Talk:Capital punishment for homosexuality

Article move

AHC300, I reverted your title change of the article. See WP:Requested moves. Moves like this should go through the official WP:Requested moves process. As for the reason I gave for reverting, I noted that the topic goes beyond intercourse/penetration in some respects. People have been put to death simply for being suspected of being gay or lesbian, or for engaging in any type of same-sex sexual activity. Sexual activity does not always include intercourse/penetration. And it can also include kissing a member of the same sex. During the Third Reich, for example, it's been stated by sources that the death penalty was carried out even in the case of men simply kissing other men.

So "Death penalty for homosexuality" is the more accurate title because the term homosexuality refers to being homosexual and/or homosexual behavior. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:45, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

There was no death penalty for homosexuality nor homosexual acts during the 'third Reich'. The punishment was imprisonment for several years. There may however been arbitrary detentions extending the sentence. --105.0.0.251 (talk) 11:08, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Here is one source, when speaking of the Third Reich, that comments on the "death penalty was carried out even in the case of men simply kissing other men" aspect. It's "Political Consequences of Thinking, The: Gender and Judaism in the Work of Hannah Arendt," from SUNY Press, a 2012 reprint of the 1997 book, page 117. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:58, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I take it that the source means kissing in the literal sense and not as a euphemism for sexual activity. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:04, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Dubious info from The New Daily

We have a passage that reads Other places where the death penalty for homosexuality may be imposed are Pakistan, the United Arab Emirates, parts of Syria and parts of Iraq, based on a story in an Australian newspaper. This contradicts stronger sources, like the ILGA report, according to which Iraq has no state law criminalizing homosexuality, Pakistan prescribes up to life in prison, Syria up to 14 years of prison, etc. It's not clear where that information came from, and the part about Iraq and Syria seems to refer to ISIS, classified by ILGA as "prosecution by organized non-state agents". There are more relevant RSs cited in LGBT in Islam. Where The New Daily contradicts the body of stronger sources, I would classify it as WP:UNDUE. Eperoton (talk) 18:51, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Update: I rewrote this material with better sources, mostly the ones that were already cited here. Eperoton (talk) 21:45, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

References

Moneyspender's content removal

@Moneyspender: You continue to remove the passage sourced to Washington Post without providing a valid reason. You've provided no valid, policy-based reason for removal, so this violates WP policy. WaPo is recognized as a RS - see WP:RSP. In fact, it's the only WP:SECONDARY RS currently cited providing analysis on the subject for UAE, so we have to reflect what it says. Calling it "wishywashy" is not valid reason for removal (see WP:NPOV). WP:SUBJECTIVE is about aesthetic judgments, which is completely irrelevant here. You're welcome to find other RSs providing alternative viewpoints. However, per WP:NPOV these would need to be reflected alongside, not instead of the views summarized in WaPo. Eperoton (talk) 03:57, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

The issue is that the claim that the death penalty is never used is false according to the sources I provided. In fact, all of the articles I listed explain each situation where an LGBT person was tried and sentenced to death. We can keep the source itself but maybe one particular sentence about there being no proof of the top penalty's usage could be removed or altered. Let me see what I write and then if you are satisfied that it has both views than we can be done with this dispute and both be happy with the high quality information for the topic. Moneyspender (talk) 06:48, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that's precisely what WP:NPOV is about. If there are RSs that disagree with the Amnesty International report about the issue, we should certainly report that. Let's take a closer look at the articles you found. The first four talk about people who were sentenced for murder or same-sex rape 1) Man who raped, killed eight-year-old boy Obaida executed, 2) Indian-origin gay man found guilty of killing wife for lover, 3) The sentence for raping and killing four-year-old Moosa Mukhtiar Ahmed..., 4) Death sentence upheld for Abu Dhabi boy rapist. These articles don't bear on the legal dispute in question, because none of them say that these people were sentenced "for homosexuality". They also don't contradict the Amnesty report, which doesn't state that no LGBT people are sentenced to death in UAE for any crimes; according to WaPo, it states that Amnesty was not aware of death sentences "for homosexual acts", which refers to the previous sentence there about a legal dispute "on whether federal law prescribes the death penalty for consensual homosexual sex or only for rape".

The last article you found is a different case in that it doesn't involve murder or rape: One photo of gay man in drag lands him on death row in Abu Dhabi. The source LGBT Nation seems to be a professional news organization, and so can be considered reliable. It doesn't exactly contradict the Amnesty report, since the charge was posting a selfie rather than a sex act, but it does seem sufficiently relevant to this article. Let's accurately reflect what it says about the case.

Since we now seem to be on the same page about NPOV, and you haven't given a reason for removing the passage about the legal dispute, I'll assume that you did it inadvertently. Eperoton (talk) 00:03, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I removed the dispute part because if you look closer at your claim that there "were no death sentences for homosexuality". That isn't written as "not being sure if there is any death penalties for homosexuality" so it makes it sound definitively like it's saying there is no chance of death penalties under that charge. That other source says that there definitely was. Do you see where there is a problem with saying there is no death penalties for that then? That's why it should stay off. Also, those other sources do not list specifically homosexuality under a charge but seeing as it was well documented in each article that they were gay and that they were each sentenced to death; being gay may have been factored into the final sentencing especially seeing how anti-gay the UAE is. That's why I would vote to keep those sources. Maybe you would want to reconsider keep the other articles now that I explained why I think it should stay. Moneyspender (talk) 02:34, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm glad you agree that "those other sources do not list specifically homosexuality under a charge". What they actually state is the only part that we can reflect in the article. The rest of your sentence, starting with "but", is speculation about how sexual orientation may have contributed to the verdicts. This speculation is done by you, and not by the sources, which makes it WP:OR and unusable on WP. We could reflect what these sources actually say, that gay men have been sentenced in UAE to death for murder and rape. I think it would be off-topic for an article about death penalty for homosexuality, but it would at least accurately reflect the sources, so my objection to it is not categorical. If you feel strongly that death verdicts for rape and murder should be mentioned, we could put this in and see whether other editors think it's off-topic or not.

As for the rest of your reply, I'm again not sure whether you've read WP:NPOV or even the passage you keep removing. WaPo 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. Our summary says: There is a dispute among legal experts as to whether the law of the United Arab Emirates allows for the death penalty for consensual gay sex or only for rape. Neither version says that there "were no death sentences for homosexuality". The passage that says something like this is the one about Amnesty International.

To contradict the assertion about the legal dispute, a source would need to say that there is no disagreement on this point among legal experts. Not only none of the sources we have say this, even if one of them did, per WP:NPOV we would need reflect both WaPo and the source that contradicts it, and not remove a properly sourced passage. You still have not cited any policy that you think justifies removing it. Eperoton (talk) 00:49, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

@Eperoton: hey bro, i can assure unfortunately that (Personal attack removed). Bro, i would ask u gently to take ur time and read the History of the page LGBT rights in the United Arab Emirates and especially its last section about ILGA in its talk page

U will see that this dude just don't get it and that i stand with u and u are right in all what u wrote. Cheers!!! AdamPrideTN (talk) 03:57, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

@AdamPrideTN: I've redacted the part of your comment that made a blanket accusation about Moneyspender. Please consult WP:NPA for more detail. We should "Comment on content, not on the contributor", and limit criticism of personal conduct to what is specifically documented in the comment.

@Moneyspender: See WP:RPA for the policy on removal personal attacks. Please be cautious about removing comments about yourself and do not delete more of other users' comments than is necessary. Eperoton (talk) 23:30, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Washington Post

You think that since you are an experienced editor that you can't be wrong and that your sources can't expire and become inaccurate. Sources get rotted and outdated it happens to everyone and you should not feel embarrassed about it. The old source you are relying on is a 2016 article from the Washington Post where it claims that there is a dispute about if the UAE enforces the death penalty for homosexuality itself or just for rape. However three sources disprove that dispute and shows specific punishment for homosexuality itself . The first article is quoted right after as an LGBT Nation article which shows execution of a man just for "posting a photo of himself in drag on social media" . The next two articles were ones I tried to add but you reverted aggressively to control the conversation instead of considering that these also prove that your Washington Post addition is no longer accurate. The first one is a New York Times article from 2017 that notes specifically "homosexuality is subject to the death penalty (though it is rarely imposed)". which is directly claiming homosexuality itself is death. The second is Pink News which claims "consensual gay sex can lead to the death penalty.". All of these sources never mention any ambiguity or obscurity about the law applying to rape. I would hope you would actually consider these points now instead of doing the equivalence of putting your fingers in your ears and saying "I can't hear you" by autoreverting edits you don't like. Actually contemplate that you may be incorrect and see that this almost six year old source you keep reverting to is invalid, outdated and erroneous. Thank you. 194.247.60.2 (talk) 16:04, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

References

Who is that comment directed to? El_C 00:42, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

[D]irectly claiming homosexuality itself is death — what? What is happening is here? El_C 00:56, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

This comment is towards Bonadea. I am trying to reason with him to allow these new sources that prove homosexuals are indeed executed for homosexuality in the UAE. He should allow these sources becuase they disprove the accuracy of Washington Post quote that falsely claims the death penalty is only used for rape. But I see you have already sided with him without hearing me out and allowing me to explain that. 194.247.60.2 (talk) 03:16, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

By all means, explain away. But please aim at cogency and concision. El_C 03:21, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Maybe start with why you're removing sourced content without an explanation. El_C 03:25, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

My intentions are not to remove the sourced content but instead replace it with updated info. As I had mentioned, the Washington Post source that Bonadea keeps reverting back to is old and antiqued, as well as old data that is no longer accurate. It claims that "legal experts disagree on whether the federal law of the United Arab Emirates prescribes the death penalty for consensual gay sex or only for rape" but I again believe the sources I have provided prove that this statement is no longer a valid belief. These three articles show that people have been killed for just being gay.It seems straightforward how and what the law is applied to. It is obvious from these that rape is not what this law is used for; this statement has been successfully proven false. Note especially the New York Times article that says homosexuality is enforced on rare occasion. Because of this I believe my version is correct, concise and shows the law in a straightforward, brutally honest way as being as I had listed before, a place where gays are executed for just being homosexual itself. So my version is the most updated version and it should be reverted and kept the way I wrote it. Revert time (talk) 03:45, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

References

Are you the IP? Why do you not stick to one account? This is confusing. Anyway, you admit executions are "rare" here, but your version omits that. Strange. El_C 03:56, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Forgot to login and yep updated. Cheers! Revert time (talk) 04:04, 6 September 2019 (UTC)