Talk:Capital punishment for homosexuality/Archive 1

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)

Moneyspender's content removal
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) [Striking blocked SOCK. AukusRuckus (talk) 13:22, 5 January 2023 (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) [Striking blocked SOCK. 13:22, 5 January 2023 (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)
 * hey bro, i can assure unfortunately that . 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)
 * 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.
 * 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) [Striking SOCK using IP to evade block. Yes, 3 years ago, but still at it. AukusRuckus (talk) 13:22, 5 January 2023 (UTC)]
 * 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) [Striking SOCK using IP to evade block. 13:22, 5 January 2023 (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)  [Striking blocked SOCK. 13:22, 5 January 2023 (UTC)]
 * 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) [Striking blocked SOCK. 13:22, 5 January 2023 (UTC)] Now please don't let bonadea vandalize it by reverting it again. Thanks.Revert time (talk) 04:05, 6 September 2019 (UTC) [Striking blocked SOCK. 13:22, 5 January 2023 (UTC)]
 * After all the discussion in the previous section, I have little optimism that another round of explaining NPOV to Moneyspender/Revert time will make a difference, and particularly now that they've been indeffed, but here goes again: when a RS states that there's a difference of opinion on a point, finding RSs that reflect one or the other of these opinions is not a valid reason for removing that generalization. Eperoton (talk) 03:09, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 25 September 2019

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move either page. (non-admin closure) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:57, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

– Consistent with Capital punishment. Interstellarity (talk) 21:45, 25 September 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:02, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Death penalty for homosexuality → Capital punishment for homosexuality
 * Death penalty in the Bible → Capital punishment in the Bible


 * The proposed rename of United Nations moratorium on the death penalty seems like a poor idea, given that the resolutions themselves are called "Moratorium on the use of the death penalty", and "death penalty" is the term used by RS when talking about the resolutions. Colin M (talk) 23:43, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I removed it. Interstellarity (talk) 23:52, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose the previous suggestion (now removed). Somewhat indifferent on the other two suggestions. This is because I personally prefer the clearer "death penalty," but we should usually be consistent with article titles. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:54, 25 September 2019 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:58, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , there have been discussions about moving Capital punishment to Death penalty. They have failed. See here. Interstellarity (talk) 10:50, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose the Bible article change, as capital punishment means a governmental sanctioned action, which is not what is meant by most of the article. So unless particular cultural Gods face reelection every few years (Make Heaven Great Again) this option falls outside of the term "capital punishment". Randy Kryn (talk) 11:13, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * p.s. The article List of capital crimes in the Torah is misnamed for the same reason ("capital crimes" are governmentally sanctioned). Randy Kryn (talk) 11:21, 26 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose - "death penalty" is often clearer, and it's generally fine the way it is. Paintspot Infez (talk) 14:53, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose as the clearer term, per sources, and in view of WP:NOTBROKE. Debresser (talk) 15:14, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Since there seems to be opposition on moving the articles. I have created a move discussion here. Anyone is welcome to comment on the discussion linked. Interstellarity (talk) 19:26, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Put on hold pending the result of the rename of the main article, I support matching the main article.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 18:15, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support given the main article RM was closed as not moved.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 14:09, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support matching main article title. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:03, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Relisting comment - I have closed the Talk:Capital punishment RM as not moved, but there isn't a clear consensus yet whether the two articles listed here should match it or not. Hence listing for another week. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:02, 4 October 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 24 October 2019

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Consensus to move. The support votes can be summarised as arguing per Article titles, article titles should be consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. Some of the oppose rationales invoke WP:NOTBROKE, which points to Redirect, which is a guideline concerns editing redirect pages for wikitext semantics; it does not concern article titling. Therefore, it appears that consensus is to move as proposed; I shall tag the resultant redirect with R with history. (closed by non-admin page mover)  SITH   (talk)   11:19, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Death penalty for homosexuality → Capital punishment for homosexuality – There is a clear consensus for this title per the discussions at Talk:Capital punishment. Interstellarity (talk) 17:40, 24 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose as with a month ago - "death penalty" is often clearer, and it's generally fine the way it is (see WP:NOTBROKE). Paintspot Infez (talk) 23:38, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Then you need to move the main article, as long as the main article uses this form, the sub articles should match it.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 08:30, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * That is not the "main article", rather one subject is included in the article of the second subject, as the second is the broader term. Debresser (talk) 11:02, 25 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment: Interstellarity, if this move request doesn't result in a move, I hope that you don't keep trying to get this article moved until you get your way. That would be disruptive, especially if you keep trying every other month. Pinging editors who voted in the previous requested move discussion: Randy Kryn, Debresser, Crouch, Swale, and Necrothesp. Pinged all except for Paintspot, who already voted again above. No need to ping me since this article is on my watchlist. In fact, please don't ping me. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:52, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support there's clear consensus for the main article to use "Capital punishment" not "Death penalty" so this one should to. If people think "Death penalty" is better then they need to get consensus at the main article which has consensus already.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 08:30, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * That is not the "main article", rather one subject is included in the article of the second subject, as the second is the broader term. Debresser (talk) 11:02, 25 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Support. For consistency reasons, should obviously match the main article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:38, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * That is not the "main article", rather one subject is included in the article of the second subject, as the second is the broader term. Debresser (talk) 11:02, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Rubbish. It has already been established that capital punishment should be preferred. Surely you're not claiming that when applied to homosexuality a different usage is commoner. For consistency's sake, capital punishment should clearly be preferred across the board. Incidentally, you don't need to leave the same comment after every opinion that differs from yours. It's not helpful. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:24, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Per WP:CONDESC its a descriptive title named after Capital punishment and Homosexuality and should usually match both articles.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 16:37, 25 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose as the clearer term, per sources, and in view of WP:NOTBROKE. Debresser (talk) 11:02, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support the title is consistent with similar articles, nearly all articles uses the term Capital punishment, while death penalty is used as redirect, I don't see why this article is an exception. UA3 (talk) 04:20, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support The article refers mostly to the policies of governments, regarding which the use of the term capital punishment is standard and most appropriate. StonyBrook (talk) 05:41, 27 October 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Iraq
Should Iraq be added to this list? Iraq makes same sex activity under a indecency law with a penalty of 6 months in jail and fines, the Iraqi government directly permits and actively participates in executions. Should this count then on the list as a country that allows death for LGBT? 194.247.60.2 (talk) 01:53, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

LGBT right in the UAE
I added a 2019 updated the report to the laws of the UAE according to the 2019 file from ILGA and added that under Zina penalties LGBT activity is also punishable by death. I don't see the issue with the edits. Let's keep the version I just created. See the edit here: * 🇦🇪 United Arab Emirates: The UAE's penal code makes same sex sex-relations illegal under penalty of death. In addition, with enforcement against Zina crimes, homosexual activity can be considered illegal and have been punished with up to death. Also, Abu Dhabi's Penal Code punishes unnatural sex acts with up to 14 years in prison stating: "whoever resorts to coercion in sexual intercourse with a female or homosexuality with a male, shall be punished by 14 years in prison." . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.247.60.2 (talk) 09:45, 1 February 2020 (UTC)   [Striking SOCK using IP to evade block. Yes, 3 years ago, but they're still at it. AukusRuckus (talk) 13:22, 5 January 2023 (UTC)]
 * First of all Abu Dhabi doesn't have it's own penal code, they use the same Federal penal code. this is the official translation, the one in legaladviceme.com is unofficial translation. Where does it say "The UAE's penal code makes same sex sex-relations illegal under penalty of death" in the penal code? also I didn't find "whoever resorts to coercion in sexual intercourse with a female or homosexuality with a male, shall be punished by 14 years in prison" in the penal code, Article 354 reads:(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. Coercion shall be considered existent if the victim is below fourteen years of age when the crime is perpetrated.) The links you posted none of them are confirming a death sentence was carried out or sentenced for a LGBT activities and the current statement clear and covers all the aspects. Regards,UA3 (talk) 10:51, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

There is one does show someone directly being sentenced to death. I'll remove the others. My edit just reiterates the federal law says death is prescribed for homosexuality. The incorrect statement that people aren't prescribed death or aren't sure about their laws is ignorant and inaccurate. Taking in your edits you mentioned how about this as our finalized edit? 🇦🇪 United Arab Emirates: The UAE's penal code makes same sex sex-relations illegal under penalty of death under 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. Coercion shall be considered existent if the victim is below fourteen years of age when the crime is perpetrated." . In addition, with enforcement against Zina crimes, homosexual activity can be considered illegal and have been punished with up to death. Let me now what you think. Thanks. 194.247.60.2 (talk) 11:02, 1 February 2020 (UTC) [Striking SOCK using IP to evade block. 13:22, 5 January 2023 (UTC)]
 * Whether you're a new editor or another sock of banned user who's been long trying to replace the description of UAE laws sourced to WaPo, the current version describing a legal disagreement on the question is still reliably sourced and no one has yet presented a policy-compliant rationale for removing it. When a RS states that there's legal disagreement, it would be not compliant with WP:NPOV to remove that statement even if we found a source that supports one or another side of the disagreement. We would need a later source which states that the disagreement no longer exists, e.g., due to a death sentence being handed down for homosexuality as such and upheld by higher instance courts if there's an appeal. Eperoton (talk) 01:38, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I suggest a compromise edit then and you can see what you think. "* 🇦🇪 United Arab Emirates: Article 354 of the UAE's penal code lists a punishment of death for same sex relations. . In addition, with enforcement against Zina crimes, homosexual activity can be considered illegal and have been punished with up to death However some legal experts claim the law only applies to rape In addition, with enforcement against Zina crimes, homosexual activity can be considered illegal and have been punished with up to death A recent Amnesty International report claims that there are no instances of death sentences for homosexual acts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.247.60.2 (talk) 03:31, 4 February 2020 (UTC)  [Striking SOCK using IP to evade block. 13:22, 5 January 2023 (UTC)]

The ILGA report you're citing discusses this matter on p. 479, as follows:

Like, I think the current text is a clear description of the Federal Penal Code, which reflect this and other sources better than what you propose. The new information in the ILGA report is the statement that some courts have passed Zina sentences based on Sharia, which in itself makes same-sex relations theoretically punishable by stoning. The text is a bit confusing. Firstly, they inexplicably call Sharia a "code" even though they explicitly contrast it with codified laws. Secondly, it's hard to understand the last sentence unless you know that the Federal Penal Code contains a general provision that certain crimes are to be punished according to Islamic law, without specifying the penalties (I previously summarized a RS on this for another article). This is in Article 1 of the code "The provisions of the Islamic Shari’a shall apply to the crime of doctrinal punishment, punitive sanctions and blood money." I don't have time to find the Arabic text at the moment, but I'm pretty sure "doctrinal punishment" refers to Hudud crimes, of which Zina is one. So we could add a sentence summarizing these points carefully. Eperoton (talk) 03:16, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if the point of the this is to over scrutinize everything for technicalities. ILGA is considered a reliable source as seen by how it is consistently referred to in other LGBT Wiki articles such as . As for the additional note for Hudad crimes I agree and I would like you to add it since it seems that whenever I even attempt to offer an edit it gets reverted without actual regard to its value since others just like to WP:HOUND and block any new ideas I offer. 194.247.60.2 (talk) 12:05, 6 February 2020 (UTC) [Striking SOCK using IP to evade block. 13:22, 5 January 2023 (UTC)]
 * We just need to ensure that we're reflecting the cited RSs accurately. I've summarized this material in the article. Eperoton (talk) 01:38, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 February 2020
Change "A recent Amnesty International report claims that there are no instances of death sentences for homosexual acts." to "A recent Amnesty International report wrote that there are no instances of death sentences for homosexual acts." We cannot physically verify this as factual. The way this sentence is written now comes off as editorializing and as an unsupported attribution since this phrasing assumes factuality. 194.247.60.2 (talk) 00:31, 12 February 2020 (UTC) [Striking SOCK using IP to evade block. 13:22, 5 January 2023 (UTC)]
 * ❌. I don't see how changing "claims" to "wrote" somehow imbues the statement with attribution where there wasn't before. "Claims" seems pretty attributive, and putting "wrote" there would just be bad English.  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 03:52, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Dubious claims about death penalty for adultery
Article says "A number of countries allow the death penalty for adultery, which would necessarily include gay sex since none of these countries allows same-sex marriage". However, that is a rather dubious claim, because the definition of "adultery" varies, and does not necessarily include all cases of same-sex activity. In the contemporary world, it is only Islamic countries which retain the death penalty for homosexuality, and in Sunni Islam, the classic position is that adultery (zina) requires a penis, and hence sex between women (even if they are both married to different men) is not adultery, and thus the penalties for adultery (including the mandatory hudud death penalty for adultery by the married) do not apply to it. (Which is not to say that female-female relations are permitted – they are considered to be a sin and a crime – but not the crime of adultery, rather a distinct crime for which there is no mandatory punishment under Islamic law). Also, male-male sexual acts are a distinct crime from zina – zina only has a hudud death penalty when one or both of the adulterers are married, whereas most Islamic scholars teach that certain cases of (consensual) sex between unrelated male adults carry a hudud death penalty even when both participants are unmarried. 119.18.2.248 (talk) 03:59, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Alleged Tasmanian execution in 1867
The article currently says: One source claims the last execution for sodomy in the British Empire happened in the Colony of Tasmania (now part of Australia) in 1867. And the source it refers to is:

However, List of people legally executed in Australia records no executions in Tasmania in 1867. While it is possible that list is incomplete, after extensive searching I've been unable to locate any details on this alleged execution. A number of sources repeat this 1867 factoid, but none of them give a name or a date. I'm left wondering if this execution actually happened. And I'm wondering, if we can't find firmer sourcing for the claim, whether it actually belongs in the article? 119.18.2.248 (talk) 05:51, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Females
I just want to say that there is no mention of whether or not this also applies for female homosexuality, and in which countries. Could somebody look into it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.76.11.101 (talk) 17:04, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Iranian Penal Code
you wrote "Articles 127 through 134 make the 4th offense of repeated female-female activity liable to death". That's not true. Article 136 makes the fourth offence of any hudud crime capital. Articles 238–240 make musaheqeh (tribadism) a hudud crime, so there is a death penalty for the fourth offence of tribadism. However, for other female-female sexual activity (other than genital-genital, such as oral-genital, oral-anal, digital-genital, digital-anal, kissing, etc), that is not musaheqeh, it is covered by article 237, for which the punishment is ta’zir flogging, and hence since it is not hudud there is no death penalty for repeat offenders under article 136. So you were partly right, but your citation of the articles is wrong. I've updated it to make it more accurate. Mr248 (talk) 05:35, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Sudan
Plz change the map of both Sudans. Sudan is a secular state now and has since removed death penalty for homosexuality though other punishments exists and South Sudan it’s also illegal but no death either Nlivataye (talk) 10:47, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Reuters source for Sudan
Hi @. Thanks for giving a reason for why you believe Reuters is unsuitable as a source. Sorry to trouble you, but would you please link directly to the WP discussion? The link in the edit summary is just a list of search results. If you mean this discussion, it may be a misunderstanding. Could you please let me know, as Reuters is a long-established news agency of some repute, whose news service media outlets routinely make use of, as they have been doing since the mid-19th century. The WP:RS/Perennial says this: AukusRuckus (talk) 15:36, 18 August 2022 (UTC) @: Could you please look again at the RS Perennial sources please? I don't want to argue about the change atm, I just want to establish what the actual official position of WP is on Reuters as a source. It's very difficult to have any discussion if we're operating from a "differing set of facts."

According to your second ES, WP has deprecated, or classed as unreliable, Reuters for "parroting from other articles" and also, in another discussion it was criticised for "a poll ... that had poor sampling". Yet I read on WP:Reliable sources/Perennial sources the opposite. Can you help me here? Not only with the recent edit on this article, but if Reuters is removed from other articles, in the mistaken belief that WP considers it a bad source, things might get tricky. There's thousands of cites sourced to them: It is a widely respected news agency that syndicates its news to thousands of news outlets, including many of the most influential. Please talk about this issue here before removing any more Reuters cites. Thanks. AukusRuckus (talk) 07:28, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Religious bias
When Muslims murder homosexuals, they are referred to as "Muslims".

When Christians murder homosexuals, they are referred to as "religious".

This article seems to have been written or edited by Christians. Joreberg (talk) 16:06, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

I can clarify that. It was changed a long time ago because someone complained about too much focus on Christian countries doing this. I will make adjustments.194.247.60.2 (talk) 07:25, 23 July 2021 (UTC) [Post of Jacobkennedy's sockpuppet, struck by AukusRuckus (talk) 06:28, 7 January 2023 (UTC)]

Joseph Fogg, Tasmania, 1830
The section on Australia ends with this sentence: The source given, however says this:

This is not enough evidence to support the statement, surely? It's an crime rather than. Without another source, I think it should be removed. (And, minor quibble: the execution occurred on 24 Feb, not 26th.) AukusRuckus (talk) 13:31, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * At the time, newspapers described it both as an "unnatural crime" and as a "nameless offence". See this source which quotes some of them – http://web.archive.org/web/20170310215834/http://www.unfitforpublication.org.au/trials/1800s/1771-1829-joseph-fogg – that site is (or was, it seems to have fallen off the web) the web version of a self-published book by the Australian LGBT activist Peter De Waal. While that book is self-published, it is generally considered a reasonably reliable source for these matters, since most of it is simply quotes from newspapers and government records, and a number of university libraries have copies of it – this is an aspect of Australia's history which has as yet not received as much attention from professional historians as it should.
 * "nameless offence" was a common euphemism for the crime of "buggery". See for example this book – https://www.bloomsbury.com/au/nameless-offences-9781848850903/
 * Once you understand the euphemism, it becomes very clear that Fogg was executed for the sex crime of "buggery" or "sodomy". Probably not for the rape of an adult woman, or sexual abuse of a female child, since those crimes were not considered "so horrible we can't even name them". De Waal's conclusion is that this was a case of bestiality, since that is how he categorises it in his book and website. I think he certainly could be right, but I don't know how certain we can be that he is correct. My impression is, De Waal used actual court and government records for New South Wales cases, not just newspaper articles – but, I don't think he looked at the court and government records for Tasmanian cases, just newspaper articles, so his information and conclusions on those cases is somewhat less reliable.
 * Indeed, contrary to De Waal, the book Gender trouble Down Under : Australian masculinities (David Coad, Presses Universitaires de Valenciennes, 2002) apparently says (page 34) "Hobart began hanging sodomites in 1830 when Joseph Fogg, aged thirty-two, was executed for an 'abominable crime' committed against William Newport" – that doesn't sound like bestiality, it sounds like male-male sexual activity, but it is unclear if this was a case of consenting adult relations, or same-sex adult rape, or if William Newport was a minor. I don't know what sources Coad is using, or how reliable those sources are, since I haven't read the book, just found the quote on Google Books snippet view.
 * So, I don't think we can entirely rule out or rule in the possibility that this was a case of "capital punishment for homosexuality", based on the sources located thus far. 180.150.79.82 (talk) 09:47, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, I found convict record for Joseph Fogg which also mentions his execution for an "abominable crime" – https://convictrecords.com.au/convicts/fogg/joseph/83346 – although it still doesn't tell us the exact nature of the crime, but the term "abominable" supports that it was buggery/sodomy. He was serving a life sentence. I think, since there is no information on prosecution of a partner, it seems less likely to be an equal adult relationship, most likely was either an animal (as De Waal thinks) or something abusive (a child or adolescent or otherwise vulnerable person). That said, still can't completely rule out the possibility that it was for relations with a consenting adult, and his partner avoided prosecution for some reason. 180.150.79.82 (talk) 10:04, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that useful information, IP 180.150.79.82. I have made changes to the text, accordingly, adding the sources you provided. AukusRuckus (talk) 10:18, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Capital punishment for homosexuality
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Capital punishment for homosexuality's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "April32019": From LGBT rights in Brunei: Brunei enacts Islamic laws to punish gay sex with stoning to death – here's what you need to know From LGBT in Islam:  

Reference named "AFP": From Liberia: "Background on conflict in Liberia", Friends Committee on National Legislation, July 30, 2003 From LGBT rights in Brunei: Brunei introduces stoning to death for gay sex, adultery</li> <li>From LGBT people in prison: </li> <li>From International Day Against Homophobia, Biphobia and Transphobia: </li> <li>From Legal status of same-sex marriage: Sweden's Lutheran church to celebrate gay weddings, AFP via Google News, 22 October 2009.</li> </ul>

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:06, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Maldives
Removed the entry shown below, as no sources list Maldives as having capital punishment for homosexual conduct. Death is a legal penalty for intentional murder (only), for which there is a moratorium in place; if the moratorium is ever lifted, same-sex sexual offences will not be liable to the death penalty. (Also the Quran does specify a penalty. That is a misreading of a source somewhere. Only hadith do so. See LGBT in Islam.) AukusRuckus (talk) 07:58, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Change the Crimea color to gray
Change the Crimea color to gray cause it is a part of Ukraine National Respublic as it states in the Ukrainian Constituon 46.222.198.229 (talk) 11:59, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * cause it is a part of Ukraine National Respublic is it claims in the Constitution of Ukraine:

Long-embedded misleading claims by socks
I made some fairly extensive edits, in an attempt to purge the strangely-oriented (POV, but which?) edits of LTA editor, , , , and the sockmaster's many, many block-evasive uses of IPs, the most recent (here) being 76.72.175.108. In particular, I note this deceptive use of a incomplete quote for a citation, used, I am supposing, so that the editor could bolster support for their attempt to present the death penalty as being more widespread than it is, in as many places as possible. Sock's omissions are in green:

I made many adjustments to half-truths, omissions, and outright falsities, but there's more work needed. I'll try to detail more of what I edited later. I'm aware it's by no means perfect, and too wordy (although most words added are in the cites and notes): no doubt others will adjust and improve before I get back to it. AukusRuckus (talk) 12:38, 18 July 2023 (UTC)