. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:01, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

@UA3 and Martinevans123: Unfortunately, poorly sourced content is a systemic problem in articles relating to LGBT in the Third World, and much of it seems to be the work of the banned user Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jacobkennedy/Archives. I'm afraid I don't have time at the moment to review all those pages and check the sources, but if you do, you could browse through the history of Death penalty for homosexuality for a partial inventory of their socks and their edit history. That would certainly be a valuable effort. Eperoton (talk) 03:04, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

These are sourced stop reverting them without reading the articles. They validate these legal punishmnets being on the list. See torture, chemical castration. Also vigilante executions will be left out until more accurate sources can be found. However, attacks and allegations of calling me a sock of a banned user is rude and innapropriate. Please re-read WP:NPA. Thanks.204.186.240.186 (talk) 20:29, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

IP 204.186.240.186 are you yet another sock of User:Moneyspender? You reply here as if you were them. Could you please indent your posts. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:43, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm not editing as if anyone. I'm just adding sources as I think fits with the punishments LGBT face in the UAE. No assuming bad faith please. Follow common courtesy and Wikipedia etiquette. 204.186.240.186 (talk) 21:14, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Common courtesy and Wikipedia etiquette require that you indent your posts. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:23, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Now, nearly two years later, it is still my view that "vigilante execution" is not a formal legal penalty and so should not appear in the infobox, nor in the lead section. Additionally the current source here makes the claim but gives no actual examples of any kind. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:24, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

References

Penalty

I promise to add only official penalties in the penalty box itself, meaning only authorized punishments from the Emirati government. In addition, I hope to see if these additional non-government punishments which are well sourced can be mentioned after the official punishments. "Additionally, although not officially sanctioned by the Emirati government, chemical castration, forced psychological treatments, forced hormone injections beatings, and torture have been tolerated." 194.247.60.2 (talk) 10:01, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. That looks more reasonable. I'm not sure I'm able to really judge the quality of those sources. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:16, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

We can add them for now and if someone has an objection, concern or question I'll happily answer them here. Please revert to the edit I last made in the article. Thank you. 194.247.60.2 (talk)

They can be added to the article text. But it is my view they should not be added to the infobox unless they are official legal penalties. Sorry if that wasn't clear. Other views welcome. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:22, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

For clarity/consistency purposes the info should be the same, plus even if not officially through the Emirati government it's still a risk to LGBT life and we want to make sure that all info and safety warnings are also added and not downplayed by not being only written in one place. That strategy doesn't seem to make sense to me. Maybe the sources boxes will have no sources behind it, just the main and additional vigilante punishments. Then we can add the sourced repeated info in the main article. That way the summary boxes aren't clogged up by article references. 194.247.60.2 (talk) 10:39, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

What is your understanding of the word "Penalty" in the infobox? It seems that, unfortunately, Template:Infobox LGBT rights does not offer any definition and does not even provide any examples. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:14, 29 January 2020 (UTC) p.s. you might like to indent your replies here.

Please assist, I tried to simply do some cleanup on sources and people keep reverting. I need assistance.194.247.60.2 (talk) 00:19, 30 January 2020

I thought we had consensus on adding the info but people are giving me a hard time so I guess let's put it to the vote whether we should add the extra penalties. Then hopefully the drama about it will be settled. 194.247.60.2 (talk)(UTC)

GUYS: IF YOU HAVE ANY OBJECTIONS TO ADDING THIS SOURCE SPEAK NOW. If not that means you are okay with the new info being added. 194.247.60.2 (talk) 09:55, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

What is your understanding of the word "Penalty"? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:57, 1 February 2020 (UTC) p.s. do you know what an "indent" is?

Perhaps it would be better to ask if there are any objections before making an edit? And to wait a while to get responses? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:30, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Penalty meaning punishments for actions. 194.247.60.2 (talk) 10:53, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Does anyone have objections to these edits before we go forward?194.247.60.2 (talk) 10:53, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

So does that mean "official punishments" i.e. legal penalties, as defined in UAE law? I suggest that this point is fully discussed and agreed before you make any more edits. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:40, 1 February 2020 (UTC) p.s. if you want to reply, please you can you indent your comment, under mine, by using a series of colon symbols ":"

Punishment will mean both legal and nonlegal punishments since both occur and are culturally embedded in Emirati culture. 194.247.60.2 (talk) 12:05, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Is that something that has been agreed across all "LGBT rights" articles? Does that mean non-legal punishments should be also included in the infobox? I think it's important that the distinction, between these two types of "penalty", is made clear. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:17, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

That is my view and I think at least briefly mentioning non-legal penalties is fair if it is also commonplace and if the authorities refuse to intervene. Ignorance is the same as participating just in a more allusive way194.247.60.2 (talk)

Note that at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Infobox_LGBT_rights the community seems divided on this topic. 194.247.60.2 (talk) 12:27, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

So, you suggest briefly mentioning non-legal penalties in the text but not in the infobox? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:30, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

No I'm suggesting in both the penalty box and text again for consistency sake but Ivthink the way I wrote it makes it clear these are additional penalties that the government turns a blind eye to and may not be directly done by government officials themselves194.247.60.2 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:55, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Then I'll have to strongly disagree with you. I think there should be distinctly separate paragraphs, or even headed sub-sections, that make the distinction quite clear. Of course you are welcome to discuss that further at Template talk:Infobox LGBT rights and reach consensus, but that only covers what's in the infobox. I still think that only legal penalties should appear in the infobox. Meanwhile, it might be wise to get the views of other editors here before any further editing takes place? I'm agreeable to having citations only in the article text and not also in the infobox. But everything should be cited, of course, to WP:RS. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:57, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

For now let's add in text and then I can suggest how I would word it even more consisely in penalty box and see what you think of it. 194.247.60.2 (talk) 23:56, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Oh, then I suspect you'll get reverted again, as we seem to have agreed nothing here. Why not present your prospective changes here, one by one, where they can be commented on by other editors before they appear in the article? If you continue just add and get reverted, you may end up getting blocked for disruption. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:36, 2 February 2020 (UTC) p.s. what have got against indenting comments?

There's only a few edits. After noting that the government punishes homosexuality with death I want to add in the penalty box "with chemical castration, forced hormone injections, forced psychological treatments, beatings, and torture also being tolerated." Then in the text part of the ariticle after the other government sanctioned penalties I wan to add: Additionally, although not officially sanctioned by the Emirati government, chemical castration, forced psychological treatments, beatings, forced hormone injections, and torture have been tolerated. Let me know what you think. 194.247.60.2 (talk) 04:39, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

As I've already said quite clearly above, I don't think that punishments which are "not officially sanctioned" should be added to the imfobox. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:13, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

The additional punishments have been added to the regular text but not the text box194.247.60.2 (talk) 03:21, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

This should have not been restored with edit summary "it is agreed in our discussion". Martin's comment above is "as we seem to have agreed nothing here" and "Meanwhile, it might be wise to get the views of other editors here before any further editing takes place?". Dartslilly (talk) 14:45, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Read the first 4 comments again above or read a copy of them here "I promise to add only official penalties in the penalty box itself, meaning only authorized punishments from the Emirati government. In addition, I hope to see if these additional non-government punishments which are well sourced can be mentioned after the official punishments. "Additionally, although not officially sanctioned by the Emirati government, chemical castration[1][2][3], forced psychological treatments[4], forced hormone injections[permanent dead link]</ref>[5] beatings[6], and torture[7] [8] [9] have been tolerated." 194.247.60.2 (talk) 10:01, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

"Thank you. That looks more reasonable. I'm not sure I'm able to really judge the quality of those sources. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:16, 29 January 2020 (UTC)"

We can add them for now and if someone has an objection, concern or question I'll happily answer them here. Please revert to the edit I last made in the article. Thank you. 194.247.60.2 (talk)

"They can be added to the article text. But it is my view they should not be added to the infobox unless they are official legal penalties. Sorry if that wasn't clear. Other views welcome. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:22, 29 January 2020 (UTC)" I would say that is consensus. Your meddling is not appreciated in this matter Dartsilly194.247.60.2 (talk) 20:50, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, 194.247.60.2 but your lack of indents and quote marks above makes your comment pretty much unreadable. It's not my job to correct it.[fixed Captainllama (talk)] And please don't quote me in your edit summaries as the sole arbiter of what can or cannot be added to this article. It's a matter of consensus. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:38, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

It feels like your throwing me under the bus for rewriting what you said. 194.247.60.2 (talk) 00:19, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

So where does the conversation go from here? Does anyone else have an opinion to add. 194.247.60.2 (talk) 07:39, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Official, legally sanctioned penalties in the infobox. Extra-judicial punishments, if well-sourced to be commonplace, in the article text. Captainllama (talk) 16:53, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 1 March 2020

Change Article 354 of the Federal Penal Code states: "Whoever commits rape on a female or sodomy with a male shall be punished by death." This is a prohibition against rape, and consensual sodomy. The Federal Penal Code, which follows Sharia Law, does not replace the legal system of each emirate, unless it is contrary to the federal law. Hence a person could be charged with the Federal Penal Code, or under a local (emirate) penal code. Imprisonment, death, fines, floggings, and deportation are commonplace. to Article 354 of the Federal Penal Code states: "Whoever commits rape on a female or sodomy with a male shall be punished by death." This is a prohibition against rape, and consensual sodomy. The Federal Penal Code, which follows Sharia Law, does not replace the legal system of each emirate, unless it is contrary to the federal law. Hence a person could be charged with the Federal Penal Code, or under a local (emirate) penal code. Imprisonment, death, fines, floggings, and deportation are commonplace. Additionally, although not officially sanctioned by the Emirati government, chemical castration,forced psychological treatments, beatings, forced hormone injections, and torture have been tolerated. 194.247.60.2 (talk) 17:52, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: I'm satisfied these changes should be made, however, my concern is around the formatting of the references. Are you able to (1) indicate page numbers where you are referring to a document (the PDFs) and (2) reformat the new references (9 through 17) using the {{cite web}} template. Goldsztajn (talk) 21:53, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Article 354 of the Federal Penal Code states: "Whoever commits rape on a female or sodomy with a male shall be punished by death." This is a prohibition against rape, and consensual sodomy. The Federal Penal Code, which follows Sharia Law, does not replace the legal system of each emirate, unless it is contrary to the federal law. Hence a person could be charged with the Federal Penal Code, or under a local (emirate) penal code. Imprisonment, death, fines, floggings, and deportation are commonplace. Additionally, although not officially sanctioned by the Emirati government, chemical castrationMamba OnlineLGBT Nation</ref>, forced psychological treatments, beatings, forced hormone injections>Douglas, Benji (2012). "Gays In The United Arab Emirates Face Flogging, Hormone Injections, Prison". queerty.com. Queerty. As rough as things are in pockets of the U.S., being gay in the UAE can mean hormone treatments, flogging and even imprisonment. LGBT Rights UAE seeks to change that, and debuted this simple but moving whiteboard-illustration to launch a conversation. In an open letter, members demand the government adhere to the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and details atrocities committed against Muslim country's LGBT community, like the hormone injections and "psychological therapies" given to six men arrested at a gay wedding in 2006.</ref>, and torture have been tolerated.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.247.60.2 (talk) 06:11 (UTC), 2 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Unclear what exact changes are being suggested. Maybe use bold text to show clearly what is new/ different? Or else do one sentence at a time? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:17, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

:it seems like you're being hostile and stalling trying to complicate a simple edit. I'm just gonna bring it to a dispute board. 91.197.129.74 (talk) 22:05, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I see. If you feel that strongly, then please go ahead. That might resolve this continuing episode one way or the other. Kind regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:09, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

References

Legal penalties

The article opens "Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people in the United Arab Emirates face legal challenges not experienced by non-LGBT people." So the article should focus on legal penalties. "Vigilante executions" are not legal penalties. They could be covered in the article main body, if adequately sourced, but should not appear in the infobox or lead section. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:49, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

It is sourced, does occur, and has a valid citation. How about this compromise edit at the end "Vigilante executions are also tolerated." Then it will be implied as a punishment that may or may not be directly done by government (since nothing says the government officials don't do this as well) but taking the law in their own hands has not been stopped or discouraged by the Emirati government. There are some clarity issues about whether or not it's just citizens doing this or if this practice goes all the way up the chain of command to the president and high ranking officials hence why it's better to be safe than sorry to add it everywhere but imply this unspecified detail. We cannot prove either way so knowing how anti-gay the UAE government and society is it seems probable it happens at every level. Also I see no rules specifying only legal punishments allowed in the punishment box. You are the one of maybe 2 people claiming this. 194.247.60.2 (talk)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.247.60.2 (talk • contribs) 06:44, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

No, we don't assume "government officials do this as well" without sources. I would agree there are "some clarity issues." Didn't we have a very similar discussion here over a year ago? Didn't User:Captainllama provide a conclusion on 25 February 2020 above? I would not object to adding "Vigilante executions are also tolerated" at the end of the lead section. But I would be interested to hear what Captainllama thinks. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:32, 29 July 2021 (UTC) p.s. please indent your posts, thanks.

However, the source you provide to support the claim that "Vigilante executions are also tolerated" is this about 30 men "thought to be gay". I don't see any firm evidence whatsoever for "vigilante executions". Martinevans123 (talk) 07:48, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

The source says “The boys risk huge consequences and discriminations in their future careers if their names get out, not to mention the lives of some of them are at risk if their families are conservatives, as it may lead to so called ‘honour killings’,” she said." Honor killings and vigilante executions are synonyms of each others hence it's supported. 194.247.60.2 (talk)

No, those are not synonyms. Also "it may lead to so called ‘honour killings’".... then again, it may not. And even if they do, there is no evidence whatsoever they would be "tolerated". We don't even know if the men at this single reported "party" were gay?? Martinevans123 (talk) p.s. I wonder could you indent your posts here? Thanks.

Why won't it be tolerated? They execute gay people it's obvious they wouldn't value gay people or gay lives. It doesn't matter if the people at the party were gay or not it's the fear and risk they felt of the possibility of honour killings. I have a few more sources I found With more than one source are we good to add it now?194.247.60.2 (talk)

I wonder could you point out where those sources mention " vigilante executions"? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:03, 29 July 2021 (UTC) p.s. I have indented your reply above to show that it is a reply. Could you please do the same from now on?

Sure. In Metro "‘Of course I’m not going to put people in danger, but I genuinely want to be an ally for people who don’t have a voice if I happen to have this big voice in pop culture. Those are the fundamental things I stand for.’ In the UAE, all sexual activity outside heterosexual marriage is considered a crime, with punishments including jail time, floggings, beatings, death, torture, fines, vigilante execution, and deportation."

In ESUC "In some places LGBT identity is seen as a ‘Western’ phenomenon, one that is somehow exported into unsuspecting countries via strongarm marketing tactics or ‘brainwashing.’ In some countries it is still illegal to be LGBT, and in 13 countries homosexuality is punishable by death: Afghanistan, Brunei, Iran, Maruitania, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Somaila and United Arab Emirates. In some places such as the Chechen Republic, Uganda, Cameroon and Senegal police turn a blind eye or are even complicit in rampant anti-gay violence and vigilante executions. Here is a link to an interactive map showing different countries’ attitudes toward LGBT people." 194.247.60.2 (talk)

Re this restore, please self-revert. We have agreed nothing. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:35, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

At WP:RSP it says "The reliability of Metro has been compared to that of the Daily Mail and other British tabloids." It is generally considered not reliable. As for ESUC, since when has the UAE been part of "Chechen Republic, Uganda, Cameroon and Senegal"? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:44, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I feel like the edit is justified and I stand by it. The sources now do support and say exactly what they specify. The wording can be changed to "Although it's unknown whether the Emirati government supports it, honor killings and vigilante executions sometimes occur" along with the sources if that takes care of any other concerns. Deleting is not an option I feel is correct. 194.247.60.2 (talk) 11:46, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Update: I found an article from newsgroove that says the same thing as Metro. Would you prefer replacing that source? I can do that no problem..194.247.60.2 (talk) 11:54, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

The newsgroove story is directly sourced from Metro? I'm sure your sources do indeed "say exactly what they specify". But they are not sources we can use here, I'm afraid. Kindly self revert. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:35, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

If you have a news article which is serious investigatory journalism into vigilante executions or honour killings in UAE, that would be a high quality reliable source. But passing claims in an article about an entertainer, that isn't a high quality reliable source. Unsourced claims on the website of an American church aren't a high quality source either. Mr248 (talk) 02:24, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Honour killings documented here as well. Hnor killings are a form of vigilante executions so both are covered under these sources. 194.247.60.2 (talk) 05:57, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Have you actually read the first source? It has no relevance whatsoever to this article. We've already discussed the second story, from 9 years ago, about "unconfirmed reports" of "30 men who may have been gay". Time for you to stop here, now, I think. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:33, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Actually the issue with that 30 men article was mainly the source was unreliable before. The source quoted here saying the same thing is deemed acceptable in your perrenial sources page. "There is rough consensus that PinkNews is generally reliable for factual reporting, but additional considerations may apply and caution should be used. Most of those who commented on PinkNews' reliability for statements about a person's sexuality said that such claims had to be based on direct quotes from the subject." As for the first source it's being resinded from entry. I will not accept your dimissive and horrible tone. I don't and won't stop anything. I'll keep entering sources until a source is accepted. One of them has to be decent. In the meantime your attitude is unacceptable and unkind. Change it. 194.247.60.2 (talk) 10:28, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

IP194, you haven't answered my first question. Why is a brief article about honour killings in the Punjab relevant here? I'm sure there's nothing wrong with Pink News. But the sources you have provided here are simply rubbish. I think you may need to stop, even if you don't want to, or you may be sanctioned. Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:36, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

It was a mistake. So it's not as relevant as I first thought it was written by a newspaper named UAE not talking about the UAE. It's a simple misunderstanding. Here's a suggestion, since Pink News is seen as valid put the Pink News as the only source for now as I had previously written the addition for honor and vigilante attacks and if a better source comes along it'll be replaced by that one. If one cannot be found and someone else besides you decides to take it down until a better source is located, then that is how it'll stay on my side until then. Fair enough? Are you threatening me with that last comment? 194.247.60.2 (talk)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.247.60.2 (talk • contribs) 11:01, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

No, not fair enough, at all. We have no good source to support the claims that "vigilante attacks" or "honour killings" occur, or are tolerated by the authorities, or are used as legal penalties, in the UAE, in response to LGBT activities. I'm not "threatening" anyone. I am suggesting that if you insist on pushing an agenda here, without any suitable sources, you may be blocked as being WP:NOTHERE. We don't post things in the hope that "a better source may come along". Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:17, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

References

New 2022 UAE law on unmarried parenting, sexual assault, extramarital affairs

The Federal Decree Law no. 31 of 2021 concerning the UAE Penal Code, announced as part of the UAE's largest set of legislative reforms last month, aims to enhance the protection of women and domestic helpers while strengthening social cohesion and public safety. Effective from 2 January 2022, the law, brings major amendments to the Federal Law no. 3 of 1987: [1]. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:27, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 May 2022

This article is incredibly inaccurate. The punishments listed at the very top of the article (killing, chemical castration, etc.) simply are not true. I'm not saying the UAE is a great place for LGBT people, but it's not at all what this article characterizes it as. It seems to be fear-mongering. I am an American living in Abu Dhabi for 12 years now, and I have never heard of any cases of the punishments listed. The citations are often not reliable sources or do not actually provide evidence for the claims in the article. Wikipedia is usually pretty great but this article is really off. 91.230.41.207 (talk) 08:36, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 08:38, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

You might wish to point out here which you consider to be "not reliable sources" or "do not actually provide evidence". Have you also looked at LGBT rights in Saudi Arabia? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:40, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

This is a moot point, see WP:BEATINGADEADHORSE. This topic has been discussed and debated multiple times already and every punishment has sources. WP:DONTLIKEIT ad WP:OFFENSIVE is not valid reasons to falsely claim that things are unsourced. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. Now if you have an actual valid argument against using of a source, that's different. But so far no new reasonable points have been made. Let's see what you have to say then. Lmharding (talk) 02:29, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Is that right? It looks to me like many punishments have only a single source. And many are dated, e.g. this one is over 10 years old? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:40, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

If you look again, many of the other sources listed for another punishment compliment the listing of other punishments by also listing those as penalties possible as well e.g. LGBTNation "Homosexuality is illegal in Dubai, and the death penalty is one of the possible punishments, along with flogging, deportation, chemical castration, torture, and fines." Lmharding (talk) 21:41, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

So that's this one, from 8 years ago? It tells us he "now faces the death penalty". What was the actual outcome in that case? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:47, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

UAE penalties are not always reported so no new info has been released.Lmharding (talk) 06:16, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

If penalties are " not always reported", how do we have any reliable sources? Dare I suggest some of the sources here are slightly partisan? For information about legal penalties, should we not be using legal sources? The sources linked in that LGBTNation article are 7 Days (which no longer works) and Gay Star News which says: "The UAE ... punishes homosexuality with anything from jines, jail time, deportatation to the death penalty. It is one of 10 countries where homosexuality is punished with death." But there are no other actual legal cases offered as evidence for those claims. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:52, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Those sources all work when I clicked the citation sources. Also, the US Government travel guide covers this as well as the many others besides the ones you listed. The burden of proof is sourced by too many sources for you to dismiss them all.(talk) 01:17, 22 May 2022 (UTC) (talk) 01:17, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

another discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I even found one reported death penalty here. He sodomized and raped a boy, bringing it further than just rape to become also homosexual activity in the eyes of the UAE which deems sodomy as a homosexual act worthy of death. He also killed the boy but that's enough to say the convicted man's sexual orientation was at least factored in at worst and at best the murder was just an additional reason to sentence him to death. It was later carried out.Lmharding (talk) 01:17, 22 May 2022 (UTC) What has "raping and killing a four-year-old Pakistani boy" to do with LGBT rights? That's quite disgusting. I've removed that source and await a real one. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:39, 22 May 2022 (UTC) Sodomy is liable to death and he sodomized the boy before he killed him. Sodomy was also one of the factors weighted when they sentenced and executed the offender. i think I explained that well the first time.Lmharding (talk) 10:06, 22 May 2022 (UTC) Can you provide some WP:RS source(s) for exactly how "the factors were weighted" in this case? Your argument appears to be complete WP:OR. But worse than that, it's extremely offensive. I'm considering a request for you to delete, modify or strike that claim. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:13, 22 May 2022 (UTC) One source mentions proof of sodomy which is a crime in itself as mentioned on the main page. So that being the case that can be a death penalty sentence, rape is also death according to the Penal Code and so is murder. That's all I mean.Lmharding (talk) 10:32, 22 May 2022 (UTC) References

Death penalty again

The only source which currently supports the death penalty is this one, which offers not a single case to support its claim that "In the UAE, all sexual relations that are not heterosexual are considered a crime, with punishments ranging from as simple as fines, to jail time, floggings, beatings, torture, death and even deportation for non-citizens." Is there one single source that reports any individual being executed for engaging in non-heterosexual relations? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:57, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

To claim that UAE kills people for "any sexual relations outside of heterosexual marriage" is a very serious accusation and requires a much more robust source than this, which is merely a passing comment in an article about a single individual who has moved to the USA to study medicine. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:30, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

I have nothing particularly against USFOracle, a student-run newspaper based on the Tampa campus of the University of South Florida, or the author Chaveli Guzman, but I see that piece was published on 26 June 2018. Looking at the list of punishments in this article for the same date, the two look quite similar. How do we know it was not just paraphrased from here? Martinevans123 (talk) 07:18, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Discussion long since moved on: Ntl, just for editors' information, I found this previous discussion of the USFOracle source here at RS noticeboard The Oracle. Not that ait matters, if one dodgy avenue is closed off, another two can be found: Lose one, a dozen equally poor arguments pop up in its place. AukusRuckus (talk) 03:27, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

The laws itself proclaims sodomy of a man against another" and the other sources mention death along with the list of penalties. The source of the USF is a reliable source. Enough WP:CANVASSING.Nobody else agrees that these sources are an issue. You seem to be the only one getting worked up over it.Lmharding (talk) 05:02, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Please list for us here all the sources used in this article that support the use of the death penalty. Or provide even one source that shows "the laws itself proclaims sodomy of a man against another", whatever that means. A passing reference, hidden away in a small bio article, in a student-run newspaper, from the University of South Florida, is an extremely flimsy source to support any such a claim. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:56, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, my take is that reputable sources with specific expertise in this area suggest that capital punishment of same sex activity is―at most―a theoretical possibility only. For example, the ILGA report says:

"Article 354: Without prejudice to the provisions of the law on juvenile delinquents and displaced, shall be sentenced to death penalty, whoever used coercion in having sexual intercourse with a female or sodomy with a male..."

In effect, according to some scholars, the way in which the Article is written leaves the door open to be interpreted as applicable to consensual same-sex sexual activity, while others hold that "it takes a stretch to read [this provision] as a criminalisation of consensual sex with the Arabic word for 'coercive' syntactically placed as it is"

Such possible or theoretical outcomes could very well be worth noting in the article, but listing it flatly as a penalty is just misleading. AukusRuckus (talk) 14:16, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

On the basis of your addition here, I think there is a good case for removing the death penalty from the list. What is you view. I have also had to revert the recent edits of User:Lmharding who is repeatedly trying to close down any discussion of this important point. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:36, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

As even experts state it is uncertain that the UAE law even provides for this penalty, and there being no evidence at all of the UAE ever applying the death penalty in these cases, for my money, it should be removed. At least it should not appear in the infobox or summary table. (An accurate summary of what the sources say about the uncertainty and legal interpretations in the body of the article would be reasonable, IMO, should anyone want to do that.)

I had a similar occurrence at LGBT rights in Texas, where my (admittedly too long) talk page post was reverted. That editor is fond of scattering WP:POLICY links all over the place ("CANVASSING", indeed!), seemingly without understanding them, and often not following them. They've reverted me on that article again today.<Sigh> AukusRuckus (talk) 08:43, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Still awaiting a list here of all the sources used in this article, that support the use of the death penalty, so we can judge their quality. I agree with you about no evidence at all of the UAE ever applying the death penalty and that it should be removed from the infobox and summary table, unless better sources are forthcoming. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:38, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Here are plenty of reverences from multiple comments including the law itself being quoted. That will suffice. Whether or not the law is enforced is irrelevant, although these many articles do show enough concern about them at least discreetly being used at bare minimum. The law is the law and that is the important decider. Besides, I don't agree with the removal obviously, and you do not have the consensus or validity to remove it. WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:IDONTAGREE is not a valid argument and neither is some made up criteria you forged about it having to be reported as enforced to be kept. It's law and it's documented multiple places that's all that matters. Also, tell me your account martinevans123 and AukusRuckus seem to edit in a very similar way. Can you explain that? It appears like you might be socking. I might see if this is true. After it it would not be the first time martinevans has been banned so I wouldn't be shocked. Read these sources. and torture. Lmharding (talk) 22:29, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

If you have doubts about my account, kindly raise them at AN/I and request a WP:SPI. The reason my edits and those of AukusRuckus are similar is that we both think your edits fall short of the standard expected for an article such as this. And you seem to be engaged in WP:SOAPBOXING. The current source from USFOracle, is wholly inadequate I'd also argue that "whether or not the law is enforced" is wholly relevant. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:43, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Defending valid sources against multiple attacks from accounts that are WP:CHERRYPICKING to destroy valid information is not soapboxing. If anything both of you are soapboxing trying to keep reopening multiple redundant parroted arguments with failed logic. I just might take up up on that. Lmharding (talk) 22:56, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Statement retracted, now stop spamming me.Lmharding (talk) 04:30, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

References

Quality of sources

A number of existing sources in the article have been marked as being dubious and/or of inferior quality for the claims they supposedly make. Lmharding today removed these notes with the edit summary "you alone don't have the authority to singlehandedly claim any source is not valid enough". I would just like to clarify that I wholly agree with the other two editors here that these sources are not valid enough. In my opinion, Lmharding's continued disruptive editing to this article cannot be tolerated indefinitely. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:23, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

What exactly doesn't make that article in particular RS? Be more specific. And don't just try to templete me, I'm a longtime editor WP:DTR. Lmharding (talk) 08:01, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Quote from WP:DTTR#AGF: How were they to know you are a regular? Were you acting like an experienced user? Lots of IPs act more like longtime editors than you do: "Take the template as a reminder and/or constructive criticism and just move on." 203.0.31.200 (talk) 04:50, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Can you tell us who Chaveli Guzman is and what expertise they have in this subject? Where are these templates? You're a "longtime editors"? since 25 November 2021? There is a consensus here that the Oracle is not a good enough source because it's just a student-run newspaper based on the Tampa campus of the University of South Florida. But you are determined to totally disregard this and edit war your version back in. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:14, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

So I propose that, unless some better source(s) can be found, mention of "floggings" should be removed from this article. Happy to hear the views of other editors, particularly Pauline Muley and AukusRuckus. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:48, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Removed. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:13, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, Martinevans123: floggings not justified. Btw, I found this previous discussion of the USFOracle source here at RS noticeboard The Oracle. AukusRuckus (talk) 14:09, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Many thanks for that. Probably not a good idea to edit war to keep it in then. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:28, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

The source has been replaced.Lmharding (talk)

There now seems to be another round of edit warring with no discussion. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:29, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Lmharding: I was very surprised when you said "you alone don't have the authority to singlehandedly claim any source is not valid enough" regarding this ref you cited. After all, you've often decided on others' sources: E.g.,"TEXASLAWHELP IS NOT A RELIABLE SOURCE, BLOG ALSO REMOVED EDITORIALIZING". That's only one example, there's plenty more.

Anyway, I, like everyone else, can follow the guidelines at WP:RS, and the ESUC news page, a small church website, local to Washington, is unlikely to be a great source for complicated socio-legal situations in another part of the world. If you disagree, please ask at the RS noticeboard. The same cite had already been discussed as an unsuitable source for such a claim in 2019, on this page.

Similarly, an entertainment section of a light lifestyle magazine could well be, in this case the relevant part that mentions "flogging" is a direct quote of the petition they are reporting on. They are not saying it themselves.

The "replacement" sources are not of high enough quality to support the claim, especially when there's already high-quality specialised sources that give an overview of the situation in UAE—and signally fail to mention these types of penalties. I mean, can we really prioritise the reporting of Attitude magazine over ILGA report, for example?

Sick of reinventing the wheel, wasting time on your fatuous claims. AukusRuckus (talk) 14:09, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Also, Lmharding, on another matter: How long do you expect me to wait for a response to discussion at the Talk:LGBT rights in Texas page? (Don't you dare accuse me of "stalling".) AukusRuckus (talk) 14:09, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

The sources I use have a strong ability to be reliable an obvious blog is so blatantly bad that anyone can see it as a not great source, also I replaced the floggings source again, this time with queerty.Lmharding(talk)21:08, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Could you possibly re-write that explanation in English? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:14, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Would you say that Queerty is a wholly neutral publication, or does it have some kind of "agenda"? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:20, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Basically obvious blog is obvious, hence why LAWHELP is not a great source. I get what you're trying to say about assuming sources but some sources stick out like a sore thumb on the unreliability scale. Queerty is gay leaning but it is not currently on the blacklisted list on the perennial list and the two attemptions at a discussion about it were either in passing as a one time mention or in a discussion with no replies. However, ILGA is often used and they are just as if not more LGBT leaning. In fact, many LGBT articles here heavily rely on ILGA. Lmharding (talk) 21:31, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

@Lmharding: You do not "get what" I'm talking about at all (if indeed, you were addressing me), otherwise you would not have answered as if I was somehow arguing that ILGA was unreliable. I was saying we cannot use material from ESUC and Attitude as more authoritative than the ILGA report (which is what you've been trying to do). Merely trying to point out application of a double standard. If anything "sticks out like a sore thumb", c'mon, it'd have to be ESUC.

Those sources are fine, in their own way. They just cannot carry the weight you are placing on them, especially in comparison to ILGA. That is all. A major theme of WP:RS is balancing the reliability of a source against the magnitude and gravity of the statement that relies upon that source.

Darn it, I forgot not to use reasoned argument with lmh, as it gets turned on its head, misconstrued, and aimed back at the originator. Now, where are my notes on how this'll go? AukusRuckus (talk) 01:21, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't talking to you I was talking to martin. I was just saying the sources are either both bad or both not, both are biased in there own way by being pro-LGBT and written by LGBT. Lmharding (talk) 01:30, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

@Lmharding: And do you intend to continue discussion about the matter on Talk:LGBT rights in Texas, regarding that source you object to, or, more urgently, the alleged "nullification" of protections by SB 1978. Or will you just ignore it until someone corrects it, and then scream it's "still being discussed"? AukusRuckus (talk) 01:50, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I do plan to come back to it soon. I haven't been feeling well lately hence why my usage and editing has been sporadic.Lmharding (talk) 02:01, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. It's lousy to feel unwell. AukusRuckus (talk) 02:54, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Sourcing for legal penalties

@Martinevans123; @Lmharding, I wanted to put in one place the problems I see with these terms and their sourcing. Sorry in advance for the giant post, but I thought it might save words in the long run.

To me, the big problem with the mentions of all these horrendous actions is that they're very much not legal penalties. They are also undefined or ill-defined within the article, so that we have: both "floggings" and "beatings"; "vigilante executions" and "honour killings"; "chemical castration" and "forced hormone injections". These are not necessarily terms distinguishable from each other by the general reader. That would tend to make the text appear very confusing. They may be merely synonymous terms anyway, in certain cases.

Even if these were all judged to be legal penalties and well-sourced, it would still be clearer to present them—in the lead, infobox and table—as categories, and expand them in the body by explaining in more detail there, each kind or subcategory. And "torture", from my reading, is a superordinate category that encompasses many of these, not a separate, extra category. Torture is distinctly illegal, even in the UAE, and even if widely practised. How then can we list it as a "legal penalty"? Anyway, it's so important, the topic of illegal torture deserves better, more careful treatment.

My belief is they are not legal penalties, though, and they are inadequately sourced. Because of the often bare mentions, in somewhat lower quality sources (for this purpose), the claims would seem to not be WP:PROPORTION. AukusRuckus (talk) 11:41, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Wholly agree. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:30, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

@Lmharding, hoping you are feeling ok. If you are able, I wonder whether you might like to continue your discussion below, in light of my further response, or make any comment about the other sources that are listed below. I hope other editors interested in human rights or LGBT issues will also comment. AukusRuckus (talk) 08:50, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

@Lmharding: I noticed you removed the maintenance tags on the article again. That is generally not supposed to happen according to WP policy. The reason for the tags needs to be addressed. You can say why you think they're no longer needed on the talk page, or at least in the edit summary, or you can address the issues raised.

What editors shouldn't do, is just quietly remove them and say nothing. I appreciate any information you might be able to give me as to why you think they should not be there, but I am leaving them as is, ftm. as I think they are needed. But, as always, happy to hear from you on this. AukusRuckus (talk) 11:49, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

"Beatings"

The current source for beatings is the 2019 ILGA report The terms beatings or beaten do not appear in the report's summation of the UAE situation, although it does for other countries. It does mention a specific incident where arrested men were subjected to "violence to force them to confess to "homosexual" conduct."AukusRuckus(talk) 11:41, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

That's called a beating, just differently worded. Nice try trying use a technicality against me. In plain English you and I both know those are the same thing. Lmharding(talk) 10:50, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree 100% with AukusRuckus. That's not "a technicality". They are totally different terms. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:39, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Lmharding:"Different words" is my point. As the report specifically notes "beatings" elsewhere, how can we know the same thing is meant when ILGA uses a different term? This constitutes WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, because we can't know what the "violence" is here. The significant strand of my argument is that one specific incident—even if we can definitively say 'beating' is the same things as generalised 'violence'—is not a pattern that can be construed as a common "penalty", let alone a legal one.

I am not trying to "use" anything against you. I want to ensure the article is accurate, that's all, not some kind of win "against" you...? What do you think we're saying here? That these countries are not violent and hostile to LGBT persons? That people are not routinely targeted and beaten up? Of course they are.

We need to actually discuss this properly, or it should be removed.

I am trying to extend courtesy towards you by initiating discussion; you have been shown much patience by other editors. I find your responses retaliatory, and defensive; continuing in this vein will only add to the impression that you are WP:NOTHERE. AukusRuckus (talk) 13:05, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

"Forced hormone injections"

The 2019 ILGA does not mention hormone injections at all, (nor just injection). Hormonal treatment and hormonal therapy are mentioned only as (voluntary) medical interventions in relation to transgender persons, but none were pertaining to UAE. AukusRuckus (talk) 11:41, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Secondary source added.Lmharding (talk) 10:52, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Which source have you added? It might have been better if you had discussed it here first. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:12, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Also other sources confirm this in the list of punishments in them as well.Lmharding (talk) 10:55, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

What do you mean by "other sources"? Existing ones in the article? or possible candidate sources? Again, it would be useful if you could simply link the here. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:14, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Lmharding: Thank you for indenting your post. I am very grateful, it is so much easier for me to follow.

That secondary source you added—an already present source—that I discussed for other reasons here, under #"Torture". Not only is it republished from the Daily Mail, it is about someone abused when he was imprisoned for a crime entirely unrelated to same-sex sexual activity, as I already explained. AukusRuckus (talk) 13:37, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

"Torture"

Torture is not a term used in the UAE section in 2019 ILGA. Above-mentioned "violence to force them to confess to "homosexual" conduct." could be torture, but it is a single instance only. Also, it's better to stay close to what the sources say.

The Pink News item relates to refusal of extradition to UAE on a theft charge. He particularly feared ill-treatment and abuse because he is gay, but the court denied his extradition for theft, as there is a likelihood of torture for anyone charged with any crime who refuses to admit it. The man concerned is quoted as saying:

It was more a serious question as to whether there was a realistic prospect of me being able to prove my innocence at trial given the UAE's unfair justice system has a poor track record in its treatment of foreign prisoners and particularly members of the LGBT community.

The story regarding the former football executive explains he was in jail on business theft or deception charges. The torture occurred because he was a prisoner in an inhumane system. The man felt—and I would strongly suspect he is correct—that he was further targeted once it become known he was gay. That came out when his legal team approached authorities to investigate previous torture. Also, the article is a reprint of a Daily Mail article, a deprecated source. AukusRuckus (talk) 11:41, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

"Forced anal examinations"

The reference used for this is the Human Rights Watch's 2009 Together, apart report. Its only mention of this invasive procedure is:

The medical profession remains in the sway of 19th century European myths about sexuality. In Egypt, Iran, the UAE, and other countries, doctors administer torturous forensic anal exams to "prove" male suspects' homosexuality.

The age of the source matters and in 2022, a 2009 report is a bit too long ago.

The HRW's most current related report, Dignity debased from 2019, did not undertake research in UAE this time, but mentions their most recent understanding as: "Forced anal exams were reported in the United Arab Emirates in 2005, and the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture denounced them." I was not able to access that 2005 Special Rapporteur report, but as it's even older than the Together, apart one, it hardly matters.

I did find the 2015 Special Rapporteur report and it does not mention this form of ill-treatment, but does talk about other cruel and inhumane treatment by UAE. AukusRuckus (talk) 11:41, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

If it's been documented before it's probably still ongoing unless specified otherwise. Do you have any sources saying this was discontinued? No I don't think you do, also if they do other mistreatments and have in the past it's safe to say they didn't just suddenly realize it was wrong and stop. Lmharding (talk) 10:54, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

@Lmharding: It matters not whether it is probably still going on or not. We have to have a source. I think it very unlikely that an organisation dedicated to researching and publicising information like this, or the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture would simply "forget" to put it in their reports. Assuming it is so because it seems logical is the very essence of WP:OR, and it's poor quality even as OR, because we'd just be guessing. AukusRuckus (talk) 13:37, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Queerty, Attitude for "floggings"

There is nothing wrong with Queerty as a source generally. This article is ten years old and only thirteen of its 131 words relate to penalties, including floggings, in passing "...being gay in the UAE can mean hormone treatments, flogging and even imprisonment. The article's main point is publicising a video and campaign by a group, LGBT Rights UAE. This seems to be a WP:Trivial mention, as it a passing mention, not the focus of this very short article, which is ten years old. If "floggings" are a legally inflicted penalty, a better source could be readily located.

I would say much the same for Attitude. It's a very general source; this article is from its entertainment section. The article is dedicated to the "allyship" of Little Mix, and says—to explain her "fear" of being arrested in UAE: "Homosexuality is punishable by imprisonment, fines, flogging and execution in the United Arab Emirates". That's the full extent of Attitude's explication of the UAE penalties. AukusRuckus (talk) 11:41, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

More

There's more, but I'll come back to the few remaining sources, in the next thrilling installment of: Good Sources Gone Bad. AukusRuckus (talk) 11:41, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Fair comment. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:24, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

@Lmharding. I apologise if you felt targeted by that comment. It was intended to be a self-parody of me: taking each source in turn, detail-by-excruciating-detail, at some (as usual) length. While I am highly concerned about the relevance of these sources to the claims they are supporting, the phrase "good sources gone bad" was meant to emphasise that aspect, in an amusing way, and not be anything about the supplier of the source. Overall, these sources are respectable: I just think they're not supporting the claims they're citing. The phrase's main point was to be a place-holder, in what I intended to be a light-hearted manner.

As someone who has felt highly affected by your responses, which have included calling me a bully, accusing me of being a sock puppet; saying "you did not seem to read the source", and watching as you call well-intentioned editors "vandals", and "trolls"; saying "fake news" and other somewhat negative assessments of others' edits and comments; characterising inquiries as "harassment", ("removed, coordinated harassment campaign") and "spamming"; not to mention incorrectly removing talk page comments of others, I would rather voluntarily withdraw my clumsy joke than feel I may be subjecting another editor to that same type of negative experience. (Detail is included here only for context, so that there is no misapprehension regarding what I'm talking about.) Let me know if you wish me to do so, and I will remove it.

To move this on, I propose a re-start in a different tone:

Looking back, I see I have responded to your comments in a way that has become less and less conciliatory over time. I really tried to meet you on discussing the issues but I felt, perhaps erroneously, you were being unnecessarily confrontational, and I—quite wrongly—responded in kind. That does not help editing progress, so I will reorient myself to my earliest intent, which is to thrash out the topics. I hope you will join me and other interested editors in the attempt at discussion. If I, you, or any other editor, disagree in our view of the sources, we can talk about that, and just that. I take responsibility for my part in the uncordial to-and-fro. Please accept my sincere regret for anything I have posted that should have been put in a more considered manner. AukusRuckus (talk) 06:13, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

All in all you've clearly shown that the sourcing is extremely weak, in fact mostly wholly inadequate. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:21, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

References

Removing sourced sections without edit summaries

Hi Lmharding

I know you often disagree with my edits, but why are removing lots of sourced material here-right now- and not even giving a reason in your edit summaries? It seems rather discourteous. AukusRuckus (talk) 13:42, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

I audited your sources ILGA says

Certain interpretations posit that Article 354 of the Federal Penal Code (1987) prescribes the death penalty for "sodomy with a male".201 Similarly, Article 356 has been interpreted by various scholars to criminalise consensual same-sex sexual activity.202 The original Arabic-language provision in this article is “هتك العرض” (hatk al-‘arD), which literally translates to “disgrace to honour” but has been translated in substantially different ways (e.g.: “voluntary debasement”, “indecent assault”, “indecency”, “carnal knowledge”) by different sources.203 In 2016, Federal Decree-Law No. 7 (2016) amended Article 358 to establish that any person who publicly commits a “disgraceful act” would be punished by a jail sentence for no less than six months. The same penalty applies to any person who says or commits any “act against the public morals”.

It does not specify the law being incorrect in its translation and does not say it's unenforced so that was either incorrect or mistranslated sourcing. It was removed for not posting what the source said. Silimarly, the Amnesty quote seems to also be misquoted. 13:54, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Even if what you say were true, it would still be more courteous and consensus-building to give explanations for your edits.

However your above implication of false sourcing is untrue. Please read page 82 of the 2020 ILGA report (first two pars) and then we can discuss from there. Thanks. AukusRuckus (talk) 15:05, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

@Lmharding: Which Amnesty quote is this? I don't think there is one...? Also, I formatted your post above, because neither I nor my assistive device could understand it the way it was formatted (no indents and illegal line break characters pasted from source.) Thanks AukusRuckus (talk) 15:19, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

That quote was the one misquoted from ILGA which the source does not give that quote, not sure where it was misquoted from, the other quote falsely misquoted from Amnesty claiming no reports of the death penalty have been noted, which was also not quoted in that source. Either someone misquoted, added WP:or or snuck it in without seeing if the source said that. not sure who but all of these are not in those sources. Hence it should not be re-added.Lmharding (talk) 18:43, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm saying none of the information quoted was said in the sources, ILGA did not mention any alternate meaning of the laws against homosexuality in the UAE and the Amnesty quote did not say that the death penalty was unenforced, of which was the claims both sources had associated with it which I removed. I think both sources were misquoted as those statements were never said in either of them. 19:25, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

@Lmharding: You might have made a mistake. Not sure what you're looking at, but the 2020 ILGA report definitely says—on page 82, in the first two paragraphs at the top of the page—the quote I inserted. I am very unhappy that you not only changed those justified edits without due care, but are once again unfairly alleging deceitful editing by me, in saying that the quote is false. I take a lot of care with sourcing and checking. Your actions do not seem very respectful.

And what I am saying is: that I never alleged any "mistranslation", so if that is what you think it's about, you have misunderstood. Whatever the case, the quote is there in the source.

I did not know what Amnesty quote you meant, because you did not really explain, but I gather you mean the quotes that I added to the citation itself for the Love, hate and the law: decriminalizing homosexuality report itself?

Search for Schrödinger's quotes

NOTE ON THE UNITED ARAB EMIRATES: The United Arab Emirates (UAE) does not carry the death penalty for same-sex consensual sexual relations. The UAE is a federal system in which Dubai has a full range of its own courts (if not, in some areas, its own laws); Ras al-Khaimah also has its own court system up to the level of cassation, which is assumed by the Federal system based in Abu Dhabi. Article 354 of the Penal Code 'Union law No. 3 of 1987' (Qanoun al-'Uqoubat) provides for the death penalty in a context of force, or coercion, whereby a male or female forces another female or a male coerces another male to take part in the sexual act: Amnesty International therefore considers this article to address rape, not consensual same-sex sexual relations. As in other nearby countries, it is theoretically possible that zina (a sexual act by a married party outside of marriage) is punishable by death and that these could be used to prosecute consensual same-sex sexual acts, depending on the facts of the cases. Amnesty International is not aware of any case in which the use of zina laws against consensual same-sex sexual conduct has resulted in a death sentence in the UAE. — Amnesty International, Love, hate and the law: decriminalizing homosexuality Again, it is also definitely in the Amnesty report, just as I included. It is on page 48 below the heading "A Note on the United Arab Emirates" The other Amnesty quote you deleted from the body of the article: while Amnesty categorically "considers this article to address rape, not consensual same-sex sexual relations." is from the same block of text above (it is the last line on p. 48). The last quote you deleted, from ILGA: ...the United Arab Emirates [...] could eventually apply the death penalty for same-sex sexual relations if they take the public stance that they are considered "harmful to society". is on ILGA 2019 page 139

Is this really accidental? I mean, it is very hard to understand why you cannot see the quotes...I am literally going blind, and I can see them. Try using the 'search' function on your browser or pdf reader with a small part of the phrase. But, honestly, I gave pretty explicit instructions on where to fine the quotes, both when I cited and also here. If you still cannot find, I will ask another editor to verify for me, as the quotes are definitely in the docs. And you still need to self-revert. AukusRuckus (talk) 09:12, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Refutation

Further one-party "discussion" of location of quotes

Lmharding wrote in above section, in justifying their removal of sourced material, that quotes I used were not present in the sources: "That quote was the one misquoted from ILGA which the source does not give that quote, not sure where it was misquoted from, the other quote falsely misquoted from Amnesty claiming no reports of the death penalty have been noted, which was also not quoted in that source. Either someone misquoted, added WP:or or snuck it in without seeing if the source said that. not sure who but all of these are not in those sources. Hence it should not be re-added.Lmharding and specifically says these things, which I answer in detail next to each assertion: "It does not specify the law being incorrect in its translation"—Lmharding I wrote into the text "ILGA report that there are differing opinions on the effect of this provision". "Differing opinions" is what I said; it's what ILGA say on page 82, first two paragraphs, left column and where my quote is from. Why is it so hard for you to see this? Is this AGF? ...some scholars ... interpret... [it] as applicable to consensual same-sex sexual activity, while others hold that 'it takes a stretch to read [this provision] as a criminalisation of consensual sex with the Arabic word for coercive syntactically placed as it is'. "and does not say it's unenforced" —Lmharding On page 38 under "Reported State Executions for consensual same sex activitiy" the ILGA report lists UAE as "No". At the bottom of page 82, in the right-hand column, under the heading "Enforcement" ILGA says: ILGA World could not locate any documented cases in which the death penalty was applied for consensual same-sex sexual activity in the country — ILGA (2020) "Silimarly, the Amnesty quote seems to also be misquoted. —Lmharding Again, on page 82 left-hand column, the ILGA report says: Amnesty International has categorically stated that the UAE "does not carry the death penalty for same-sex consensual sexual relations" and has indicated that Article 354 addresses "rape, not consensual same-sex sexual relations" — ILGA (2020) Since ILGA thought it worthwhile to mention Amnesty's view, I went to that Amnesty report to see what they said and used a quote from there. You say this material also does not exist or is misquoted. Inside the citation itself, I used a quote that begins on page 48 of the Amnesty report, under the heading "NOTE ON THE UNITED ARAB EMIRATES"; the quote I used starts off: The United Arab Emirates (UAE) does not carry the death penalty for same-sex consensual sexual relations... [blocks of text omitted from the talk page... and concluding]...Amnesty International is not aware of any case in which the use of zina laws against consensual same-sex sexual conduct has resulted in a death sentence in the UAE.

To say so assuredly and forcefully:

• "I'm saying none of the information quoted was said in the sources, ILGA did not mention any alternate meaning of the laws against homosexuality in the UAE and the Amnesty quote did not say that the death penalty was unenforced, of which was the claims both sources had associated with it which I removed. I think both sources were misquoted as those statements were never said in either of them."

  — Lmharding (4 August 2022)

statements casting such serious doubt on another editor requires a level of care and source checking that does not seem to have occurred. What Lmharding has effectively done is accuse me of making up quotes and deceptively use sources. It would be one thing to say the quotes were misconstrued, undue or otherwise misused, but Lmharding is confidently saying the quotes are not there, They are there. The documents are freely available online to be checked. The page numbers and links were supplied, then reiterated.

Yet, I'm here RE-doing the research and citation work at least twice, because another editor is quite happy to say I have made up something I put into the article? And taking, apparently, very little care in doing so. How come? These are extremely offensive insinuations, but I carry the burden of relitigating the citations. AukusRuckus (talk) 14:11, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Versions

Part of following discussion dealing with off-topic comments moved to User talk:AukusRuckus

 – More appropriate venue

Hi @Lmharding: In your most recent removal of my changes your edit summary said: "restored last agreed upon revision". What agreed version? What I had last understood from you, your contention was that the quotes I inserted did not exist, and that I had falsified them. You said above:

That quote was the one misquoted from ILGA which the source does not give that quote, not sure where it was misquoted from, the other quote falsely misquoted from Amnesty claiming no reports of the death penalty ...[Also,] I'm saying none of the information quoted was said in the sources, ... of which was the claims both sources had associated with it which I removed. I think both sources were misquoted as those statements were never said in either of them.

and that was the last I heard from you.

You returned quotes, so I thought perhaps you had found them in the source, after you had accused me of falsifying; but the quotes were strangely truncated. And, I was unaware there was an agreed version. Could you fill me in, please? Do you mean to say I am not allowed to make edits that I believe to be improvements to the article?

If the source quotes are used, it is important that they are presented neutrally; any ellipses of words should not change the original sense or intent. Can you please explain why my fuller presentation of quotes and more extensive summary is detrimental to the article? I am returning it as it was, as it's a faithful rendition of the sources and the quotes actually convey what the sources says. If you want there to be an "agreed version", I'm all for that, but you will need to engage in a discussion to acheive one. Hope to hear from you soon (and before you revert again). Thanks. AukusRuckus (talk) 04:32, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

These sources are already offered in a neutral way. The first one "As of 2020, there are prosecutions for related offences, such as public indecency, for acts such as kissing in public, or for cross-dressing." only shortens the same information but instead of saying the wordy phrase "there are no known arrests or prosecutions for same-sex sexual activity in the UAE since at least 2015. Individuals have been prosecuted for related offences, such as public indecency for acts such as kissing in public, or for cross-dressing."

I removed the middle part but it is already still implied that there are no direct arrests for homosexuality itself, it means the same thing it's just less wordy and the longer version puts an over emphasis on non-direct homosexuality charges which you already outright state in the quote about Amnesty and IMLA not being aware of homosexuality death charges. Additionally in tat same section I mention I just made it note that the law could be used to charge homosexuals with death I just truncated with ellipses some extra words which elongate the sentence but the meaning there. is also unchanged overall. Additionally the same quote repeats the mentioned quote section that ILGA and Amnesty have not directly heard about death sentences for homosexually were shortened out by dots keeping the integrity of the quote but removing that to avoid repeating itself. This is why it was shortened and I feel this edit is a more superior edit as it more concise and less overbearingly focused on this couple quotes, creating a better flow while still getting the same information.Lmharding (talk) 04:54, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Disagree. Not overbearing, insistent on accurate representation of sources. Let's ask for a third opinion.

Will you acknowledge that I did not make up the quotes as you allege?

What "agreed version"? AukusRuckus (talk) 06:13, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

I had said I think they were mistakenly misquoted and that I didn't see them in there as you had copied. I did not say "falsified". You can take that personally if you wish and twist my words if you wish but it was not meant as falsified. A third opinion would be fine, but the page should not be changed from the last edit I just did to avoid you committing 3RR although you are welcome to re-paste your version here in the talk page.Lmharding (talk) 06:38, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

No that's fine; let's get the 3O, but I will be including the full quotes in the meantime, as it is a poor reflection of the sources, atm. I put those quotes and sources there. You removed them because you said they were false. It's disingenuous to say you did not accuse me and I should not take it personally. (Gaslighting not welcome. @Lmharding wrote: "the other quote falsely misquoted from Amnesty claiming..." [emphasis added]). At the very least, you said directly I did not check the sources. Amongst my many faults, that is not one I'm prone to. I am editing in good faith, so I will wait for other opinions. But, please, please, report me on the WP:3RR board if you'd like to; I would be most interested! AukusRuckus (talk) 07:06, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Is it possible for you to indent your posts, please?

And your response to the #Refutation is where? AukusRuckus (talk) 07:06, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

It got lost somewhere in the interrupted flow with other discussions being forced in between. Please wait to get the 3rd opinion. Otherwise I just might have to take it to 3RR. I would rather we handle this calmly here. Let's get WP:CONSENSUS. Lmharding (talk) 07:31, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Non-legal "penalties"

Hi again, @Lmharding:

There are still all the non-legal penalties (that are crimes, not penalties) left in, just as you believe they should remain, despite my belief they definitely do not belong there. Also "death" has been left in the table and infobox as you wish, although the sources used contradict this assertion. I believe there are extensive concessions in the article to your preferred view of matters, the above disagreement over quotes notwithstanding. There are extensive previous discussions on this page about the penalty issue:

• #ILGA is a baised source
• #"vigilante execution"
• #Penalty
• #Legal penalties
• #Semi-protected edit request on 18 May 2022
• #Death penalty again

The conclusion seems to have always been to list only legally-mandated, enforced penalties in the table and infobox. Of course, consensus can change, but it's useful to be aware of previous arguments and views.

Also, please see unresponded-to discussions and points here:

• #Quality of sources
• #Refutation
• #Sourcing for legal penalties
• #More

I would still like to hear your responses on all these matters. Thanks AukusRuckus (talk) 04:32, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

I responded to refutation. The rest are comment hammering and therefore I consider to be hostile requests so I will not be reacting to them. If you want to have me talk about thwe concerns you still have, you will have to start those discussions again and write them in a more considerate tone. At this people they're just random conversations mushed together in a impossible incoherent mess of one arguments running into another pushed together with insults. Start over. Thank you. 05:03, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

@Lmharding: I am sorry you feel that way. Perhaps if you get nowhere with me, you'd like to take it to a one of the conflict resolution boards? I would agree to be guided there. IMT, I will restore the full quotes, because without them they are implying views not taken by the sources. It is not an accurate reflection of their information.

Sorry where was your response? ... to the "Refutation"? Could you direct me, please?

At the risk of being accused of "hammering", I remind you of your treatment of me: (Just a few) high(low)lights: Sockpuppet withdrawn (after much arguing, and done with ill-grace "now stop spamming me"); "Coordinated harrassment"; bully - never withdrawn; false quotes, it goes on (but this is not the venue, so I won't put more here, but you get the picture.)

"At this people they're just random conversations mushed together in a impossible incoherent mess of one arguments running into another pushed together": 2 word in response: pot and kettle "with insults." Where?

"Start over." I tried that above, #Sourcing for legal penalties and #More and got 1. one angry response; and 2. crickets: "chirp; chirp"

If you do not respond, I will take from that non-response, that you are not serious in wishing to reach consensus. But: I really want to hear from you (civilly). AukusRuckus (talk) 06:55, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

I mean let's start from scratch now since so many discussions got lost and the ones that are there are confusingly written between everything else. If you do I can respond this time.Lmharding (talk) 07:38, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Not the impression left by [Lmharding wrote:] "The rest are comment hammering and therefore I consider to be hostile requests so I will not be reacting to them." AukusRuckus (talk) 08:19, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Indentation of posts

@Lmharding: Please indent your posts, as I have done for you above, as a courtesy. It is only a small thing and takes but a moment. It is a huge help to me. As I have mentioned before, I am severely visually disabled, and the indents make it much easer for me to follow. Please see WP:TALKPAGE#Indentation, if you're not sure. AukusRuckus (talk) 06:55, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Citation parameters

Part of following discussion dealing with off topic comments moved to User talk:AukusRuckus

 – More appropriate venue

AukusRuckus, you're already using {{citation}} templates, so that's a good head start. Here's a tip for you that may not solve the content dispute you're having, but it will make it easier for other editors to follow what's going on, and easier for them to verify that the quotations are what you say they are, and where. In your citation templates, consider using the parameters |quote= (I see you did that in one case already) and |quote-page= (and where necessary, |trans-quote=). If you're on a very long web page, or in a document or report that has section or paragraph numbers, you can use |at= instead of |page=, and say something like |at=§351; whatever is most useful for someone trying to run down the information and verify that your source backs it up, and where. And in a more advanced version of that, you could do it this way, hyperlinking the page or "at" location directly to the paragraph or section with an anchor or id. Hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 11:27, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @Mathglot, that is a great tip, which I will use in the future.

Unfortunately, that won't help in this particular case, as the user is, right now, even as I speak (type?), changing words in the direct quotations for the second time today. They do not care what is actually in the sources.

Too tired and disheartened now, I think, to continue a single-person stand against such a determined POV-pusher. I do appreciate the tips, though. AukusRuckus (talk) 12:53, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I mean, for instance, taking "NOT" out of the quote: "the UAE "does not carry the death penalty for same-sex consensual sexual relations"! No arguing with someone who would do that! AukusRuckus (talk) 12:56, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

So far, I haven't really looked at the facts of this situation, I've been trying to approach it from the side door so to speak (see next section below), but I'll try to slowly come on board with this, but I can't promise to contribute much, as I'm oversubscribed elsewhere. But I'll try to offer some basic pointers to get some agreement or compromise or failing that, point out other methods of dispute resolution such as WP:3O or WP:Mediation. To some extent, you are both so into this, that there ends up being WP:WALLSOFTEXT and it looks a bit impenetrable to other editors coming here for the first time. I understand why you both feel you need to go into that much detail to "prove your point", but I'm just letting you know what it looks like to another editor. Anyway, I'll think about to what extent I can help here, but I'd just like to just say, don't be too discouraged; take a wikibreak or just a break from this article if you need to, and come back fresh. Mathglot (talk) 20:59, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

It's incredibly kind and patient of you to take the time to do this, @Mathglot. I think what you say above is very good advice, too. And I'm well aware I'm the main contributor here to the WP:WALLSOFTEXT. [(Redacted) removed text that was meant as a semi-joking stab ay myself and the situations I get myself into. Muy apologies to Lmharding, not meant forthem, just as my other clumsy joke here at #More, targeting self at and AukusRuckus (talk) 15:36, 8 August 2022 (UTC) UPDATE: Altered redacted AukusRuckus (talk) 09:52, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

@AukusRuckus:, your collaborator here took exception to your last comment, which I can understand, and removed part of it as a perceived PA. I unfortunately had to undo it due to WP:TPO, but it restores some text which I wouldn't like seeing here if it were about me, and I understand Lmharding's hurt feelings. You could demonstrate good faith here by WP:REDACTing it yourself (do you know how to do that?) Let's assume good faith and go from there. Even this comment is kind of o/t, so can we all get back to improving the article and not sniping at each other? Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 09:15, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for that, AukusRuckus, and I *did* read that as a joking self-reproach initially, but when there's already some content issues, sometimes tensions are high, not everyone might catch that or read it the same way. Anyway, thank you very much for that redaction, and I hope that quiets the waters and we can get back to business. Mathglot (talk) 10:24, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Notes

References

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/pol30/003/2008/en/. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, provided it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. AukusRuckus (talk) 12:21, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Housekeeping: use of named references

Hi, AukusRuckus and Lmharding. I'm very well aware that there's a content dispute above, and in this section I'm going to avoid that entirely, and just address something that I think both of you can agree on: namely, that the use of named references is a good thing. That is, we should write out the full citation *just once*, and then when the same citation is used again elsewhere, just use its name, in WP:NAMEDREF style—e.g., <ref name="Jefferson-1776" /> instead of writing out the full citation for the Declaration of Independence ten times in the wikicode. Are we all on board with this so far?

Currently, there are reduplicated references in the article involving the named ref "queerty". There are citations to more than one article from that website: the ref named "queerty" corresponds to the 2012-09-14 article by B. Douglas (these refs were consolidated with named refs on 29 July in rev. 1101096181). In a subsequent edit (rev. 1102886187 on 7 Aug) some material was added and removed, and the full citation for the B. Douglas/queerty article was inadvertently removed, leaving all the "queerty" named refs as orphans with no anchor citation. This was followed by a series of good-faith edits attempting to repair the problem by replacing the orphans; this resulted in a number of bare urls added to the article, all pointing to the same B. Douglas" article of 2012-09-14. (Bare urls have various disadvantages, but they are better than an orphan ref which goes nowhere at all, so I see this edit series as an attempt to improve the sourcing of the article.) Are we still on the same page here, because I'm partly trying to get you guys to agree on something (sourcing is good, verifiability is good, named references are good, bare urls not so good but better than nothing).

So where this is all going, is that I'm about to do an edit which will restore the inadvertently removed full citation for B. Douglas's 2012-09-14 post at queerty to the article, and replace the bare urls by reintroducing the six or seven "queerty" named refs that got orphaned a bit ago. In order to avoid any confusion going forward in multiple citations for *different posts* from Queerty, I will use the name "Douglas-2012" for this ref, instead of the old name, "queerty". This is all strictly housekeeping, and changes nothing in the content of the article; nor does it add or subtract any references, all it does is make the references fuller, and show up on one line in the "References" section, instead of showing up on seven different lines with the same (bare) information. Hope we are all still on agreement on this. I will go implement this now. Mathglot (talk) 20:08, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

 Done. Mathglot (talk) 20:21, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I see that there is another orphan, namely "hdt", currently generating an error in the "References" section. I'll see if I can go fix that one. Mathglot (talk) 20:23, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

 Done. Mathglot (talk) 20:36, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for you assistance. I appreciate it.Lmharding (talk) 22:42, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

One last thing on the housekeeping topic: here's a tip that I hope will help—please consider keeping your housekeeping edits separate from your content edits. What happens if you combine a completely anodyne housekeeping task (such as rescuing orphaned refs, which can be complex and lengthy) with a content change (which could be a hot button for another editor), is that you risk having your edit reverted because of the latter, which throws out the beneficial housekeeping change at the same time.

Ironically, you have both fallen into this trap:

• AukusRuckus, in this edit of 29 July, you consolidated a number of duplicate refs using named refs; kudos for that. Unfortunately, rather than stop there and hit "Publish", you also rewrote the "Legality" section (thank you for your very clear edit summary). That made it very difficult for anyone who disagreed with the content change to undo only that part, without throwing out the ref consolidation at the same time. (In fact, I think that indirectly set the stage for the bareurl problem that occurred later.) That's too bad, because it must have cost you some time to do the ref consolidation (and also for me, to rescue them later).
• Lmharding, in this edit on 7 August, you made one in a series of edits which added some content, but also removed the anchor citation "queerty" (which in your edit right before that one still had the definition of it in note 1 in section § Legality of same-sex sexual activity. I imagine you must have noticed the red H:CERNT error in the references section at the bottom of the page after saving, and didn't know why, and that you then tried to fix the problem in these four edits by at least adding the urls back in. Thank you for that; that improved the article by ensuring that WP:Verifiability was restored (although with the issues of bareurls previously noted). In your case, I think that in your attempt to add new material replacing the old, you forgot that replacing material might also remove a source, in this case the anchor source for all the named refs which linked backed to it. This led to the red error you saw, and your fixes after.

So that, I think, is the full story of what happened with the series of references being consolidated, inadvertently removed, and restored initially as bareurls. Separating housekeeping edits from content edits will prevent this from happening; remember whenever removing a source to use the "Preview" button before saving (should always do that anyway), to make sure that there are no red errors in the "References" section; that will help catch problems before they start. Hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 00:06, 8 August 2022 (UTC)