Talk:LGBT rights in the United Arab Emirates/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

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)

I made minor changes to the part in the lead that previously referred to

Adultery is a crime punishable by death, and a person convicted of homosexuality may also face charges of adultery if they have a legally-recognized spouse while having sexual relations with a person of the same sex

to something approaching the situation with the new laws, but it's minimal.[2][3]

Additionally, non-marital or extramarital sexual activity, including heterosexual acts, may be subject to criminal prosecution as adultery or fornication at the behest of a spouse or guardian; such provisions could potentially be applied to same-sex relations.

It could be improved or expanded. AukusRuckus (talk) 09:05, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Sharia law and homosexuality. No consensus

This page has quite a few inaccuracies and blanket statements that are not true, most glaringly: "homosexuality is punishable by death according to Sharia law". There is no decreed punishment for homosexuality in the Quran, with most schools of thought punishing the act of fornication/sex before marriage, or adultery, not homosexuality. So according to Sharia Law there is actually no punishment for homosexuality, and to generalize by an extreme is not how a wiki page should operate. Article reinforces and attempts to legitimize extremist beliefs, Islamophobia and homophobia. AABmartin (talk) 17:54, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Comments by restoring editor

[Restored post above]: Happened to notice that this post and another comment up-page by the same user had been reverted by Lmharding. There was no edit summary for reversion and I could see no clear reason why this user's posts should be removed, so have restored. (If there was a reason and Lmharding enlightens ... well, that'd be different: will gladly remove again.) AukusRuckus (talk) 09:57, 18 August 2022 (UTC) [Restored post above again]: Reinstated above first post in this section for second time. WP:TPO would not seem to justify its removal. Editor should report account if judged suspect or leave talk page posts alone. AukusRuckus (talk) 15:16, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Had to restore above post, yet again (for 3rd time), due to deletion by IP 206.221.189.75, likely sock of Jacobkennedy, whose most recent sock Lmharding, also removed same post back in August, before they were blocked. AukusRuckus (talk) 08:15, 28 December 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) [Blocked sock. AukusRuckus (talk) 14:24, 21 October 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) [Blocked sock. 14:24, 21 October 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) [Blocked sock. 14:24, 21 October 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) [Blocked sock. 14:24, 21 October 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)[Blocked sock. 14:24, 21 October 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)[Blocked sock. 14:24, 21 October 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) [Blocked sock. 14:24, 21 October 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)

Sigh!
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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) [Blocked sock. 14:24, 21 October 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) [Blocked sock. 14:24, 21 October 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) [Blocked sock. 14:24, 21 October 2022 (UTC)] Sources

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)

nevermind
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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) [Blocked sock. 14:24, 21 October 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) [Blocked sock. 14:24, 21 October 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) [Blocked sock. 14:24, 21 October 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) [Blocked sock. 14:24, 21 October 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 non-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)

1st @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)

2nd @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)

3rd @Lmharding: I noticed you removed the {{cite check}} maintenance tag once again, but there has been very little substantive response from you regarding the concerns I raised about the sources. As mentioned above, editors are not generally supposed to remove maintenance tags without addressing concerns, preferably by discussing, but at the very least by explaining in the edit summary. I am asking you again to please refrain from doing so. If you still feel like this "I mean let's start from scratch now" and would like to (rather than like this "The rest are comment hammering and therefore I consider to be hostile requests so I will not be reacting to them."), I would very much appreciate your responses to any of my concerns, shown below. I have added to the list, now including a section on issues with "vigilante executions" sourcing. Please respond under the specific heading, or, if you prefer, under #Discussion of sourcing for penalties section. Thanks AukusRuckus (talk) 09:03, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

1."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) [Blocked sock. 14:24, 21 October 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)

@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)

This quote mentions reports from India.com: Halliday’s sexuality, referred to in legal submissions, “is now well known to both the authorities in Dubai and his former colleagues in Dubai”, according to court documents.Over the past five years, there have been 43 cases of complaints by British nationals of torture or mistreatment within the UAE justice system. Of those, 37 related to British nationals detained in Dubai and 19 of them alleged they had suffered physical beatings. Additional Al-Araby TV has reported that David Haigh "said the man then took him to a police station where the British citizen, a gay man, was beaten and abused "just short of sexual assault". —Lmharding (talk • contribs) 10:07, 28 September 2022 (UTC) [Blocked sock. 14:24, 21 October 2022 (UTC)]

Thanks for your extra effort here, @Lmharding:

I do not doubt that the David Haigh and many, many others, underwent appalling mistreatment, including torture.

How does the Al-Araby report support a "penalty" of beatings being applied by the UAE, though?

1. The report's yet another anecdotal one. I.e. It recounts an instance, or even numerous instances, without saying it's a systemic approach by the UAE. It doesn't even say it happened as a consequence of any sexual activity. (He was imprisoned for alleged fraud.)
2. It says nothing about the violence being linked to punishment for same-sex sexual activity

If anything, these reports emphasise how badly the system of "justice" and law enforcement is set up and managed in the UAE for any offence, rather than tying these cruelties specifically to LGBT people or homosexuality.

It's not about adding more and more examples. It's about a source saying directly that the UAE applies such as penalties for same-sex sexual conduct. I suspect the other sources are going to be variations on the same theme—of just adding more and more anecdotal evidence. Without understanding this is still WP:SYNTH because you are reaching a conclusion that is not presented in the source itself, we can't make any progress.

I do appreciate your good faith efforts here, though. My thanks. AukusRuckus (talk) 14:11, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

2. "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

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)

NBC reports that the minister of justice and Islamic affairs, Mohammed bin Nukhaira Al Dhahiri, was quoted stating "Because they've put society at risk they will be given the necessary treatment, from male hormone injections to psychological therapies," he said. "It wasn't just a homosexual act. Now we're dealing with a kind of marriage. There was aritual involved."—Lmharding (talk • contribs) 10:07, 28 September 2022 (UTC) [Blocked sock. 14:24, 21 October 2022 (UTC)]

3. "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)

Al-Araby TV has reported that David Haigh "said the man then took him to a police station where the British citizen, a gay man, was beaten and abused "just short of sexual assault".—Lmharding (talk • contribs) 10:07, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

@Lmharding: Yes, the news item and the quote definitely support that Haigh was abused, even tortured. How does it prove it as a punishment in response / because he had engaged in same-sex sexual activity? Where does the article say his mistreatment was a legal penalty for homosexual behaviour? He was charged and imprisoned for alleged fraud or financial crimes. If there's a suggestion his mistreatment escalated when authorities realised he was gay, that only proves there is extreme, widespread prejudice there; and authorities have carte blanche to be incredibly shitty to people they have within their power. That's it.

Same goes for "43 cases of complaints by British nationals of torture or mistreatment within the UAE justice system" you mention in another subsection, above. These do not, for the most part, involve same-sex sexual offences. The main thing I take away from this is that abusive treatment is commonly meted out in an inhumane system; it's not specific to LGBT matters.

Halliday's sexuality was disclosed in legal documents as part of his bid to have his extradition on theft charges denied, as he would not be given a fair trial, "The fact that I'm openly gay would mean that there would be prejudice against me," Halliday told The Guardian. The court disallowed his extradition as he would not get a fair trial or would face cruel treatment, sure—as did those 43 other Britons, most of whom were not held on sexual offences. I already covered this, two paragraphs above, the sentence starting: "The Pink News item...". It's the exact same case, just reported in a different news site, India.com; it's an older report than the one we already have, and it adds no evidence that "torture" (which you used the Pink News report to cite) or "beatings" (which you are now supporting with the India.com item) are in any sense "penalties" for same-sex sexual offences. People are routinely abused in unfair legal systems; if you happen to be a member of a despised group, you are likely to be treated worse than the average. Still doesn't equate to "torture", "beatings", and so on, being "penalties" for same-sex sexual offences.

The fact that there's been so many words expended on trying to demonstrate to you what seems an elementary point, makes me despair of ever being able to reach some shared understanding. AukusRuckus (talk) 12:13, 29 September 2022 (UTC) AukusRuckus (talk) 12:13, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

4. "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) Blocked sockpuppet

@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)

Here's a report from 2017 —Lmharding (talk • contribs) 10:07, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

That looks like a quite a good source. Still, it's a fleeting mention in an article mainly about arrests for female "impersonation" and it's also only reported as it happened "to a friend of" the person quoted:

Fadli said another detainee told him he had been charged with sodomy and had been subjected to a forced anal examination, which constitutes a form of torture or cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment.

Not exactly enough to present this confidently as a "penalty", let alone a "common" one, and in the infobox, no less.

It could be appropriate to use it in mentioning in reporting specific incidents in the body of the article. AukusRuckus (talk) 14:11, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

5. 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)

6. "Vigilante executions" sourcing

There are currently two sources cited for vigilante executions. In common with many sources discussed above, they both consist of a bare mention of "vigilante executions" within a passing listing of possible consequences. Neither makes any specific claim of an actual occurrence.

One source, Metro, is a tabloid's piece on a band's concert experience in UAE and criticism of the singer possibly exposing an audience member to retaliation by publicly kissing him. Not really authoritative. The other is the webpage of the Eastern Shore Unitarian Church, promoting their 2021 Pride Service. Again, it's only a mention in passing. A local church's community website would not usually meet WP:RS standards for such a statement.

@Lmharding: I would be pleased to discuss your views on this and the other sources, whether directly under the subheadings in this section or at #Discussion of sourcing for penalties, whichever you are most comfortable with. Thanks AukusRuckus (talk) 09:03, 28 September 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)

Apology

attempt to restart discussion to be productive
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@Lmharding. I apologise for writing the above; it seems 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 of sourcing for penalties

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)

@Lmharding: Please do not misunderstand me. There is no need to add more and more sources saying that this or that person has been mistreated or abused. Nor is it any good to just keep piling up news items that list purported penalties in passing. No matter how many you find, they cannot add up to a conclusion of either a "penalty" or "common" unless the source itself says this. Without it being in the source, it is always going to be WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, whether we have one instance, or 100. I do not know how else to explain it. AukusRuckus (talk) 14:11, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Sources

Removing sourced sections without edit summaries

discussion with now blocked sock re allegedly non-existent quotes from sources
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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) Blocked sock 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) Blocked sock @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 achieve 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) Blocked sock

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) Blocked sock

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) Blocked sock; struck 07:06, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Notes

Sources

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 non-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. —Lmharding (talk • contribs) 05:03, 14 August 2022 (UTC) 05:03, 14 August 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock

@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 non-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)

Further discussion

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)

Further discussion

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)

References