Talk:LGBT rights in Saudi Arabia

Criminal code
In additional to the advisory opinion (from the 1920s) two royal decrees also touch upon the subject of homosexuality directly. They should probably be mentioned in the section on the criminal code. The two that come to mind would be;


 * Rules of Apprehension, Temporary Custody& Precautionary Detention Regulation
 * The Executive Regulation of the Law of the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice

I am not entirely sure how to sign this, but its TomJeffersonIII

HIV/AIDs
Why is there an HIV/AIDs section on a page titled LGBT rights in Saudi Arabia? shouldn't that warrent its own page considering most people with HIV/AIDs in Saudi Arabia probably aren't LGBT? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Play10000 (talk • contribs) 22:45, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I have to agree. I can see why the author wanted to include HIV/AIDS in this article, given the stigma regarding HIV/AIDS associated with the LGBT community. However, the majority of the information in this section does not appear related to LGBT rights, so I would suggest either removing it completely or greatly reducing the length/focus of it. Fred.Pendleton (talk) 19:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

In the 1980s/1990s, the pandemic was certainly associated with male homosexuality in the Kingdom. Certainly, associated in the mind of the government and the general public. At least one of the laws concerning AIDS was based on this assumption and about the only time that the Saudi press could say something nice about gay people, was in terms of a celebrity dying of AIDS/HIV. unsigned comment added by 74.127.166.57 (talk) 20:31, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Untitled
Gosh this page needs a lot of work! I hope I eliminated some of the outright misinformation. Why the heck is censorship and the prohibition of nightclubs discussed here? Are they gay issues? The police also raid heterosexual parties. Why is the US Don't Ask, don't tell policy' mentioned here? Is that related to Saudi Arabia? Why are conditions on Camp mentioned? Would that not be better in the WikiTravel tour guide? I am not happy with this at all. Paul, in Saudi 18:30, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

TomJeffersonIII says (with great wisdom) one aspect of the government's censorship has been on how LGBT themes were allowed to talked about and in what context. That's just in printed media. With the Internet the government has blocked access to certain webpages because they advocated gay rights (largely by dumping it into the same category as pornography). Having lived/worked in Saudi Arabia -- albeit some time ago -- "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" was not a terribly inaccurate way to describe the social situation (at least for the middle class -- which was pretty multi-ethnic/national). You sort of hoped -- given the legal circumstances -- that your boss "didn't ask" and you certainly understood that you better not "tell". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.127.166.57 (talk) 20:38, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Deleted Text
(Just to make things easier, I will toss the stuff I am cutting here. If anyone want to discuss my edits this makes it easier.) Paul, in Saudi 05:40, 19 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Movie theaters and nightclubs are prohibited, but theaters are allowed on the Aramco compounds albeit any films shown are censored and available long after they have been released in America or Western Europe. Westerns often prefer to use the theatre for the exhibition of local musicans, plays, and artists. It is unlikely that the production of plays is subject to any offical censorship board as many of the comedy plays often make jokes about American politicians and even include characters that cross-dressed.


 * Satellite television is illegal, but the rule is generally ignored and thus members of the middle class can gain access to less censored Arabic and English news and entertainment, although the Saudi government has been known to jam the signal when satellite programming includes criticism of the Saudi royal family. The satellight programming does not appear to censor television sitcomes that make refence to homosexuality, although popular American shows such as Will & Grace and Queer as Folk, with more explict homosexuals themes, have not aired.


 * Middle-class foreigners living on an Aramco compound are likely to find the atmosphere more relaxed with a unofficial policy of tolerance provided that gay employees maintain a public image of confirmed bachelors, and keep their homosexual behavior in private homes, and do not involve Saudi citizens, married adults or minors.


 * .


 * rganization is permitted to exist. The underground Green Party of Saudi Arabia is the only political organization in Saudi Arabia that supports gay rights. Forigners should not expect assistance from their country of origin if they are arrested for homosexuality. Informal and discreet social networks do exist, but are subject to police harassment and arrest. Due to the Islamic mores that require the segregation of the sexes, foreigners will notice a degree of situational bisexuality.

Expat Gay and Lesbian Community

 * Middle class gay and lesbian westerners living on an Aramco compound will generally be able to avoid harassment if they present a public image of heterosexuality or assexuality, avoid relationships with minors, married adults or with Saudi citizens. On the private Aramco compiunds, the local law enforcement operates under slightly more relaxed rules then the rest of the nation and will be willing to ignore the private lives of employees as long as their is suffient plausible denibilty to do so.  However, the Aramco Oil company has no non-discrimination policy, and thus the unwritten policy amounts to something similar to Don't Ask, Don't Tell.


 * Gay women, are likely to be even more invisible then gay men due to the restrictions placed on women in the kingdom.  Like gay men, they shall be treated as bachelors, but will not be allowed to drive off the Aramco compound.  While all the reports on punishment for homosexuality have involved men, female homosexuality is certainly equally illegal and gay would should take the same precautions as gay or bisexual men.

I deleted the above section (again, I think). It is not accurate, it is not relevant, it is not wise. 1) It is not accurate. Westerners on non-Aramco compounds have much the same life as on Aramco compounds. The main Aramco compound is called 'Camp,' by the way. How about non-Western Gays? Do they count? Is the Wiki a Westerner-only source? 2) It is not relevant. This mentioning of 'Don't ask, don't tell' has nothing to do with the subject at hand. (Why is it bolded?) 3. It is not wise. Drawing attention to the Gay/Lesbian lifestyle in Saudi Arabia may put people's lives at risk. Why do it? Paul, in Saudi 17:53, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Slow Motion Revert War!
OK, I deleted the above again. Micahbrwn added it back again with no comments. He does not seem to read his talk page.

Look, I live in Saudi Arabia. I am writing this in Saudi Arabia. I know of what I speak. Will & Grace airs here. I like the show. There is no reputable evidence the Saudi government does (or can) censor satellite TV. Saying otherwise is simply false.

There are a number of Gay communities here. They are generally segregated by nationality. I deleted the mention of them (again) out of a simply desire that we keep people safe and out of jail.

Look, maybe I am wrong to delete the section on Aramco, but can we at least discuss it? Paul, in Saudi 04:55, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Removal of Falacious and Prejudiced Information
I removed the following from the Saudi gay and lesbian community section:


 * Officially, there are no LGBT Saudi citizens because all citizens are Muslim and homosexuality and cross-dressing are judged to be against the teachings of Islam. Instead there are only criminals, mostly foreigners, who engage in such immoral activities and thus the only public acknowledgment of LGBT people in the kingdom are new reports about people being punished for specific acts.

This entire paragraph appears to be falacious and based on superstitious and prejudiced beliefs. Not all citizens of Saudi Arabia are Muslim. Only in the government's eyes are there no LGBT citizens. Homosexuality and "cross-dressing" (i.e., transgenderism) are only judged by some people to be against the teachings of Islam; many Islams do not subscribe to this belief. The entire final sentence is rubbish on its face, clearly the work of someone with a homophobic agenda.

Cory Fryling 00:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems to me you misunderstand the paragraph. To me, it is saying the same thing as you. YOMAL SIDOROFF-BIARMSKII (talk) 08:40, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Dispute with anon editor
The thing below was posted on my talk page. (I rvted his edit with the summary: 209.50.138.253 I am using reliable sources. If you have reliable source contradicting this we can put both in the article. journalists/writers Whitaker, Bradley, Lobi, and Lacey all have spent a lot of time in Saudi) --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:12, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Don't change back sources on the LGBT RIGHTS IN Saudi Arabia page
The author you spoke of never actually visited in Saudi Arabia and I've consulted with people who lives there and tells me that homosexuality doesn't exist, the amount of homosexuals there are so low that it's basically non-exisitant. I'm giving you one more warning if you undo my edit one ore time I'll report you for starting an edit war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.50.138.253 (talk) 19:54, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Yet another
Another revert by 209.50.138.253 --BoogaLouie (talk) 01:09, 5 February 2015 (UTC) Prove that they were in Saudi Arabia anyone can just make up that they went there an "interviewed" these people. Especially because they're all Iranian and Americans, not actually from a Saudi news-person. How do we know they're legit? They could easily just be pushing their lifestyle choice? And I actually have a friend named (redacted) (an real married Saudi women) and she tells me that she hasn't experienced any homosexuals in Saudi Arabia. Ask her yourself at (redacted). Tell her that Jacob (me) told you to ask her.

Above comment by - I have redacted a link to twitter that could give away the real identity of a user (OUTING) and doesn't make a relaible source (WP:RS). -- Aronzak (talk) 11:34, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Yet another
I reverted a similar edit, again by 209.50.138.253. The information is sourced, the proposed edit has no reliable sourcing to suggest the information is false. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:56, 10 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment the IP user may have a point - WP:CHERRYPICKING means that quotes from a gay person saying that think they can hide their non-marital same-sex relationships more easily than opposite gender non-marital relationships should include the comment that opposite-gender couples can get married to avoid scrutiny. The Atlantic seems to be a decent source, though the nuance in the source may not be properly conveyed in the contested material. -- Aronzak (talk) 11:37, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Leave this edit
I removed some of the info about lgbt living conditions because the info gives a false impression of acceptance which can put gays in danger in Saudi Arabia. Do you want them to be safe? If you revert it, people will incorrectly think it's safe to be openly gay and they could get tortured, castrated, arrested, fined or executed for it. Leave it alone for their safety. Above comment by

Note, discussion on

Will comment above -- Aronzak (talk) 11:27, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Current dispute
I do a lot of dispute resolution and happened to see this listed at both Third Opinion and Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. A request for dispute resolution was declined in both places for inadequate discussion here on the article talk page. I don't want to either participate in the discussion here or provide dispute resolution services, but part of the problem needs to be addressed, mainly to 64.121.83.151 (and this also applies to your removals of sourced material over at Culture of Saudi Arabia). The problem is that most of the arguments that you have advanced so far are meaningless for Wikipedia purposes, as well-established in Wikipedia policy, guidelines, and practice, and thus go in one ear and out the other for experienced editors:
 * The idea that material ought to be removed because it could be harmful to someone. Wikipedia is not censored. If material is verifiable and does not give undue weight to a subject matter (and various other things, like not being a copyright and not being libelous), it can be included even if it is offensive or dangerous information. That is a principle which has been reaffirmed again and again and again here.
 * The idea that material is wrong, inaccurate, or should be removed because it disagrees with your personal experience. Wikipedia includes material if it is verifiable through reliable sources (that's the threshold for inclusion, other factors such as undue weight and the other things I mentioned above may then kick into play). If other material which is verifiable through reliable sources contradicts that material, we include both positions and note the conflict between them without attempting to resolve it. But your personal experience is not a reliable source and counts for nothing except, perhaps, to motivate you to find reliable sources as defined by Wikipedia which confirm your personal experience.

I presume that you're not the same person as 209.50.138.253 who edited this page back in January, so I won't comment on some points raised by that editor which are equally meaningless for Wikipedia purposes (especially the idea a source is not reliable because of the speculation that there's no proof that the author ever visited Saudi Arabia).

Understand that I'm not here to grind an axe or take sides (indeed, if you'll check my user page you'll see that I'm a LGBTQ straight ally), I just want to point out that part of the reason you're not receiving much of a response here is that your expressed concerns just don't mean much of anything by Wikipedia standards. The reasons material gets removed or excluded here are many, but the main ones are (a) it's unsourced, (b) the sources cited are not reliable sources as defined by Wikipedia, (c) the sources are reliable but do not clearly reflect, without prohibited original research or synthesis, the material that they're cited to support, (d) they give undue weight to a very minor point or fringe position, or (e) they violate one of those policies about copyright or libel or the like. If you believe that the material shouldn't be here, you're going to need to find some reason other than the ones you're offering at this time. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 15:11, 1 May 2015 (UTC) PS: Please sign your talk page posts with four tildes: ~. Otherwise it's very difficult to decide whether comments here belong to one editor or another without digging into the page history. Putting up that barrier to comprehension just weakens your arguments that much more. Better yet, create an account and only edit signed in and sign your posts with the four tildes; that way if your IP address changes we can be sure who's saying what. — TM 15:15, 1 May 2015 (UTC)


 * TransporterMan, from what I see, the IP is a WP:Disruptive editor, and this article needs to be WP:Semi-protected. This edit by the IP is unacceptable per what you have stated above, and the IP has been blocked before for WP:Disruptive editing, and has disrupted this article under a different IP address. As seen here (while this person was using a different IP address), this person was reverted by Roscelese, was reverted here by Randykitty, here by Brisvegas, and here by me. Enough is enough. There is nothing to debate, since the IP is not basing his or her edits in any Wikipedia policy or guideline and is editing from personal opinion. Flyer22 (talk) 22:42, 1 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The IP has been blocked for a year for block evasion. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 21:27, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Under the "PENALTY" section in the box the following is stated: "If convicted twice, you will be executed. Vigilante executions are very common as well".

The citation given for these two statements is:

http://www.executedtoday.com/2011/03/13/2005-a-gay-couple-in-saudi-arabia/

However, the article says the following:

"RIYADH—A gay couple was beaded in a public execution Sunday [March 13, 2005] in Saudi Arabia after being convicted of killing a blackmailer."

The article asserts they MAY have been killed for being gay, but that was not the crime they were convicted and killed for. It does not reference the "two strikes and your out" statement it is being cited for and it does not contain evidence of vigilante killings.

Please not I am not suggesting the two statements (two strikes / vigilante) are wrong, but I am suggesting that citation is not apt in this case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.205.167 (talk) 01:22, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

check the surce
in this section "Penalty: Fines, floggings, prison time up to life, torture, chemical castrations," does it say LGBT act is punished or he talking about "sexual predators " i am gonna delete any thing without reliable source --Mojackjutaily (talk) 22:50, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

First of all, this source http://www.executedtoday.com is not trusted, second: its say they were beheaded because they killed someone not because they are gay. --Mojackjutaily (talk) 22:56, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Chemical castration
This edit added chemical catration, amongst many other things. However the source is this, which does not seem to be concerned with LGBT rights and is, in any case, just reporting the view of one "Saudi scholar" Saud Bin Abdullah Al Fanisan? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:04, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * i deleted the edit, one of the source is not working(PDF) while the other talked about one man Opinion not Saudi Arabia law. And he is talking about "sexual offenders" not gays .--Mojackjutaily (talk) 07:53, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Uncited, Outdated or Irrelevant Information
Changed the following:

Removed "beatings, torture, vigilante attacks, chemical castrations"

Reason: Due to not being mentioned in the cited sources. Please source this information properly if it is correct.

Changed: "A gay Saudi diplomat named Ali Ahmad Asseri applied for asylum in the United States after the Saudi government discovered his sexuality."

to: "A gay Saudi diplomat named Ali Ahmad Asseri applied for asylum in the United States after he claimed the Saudi government discovered his sexuality."

Explanation: Added "he claimed" due to not being corroborated by other information in the article. Article also uses "he claimed"

Removed: "Even government officials are not immune from criminal sanctions"

Reason: Editorializing.

Removed: "Flagellation, Whipping"

Reason: Outdated information. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-saudi-rights-flogging-idUSKCN2262VT Italic text

Removed: "People convicted twice face automatic execution."

Reason: Due to not being mentioned in the cited source. Please source this information properly if it is correct.

Removed: "Insulting Saudi royalty could itself be an offense punishable by death."

Reason: Irrelevant to an article about LGBT rights. Add this to the Human Rights in Saudi Arabia page.

Removed: "In 2001, the Saudi government established formal criminal procedure rules, although many courts have been slow to adopt the rules."

Reason: Due to not being mentioned in the cited sources. Please source this information properly if it is correct.

Removed: "In 2010, a 27-year-old Saudi man was sentenced to five years in prison, 500 lashes of the whip, and a SR50,000 fine after appearing in an amateur gay video online allegedly taken inside a Jeddah prison. According to an unnamed government source, 'The District Court sentenced the accused in a homosexuality case that was referred to it by the CPVPV (the Hai'a) in Jeddah before he was tried for impersonating a security man and behaving shamefully and with conduct violating the Islamic teachings.' The case started when the Hai'a's staff arrested the man under charges of practicing homosexuality. He was referred to the Bureau for Investigation and Prosecution, which referred him to the District Court."

Reason: Uncited information.

Removed: "During this government crackdown on homosexuality, the CPVPV was permitted to make certain high-profile arrests."

Reason: Uncited information.

Removed: "In 2019, Saudi Arabia had a mass execution of 37 men who were generally accused of espionage or terrorism for Iran. Five of these men were additionally accused of having had sex with each other. "

Reason: lgbtqnation.com is not a reputable journalistic institution. Please cite reputable sources as according to Wikipedia rules.

Removed: "In November 2019, two gay journalists from Saudi Arabia fled their home country, after interrogations and facing threats of being publicly outed. However, the pair was detained in Australia on 15 November, while they attempted to seek asylum. The men alleged of being intimidated by guards, threatened with violence by other detainees and witnessing excessive use of drugs among them in the Australian detention centre. "

Reason: StarObserver.com.au is not a reputable journalistic institution. Please cite reputable sources as according to Wikipedia rules.

Please discuss here if you have any issues with what I have changed. Salmanov123 (talk) 13:27, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Position of sources
It's unclear why some legal penalties have supporting sources on the infobox and others have sources in the lead section. Unless the claims are disputed, all penalties should be supported by sources just in the main body of the article? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:45, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

"beatings, vigilante attacks, vigilante executions"
I removed "beatings, vigilante attacks, vigilante executions" here as they did not appear to be supported by The Independent source. This was reverted here with the edit summary "source: independant.co article listed afterwards". How does that source support these three claims? This applies to both the first para and the infobox. I have not yet checked the article main body (where they should also appear sourced, of course). Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:57, 24 May 2022 (UTC)


 * See the new sources, including one from The Times where a gay Saudi is afraid of "vigilante reprisal attacks" for being gay. Lmharding (talk) 08:05, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * There are three different sources that reference The Times. I assume you mean this one about Julian Assange. It says: "In one instance, the group identified a Saudi citizen arrested for being gay as part of a leak of 120,000 files from Saudi Arabia’s foreign ministry. Rights groups fear that he is at risk of vigilante reprisal attacks and could face harsher treatment in the kingdom, where same-sex relations are punished with long jail terms and in some cases execution." So which are these unnamed "rights group"? How do we know if their fears are well-founded or irrational? Again, no record of any actual instance of any "vigilante attack." Martinevans123 (talk) 08:12, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * So I have removed that source, as not providing any real support It's just general second-hand hearsay. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:51, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Reforms
Saudi Arabia saying everyone is welcome is not apart of the reforms, they have always said that, Qatar also says that, and there wasn’t a public abandonment of Hijab. Sternayuhu (talk) 22:32, 9 October 2023 (UTC)


 * The cited article provides stories of women not wearing the hijab in public and opting for slightly less-conservative forms of dress instead. Are you saying it's totally untrue? AntiDionysius (talk) 22:39, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * First of the all the article talks about the Abaya not Hijab and there was no public abandonment on the abaya either. Sternayuhu (talk) 22:45, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * OK - but while I think the text as is might be a bit badly worded, the article discusses women wearing forms of dress less conservative than both the hijab and the abaya. Unless there's some reason to believe the article is all totally incorrect, it is notable. AntiDionysius (talk) 22:47, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Most Saudi Women wear Hijab so what is the public abandonment? Was there a new decree? the article is incorrect same for the wording of it Sternayuhu (talk) 22:52, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * What's your reason to believe the Wall Street Journal article is incorrect? AntiDionysius (talk) 22:54, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Because it has no basis Sternayuhu (talk) 23:00, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Could you explain that a bit more? AntiDionysius (talk) 23:02, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * You can tell from the way it’s titled. Sternayuhu (talk) 23:05, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay. I hope you can understand that one user saying "you can tell it has no basis from the title" is not a good enough reason to remove information from a reliable source. AntiDionysius (talk) 23:08, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The whole mention of improvement of women’s rights is irrelevant because Saudi has always claimed everyone is welcomed so has Qatar. Sternayuhu (talk) 23:06, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Gender identity, living conditions sections.
I’m not sure how a transgender person committing suicide has anything to do with the country’s law around it and there isn’t any proof Transgender Pakistanis were received. And no one would believe the laws encourage homosexuality. Sternayuhu (talk) 22:37, 9 October 2023 (UTC)


 * The text of the article does not say the law "encourages homosexuality". It also does not say, as your edit summary implies, that the law is "rarely enforced". It just says that it's "not always enforced". The source that follows that sentence supports that claim. AntiDionysius (talk) 22:52, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It says some people would think the laws encourage homosexuality, how when homosexuality is illegal? Sternayuhu (talk) 23:02, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * That wasn't the portion you removed, though. AntiDionysius (talk) 23:09, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It was Sternayuhu (talk) 23:16, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * You removed the clause "though these laws are not always enforced" from the lead. AntiDionysius (talk) 23:17, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The death penalty is not always enforced not the law itself. Sternayuhu (talk) 23:23, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * There are sources showing that it is not always enforced. Do you have evidence to show those sources are wrong? AntiDionysius (talk) 23:24, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I respect you for not keep adding back the same thing when it was clearly wrong. Sternayuhu (talk) 23:24, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh it's not clearly wrong. It's right, and you've provided no reason to doubt that. I'm only not re-adding it because I don't want to get engaged in an edit war. You need to stop reverting it yourself; per the notice on your talk page, you're violating the rules quite egregiously right now. AntiDionysius (talk) 23:26, 9 October 2023 (UTC)