Talk:LGBT rights in the United Arab Emirates/Archive 1

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

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

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

Sources?
This article says homosexuality can be punished by forced chemical castration or execution. I've seen a few UAE citizens strongly dispute that this happens, and while I could find quite a lot of websites carrying this information, I didn't find anything that looked to be an obviously reliable source. Is there a source available for this? I'm not removing it yet, but it seems like the kind of statement that should be supported. 131.169.205.135 (talk) 10:25, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Have removed references to death penalty. Death penalty for homosexual rape does not qualify as death penalty for homosexuality. This was probably added by an editor who does not know the difference between homosexuality and rape -Sahir 10:09, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

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

ILGA is a baised source
Under WP:SPS it would count as self punlished therefore "generally not reliable" plus it does not fall into the WP:RSR and their writing is one way opinionated opting to only express pro-LGBT opinions instead of being wp:neutral — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moneyspender (talk • contribs) 22:33, 4 July 2019 (UTC) So I vote to disallow this "source" from being quoted or referenced. Moneyspender (talk) 22:40, 4 July 2019 (UTC) [Blocked sock. AukusRuckus (talk) 14:24, 21 October 2022 (UTC)]
 * Maybe you need to ask at Reliable sources/Noticeboard about International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association. I expect the question has been raised before. History Today is written by historians. Does that make it biased? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:45, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

Why is ilga biased how provide sources come on? AdamPrideTN (talk) 23:02, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

One way wp:bias and WP:selfpublished also see the dispute with you tagged Moneyspender (talk) 23:19, 4 July 2019 (UTC) [Blocked sock. AukusRuckus (talk) 14:24, 21 October 2022 (UTC)]

Please read the recent edit history of the page the talk and even the english national source he provided that it was male female adultry bcos of pregnancy and marriage and not homosexual relations and that his same source states Abu Dhabi Criminal Court has previously sentenced people convicted of adultery to death by stoning, but these sentences have not yet been enforced. And is ILGA really an unbiased sourve as he claims Come on!! Thx AdamPrideTN (talk) 11:28, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * AdamPrideTN, Moneyspender clearly claims that ILGA is a biased source, and further that it is a WP:SPS which sounds a little bizarre to me. But the edit summary here said: "while I work on that here is the 2019 edition of ILGA and I will write up my reasons why I think it's unreliable tomorrow in the talkpage". So we await an explanation. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:35, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Firstly the source may be Wikipedia:Advocacy since the article itself is written from the point of view of an organization is are for gay rights so therefore will write everything to be pro-gay or from the view of what gays experience. It can also be wp:coi since posting from pro-gay sources will also cause the wording and attitudes in the page to slant toward that political and social attitude and opinion. It also is a wp:blog since it is written an released by itself and cannot be considered an expert since anyone can just publish opinions and as defined an expert needs to have and use a particular skill and I'm not sure that definition would fit for ILGA. Moneyspender (talk) 04:16, 6 July 2019 (UTC) [Blocked sock. AukusRuckus (talk) 14:24, 21 October 2022 (UTC)]
 * Can you believe that he is saying that ILGA which is the biggest world federation of national and local organisations dedicated to achieving equal rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans and intersex (LGBTI) people across the globe.

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

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

He still failed to provide a single source in English or Arabic or any language that states A man or two were killed for having a homosexual relationship whether they are married or not? He still didn't Still waiting The law says excution and Sharia yes But unlike Saudi unlike Iran and as Qatar and Mauretania There have been no known cases of excution because of homosexuality Please provide a teliable source AdamPrideTN (talk) 12:32, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * AdamPrideTN, yes, the logic there is also lost on me. I suggest that you ask about this at WP:RSN. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:13, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Still waiting for any reliable source in Engkish or Arabic to prove that homosexuality was a reason for excuting anyone in UAE, Qatar or Mauretania??
 * So????
 * If not will have the authority to revert your edits to make it accurate
 * Ok! AdamPrideTN (talk) 20:35, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * AdamPrideTN, do you want ask about using ILGA sources at WP:RSN, or shall I? Looking specifically at this source the UAE section starts is on pages 479-481 and there is no mention there of execution. But the table on page 532 shows the maximum penalty in UAE is "DEATH (P)", whatever that means. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:08, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * the source is not wrong or contradictory, the section shows clearly that yes the excutions is P (possible) like in Qatar Mauretania or Pakistan (although i will never understand why this user is so fixated with the UAE page only although i edited all other pages accordingly too) but is not E (enforced) like unfortunately it is in Saudi Arabia or Iran amongst others.
 * It is P not E thats what i showed in my edits that there have been no known excutions akthiugh there is the death penalty in the law (hope it is clear) (for him especially) AdamPrideTN (talk) 21:35, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could explain to us the meaning of "(P)" and "(E)", after "DEATH", in that table? Perhaps there is a key somewhere, but I could not find it. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:40, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * hi yes as i said its written small there
 * E for effective
 * P for possible
 * is P (possible) like in Qatar Mauretania or Pakistan (although i will never understand why this user is so fixated with the UAE page only although i edited all other pages accordingly too) but is not E (enforced) like unfortunately it is in Saudi Arabia or Iran amongst others. AdamPrideTN (talk) 19:09, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Allright 3 4 days with no answer no rekiable source and apparently the dude is starting another pointless war edit in singapore with another editor where he didnt want to undeestand that law is on the books but not enforced and that singapore allows pinkdot one of the largest gay prides in Asia.
 * Would u be so kind and make the necessary back to my one showing on the whole article the true situation there. Thank you. AdamPrideTN (talk) 11:39, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Moneyspender, would you please respond here? Do you now accept that ILGA is a good source? If not, could you please raise the question at Reliable sources/Noticeboard? I now have removed "execution" from the infobox, as the ILGA source you yourself kindly provided does not seem to support it. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:10, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Impatient I see, you guys should have expected that I would enjoy my 4th of July weekend in peace. Anyway, for now I'm reverting pending the noticeboard. Moneyspender (talk) 19:36, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. Yes, a great day for speeches about airports. But I'm not really sure why your enjoyment, or even 4th of July itself, should have no respect for WP:BRD, let alone 6th July. I'm also not sure that your enquiry at WP:RSN will turn out the way you might want it to. But I have no intention of edit warring, so am quite happy to await for the result over there. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:58, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh i totally forgot about him I mean really wow
 * Bro, So the dude went on crying at RSN
 * And got shut out by this experienced veteran editor that said: The most important piece of the reliable source guideline is "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". And judging by the references to the ILGA State Sponsored Homophobia reports in the academic literature, that reputation is excellent. If the ILGA says that something is a confirmed fact, I would support simply stating it as a fact. If it states that "no cases could be found of..." or "appears to be unenforced..." or similar, then I would attribute. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:39, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * So it's been again that he reverted that there are no cases of any excutions and still no sources yet to confirm that
 * He started another discussion on the death penalty for homosexuality page so really wow! He reverted my edits again no use i guess i mean the fuc**ing Amnesty report said so too, what's more does he want bro
 * I really don't understand.
 * And u just wow! No words! AdamPrideTN (talk) 01:02, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Moneyspender, the consensus at WP:RSN seems to be that ILGA is not a biased source. Do you now agree? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:56, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * yesMoneyspender (talk) 09:14, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. It should also be clear that it's a reliable source for any similar article, not just this one. By the way, it might be a good idea, to aid clarity of Talk page threads, if you could start new sentences with a capital letter? And if you could also indent your replies to show clearly to whom you are responding? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:30, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. It should also be clear that it's a reliable source for any similar article, not just this one. By the way, it might be a good idea, to aid clarity of Talk page threads, if you could start new sentences with a capital letter? And if you could also indent your replies to show clearly to whom you are responding? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:30, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

pointed out this discussion in Talk:Death_penalty_for_homosexuality, where I've been involved in a dispute with about other sources on the same topic. Another relevant source is the WaPo article we've been discussing there, which says ''Lawyers in the country and other experts disagree on whether federal law prescribes the death penalty for consensual homosexual sex or only for rape. In a recent Amnesty International report, the organization said it was not aware of any death sentences for homosexual acts.''. Another relevant reference is the Cornell Center on the Death Penalty Worldwide, whose entry on UAE doesn't mention consensual gay sex, but does refer to same-sex rape in a couple of places. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eperoton (talk • contribs) 23:46, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Those look like perfectly good sources. That material could be added here. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:48, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

These seem to disprove those articles. 194.247.60.2 (talk) 04:48, 5 September 2019 (UTC) [Blocked sock. AukusRuckus (talk) 14:24, 21 October 2022 (UTC)]

"vigilante execution"
In my view "vigilante execution" is not a formal legal penalty and so should not appear in the infobox. That term does not appear in the source provided. If there are any reported instances supported by sources they should certainly be mentioned in the article main body text. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:03, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * it's pretty much a given (not OR) since the pattern among multiple Arab countries is that if they allow long jail sentences or have heavily anti-perceptions which the UAE is both it's fair to say they would not care if a homosexual is beaten to death in the streets Moneyspender (talk) 11:06, 16 July 2019 (UTC) [Blocked sock. AukusRuckus (talk) 14:24, 21 October 2022 (UTC)]
 * Please indent your posts. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:15, 16 July 2019 (UTC)


 * u are right bro, i specefically told him that, plus we are talking about facts and sourced content and not its pretty much a given or i think or i guess or my view is or they are islamic so they kill or attack them

Its about facts and i'm sure these kind of Attacks happen everywhere even in the deep south or europe or many african latin country and sometimes officials don't do anything or just enclurage it AdamPrideTN (talk) 23:36, 16 July 2019 (UTC) AdamPrideTN you've been warned on as well as being given a formal warning on about personal attacks and making accusations against editors. If you continue I will have no choice but to add you again to the notice board, seeing as you refuse to be wp:civil Moneyspender (talk) 04:23, 17 July 2019 (UTC) [Blocked sock. AukusRuckus (talk) 14:24, 21 October 2022 (UTC)]

Moneyspender ok no need sorry, didn't mean it, ok.

It doesn't matter if you mean it or not, it's not ok and it's against Wikipedia rules. Moneyspender (talk) 18:19, 31 July 2019 (UTC) [Blocked sock. AukusRuckus (talk) 14:24, 21 October 2022 (UTC)]

As stated above, in my view, "vigilante execution" is not a formal legal penalty and so should not appear in the infobox. But there is no advice at Template:Infobox LGBT rights, so I have raised the question at Template talk:Infobox LGBT rights. The term was first added to the infobox here by User:Moneyspender. I removed it here as unsourced. It was re-added three days later by User:Moneyspender   here. I removed it again here and it was once again added by 78.108.38.157 here with the edit summary “sourced”. My latest removal here was re-added, now for a fourth time, by  User:Moneyspender here. The supposed sources are this and this As far as I can see, the only reference to "vigilante" in the first source is this sentence: "In many Muslim-majority countries—including Afghanistan, where Omar Mateen’s parents came from—LGBT people face as much danger from their families or vigilantes as they do from the authorities." The second source, ‘’The Wall Street Journal’’ is behind a subscriber paywall, so I can't read it. Could someone who has access have a look at it? But, even if it is an adequate source for this claim, I still don’t think that "vigilante execution" belongs under "Penalties" in the infobox. Views from other editors are very welcome. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:50, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * p.s. there seems to be another questionable addition of "vigilante execution" to an infobox, this time at LGBT rights in the Maldives, here which seems wholly unsupported by the source. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:05, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I added another source for the Maldives but if you didn't notice it both the Freedom House source and this Independent article both state he was attacked and nearly killed for being openly gay and trying to push freedom to openly practice religions other than IslamMoneyspender (talk) 16:26, 1 August 2019 (UTC) [Blocked sock. AukusRuckus (talk) 14:24, 21 October 2022 (UTC)]
 * Could you please indent your posts. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:57, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

And I see we how have "vigilante execution" being added here again, and over at Human rights in Dubai by an anon editor with an IP based in Allentown, Pennsylvania? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:45, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what happened here, but many claims in the article are based on simple speculating and linking general Sharia laws capital punishments to personal sexuality, I'll have to read the article thoroughly and review all reflinks in the next couple of days UA3 (talk) 21:59, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Your diligence is much appreciated. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:01, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, poorly sourced content is a systemic problem in articles relating to LGBT in the Third World, and much of it seems to be the work of the banned user Sockpuppet investigations/Jacobkennedy/Archives. I'm afraid I don't have time at the moment to review all those pages and check the sources, but if you do, you could browse through the history of Death penalty for homosexuality for a partial inventory of their socks and their edit history. That would certainly be a valuable effort. Eperoton (talk) 03:04, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * These are sourced stop reverting them without reading the articles. They validate these legal punishmnets being on the list. See torture, chemical castration . Also vigilante executions will be left out until more accurate sources can be found. However, attacks and allegations of calling me a sock of a banned user is rude and innapropriate. Please re-read WP:NPA. Thanks.204.186.240.186 (talk) 20:29, 22 October 2019 (UTC) [Blocked IP. AukusRuckus (talk) 14:24, 21 October 2022 (UTC)]
 * IP 204.186.240.186 are you yet another sock of User:Moneyspender? You reply here as if you were them. Could you please indent your posts. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:43, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm not editing as if anyone. I'm just adding sources as I think fits with the punishments LGBT face in the UAE. No assuming bad faith please. Follow common courtesy and Wikipedia etiquette. 204.186.240.186 (talk) 21:14, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Common courtesy and Wikipedia etiquette require that you indent your posts. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:23, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Penalty
I promise to add only official penalties in the penalty box itself, meaning only authorized punishments from the Emirati government. In addition, I hope to see if these additional non-government punishments which are well sourced can be mentioned after the official punishments. "Additionally, although not officially sanctioned by the Emirati government, chemical castration,  forced psychological treatments , forced hormone injections beatings, and torture have been tolerated." 194.247.60.2 (talk) 10:01, 29 January 2020 (UTC) [Blocked IP sock. AukusRuckus (talk) 14:24, 21 October 2022 (UTC)]
 * Thank you. That looks more reasonable. I'm not sure I'm able to really judge the quality of those sources. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:16, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * We can add them for now and if someone has an objection, concern or question I'll happily answer them here. Please revert to the edit I last made in the article. Thank you. 194.247.60.2 (talk) [IP sock. AukusRuckus (talk) 14:24, 21 October 2022 (UTC)]
 * They can be added to the article text. But it is my view they should not be added to the infobox unless they are official legal penalties. Sorry if that wasn't clear. Other views welcome. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:22, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * For clarity/consistency purposes the info should be the same, plus even if not officially through the Emirati government it's still a risk to LGBT life and we want to make sure that all info and safety warnings are also added and not downplayed by not being only written in one place. That strategy doesn't seem to make sense to me. Maybe the sources boxes will have no sources behind it, just the main and additional vigilante punishments. Then we can add the sourced repeated info in the main article. That way the summary boxes aren't clogged up by article references. 194.247.60.2 (talk) 10:39, 29 January 2020 (UTC) [Blocked IP sock. AukusRuckus (talk) 14:24, 21 October 2022 (UTC)]
 * What is your understanding of the word "Penalty" in the infobox? It seems that, unfortunately, Template:Infobox LGBT rights does not offer any definition and does not even provide any examples. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:14, 29 January 2020 (UTC) p.s. you might like to indent your replies here.
 * Please assist, I tried to simply do some cleanup on sources and people keep reverting. I need assistance.194.247.60.2 (talk) 00:19, 30 January 2020
 * I thought we had consensus on adding the info but people are giving me a hard time so I guess let's put it to the vote whether we should add the extra penalties. Then hopefully the drama about it will be settled. 194.247.60.2 (talk)(UTC)
 * GUYS: IF YOU HAVE ANY OBJECTIONS TO ADDING THIS SOURCE SPEAK NOW. If not that means you are okay with the new info being added. 194.247.60.2 (talk) 09:55, 1 February 2020 (UTC) [Blocked IP user. AukusRuckus (talk) 14:24, 21 October 2022 (UTC)]
 * What is your understanding of the word "Penalty"? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:57, 1 February 2020 (UTC) p.s. do you know what an "indent" is?
 * Perhaps it would be better to ask if there are any objections before making an edit? And to wait a while to get responses? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:30, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Penalty meaning punishments for actions. 194.247.60.2 (talk) 10:53, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Does anyone have objections to these edits before we go forward?194.247.60.2 (talk) 10:53, 1 February 2020 (UTC) [Blocked IP user. AukusRuckus (talk) 14:24, 21 October 2022 (UTC)]
 * So does that mean "official punishments" i.e. legal penalties, as defined in UAE law? I suggest that this point is fully discussed and agreed before you make any more edits. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:40, 1 February 2020 (UTC) p.s. if you want to reply, please you can you indent your comment, under mine, by using a series of colon symbols ":"
 * Punishment will mean both legal and nonlegal punishments since both occur and are culturally embedded in Emirati culture. 194.247.60.2 (talk) 12:05, 1 February 2020 (UTC) [Blocked IP user. AukusRuckus (talk) 14:24, 21 October 2022 (UTC)]
 * Is that something that has been agreed across all "LGBT rights" articles? Does that mean non-legal punishments should be also included in the infobox? I think it's important that the distinction, between these two types of "penalty", is made clear. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:17, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

That is my view and I think at least briefly mentioning non-legal penalties is fair if it is also commonplace and if the authorities refuse to intervene. Ignorance is the same as participating just in a more allusive way194.247.60.2 (talk) Note that at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Infobox_LGBT_rights the community seems divided on this topic. 194.247.60.2 (talk) 12:27, 1 February 2020 (UTC) [Blocked IP user. AukusRuckus (talk)]
 * So, you suggest briefly mentioning non-legal penalties in the text but not in the infobox? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:30, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * No I'm suggesting in both the penalty box and text again for consistency sake but Ivthink the way I wrote it makes it clear these are additional penalties that the government turns a blind eye to and may not be directly done by government officials themselves194.247.60.2 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:55, 1 February 2020 (UTC)   [Blocked IP user. AukusRuckus (talk) 14:24, 21 October 2022 (UTC)]
 * Then I'll have to strongly disagree with you. I think there should be distinctly separate paragraphs, or even headed sub-sections, that make the distinction quite clear. Of course you are welcome to discuss that further at Template talk:Infobox LGBT rights and reach consensus, but that only covers what's in the infobox. I still think that only legal penalties should appear in the infobox. Meanwhile, it might be wise to get the views of other editors here before any further editing takes place? I'm agreeable to having citations only in the article text and not also in the infobox. But everything should be cited, of course, to WP:RS. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:57, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * For now let's add in text and then I can suggest how I would word it even more consisely in penalty box and see what you think of it. 194.247.60.2 (talk) 23:56, 1 February 2020 (UTC) [Blocked IP user. AukusRuckus (talk) 14:24, 21 October 2022 (UTC)]
 * Oh, then I suspect you'll get reverted again, as we seem to have agreed nothing here. Why not present your prospective changes here, one by one, where they can be commented on by other editors before they appear in the article? If you continue just add and get reverted, you may end up getting blocked for disruption. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:36, 2 February 2020 (UTC) p.s. what have got against indenting comments?
 * There's only a few edits. After noting that the government punishes homosexuality with death I want to add in the penalty box "with chemical castration, forced hormone injections, forced psychological treatments, beatings, and torture also being tolerated." Then in the text part of the ariticle after the other government sanctioned penalties I wan to add: Additionally, although not officially sanctioned by the Emirati government, chemical castration, forced psychological treatments, beatings, forced hormone injections , and torture   have been tolerated. Let me know what you think. 194.247.60.2 (talk) 04:39, 3 February 2020 (UTC)  [Blocked IP user. AukusRuckus (talk) 14:24, 21 October 2022 (UTC)]
 * As I've already said quite clearly above, I don't think that punishments which are "not officially sanctioned" should be added to the imfobox. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:13, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The additional punishments have been added to the regular text but not the text box194.247.60.2 (talk) 03:21, 4 February 2020 (UTC) [Blocked IP user. AukusRuckus (talk) 14:24, 21 October 2022 (UTC)]

This should have not been restored with edit summary "it is agreed in our discussion". Martin's comment above is "as we seem to have agreed nothing here" and "Meanwhile, it might be wise to get the views of other editors here before any further editing takes place?". Dartslilly (talk) 14:45, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Read the first 4 comments again above or read a copy of them here "I promise to add only official penalties in the penalty box itself, meaning only authorized punishments from the Emirati government. In addition, I hope to see if these additional non-government punishments which are well sourced can be mentioned after the official punishments. "Additionally, although not officially sanctioned by the Emirati government, chemical castration[1][2][3], forced psychological treatments[4], forced hormone injections[permanent dead link] [5] beatings[6], and torture[7] [8] [9] have been tolerated." 194.247.60.2 (talk) 10:01, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * "''Thank you. That looks more reasonable. I'm not sure I'm able to really judge the quality of those sources. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:16, 29 January 2020 (UTC)"
 * We can add them for now and if someone has an objection, concern or question I'll happily answer them here. Please revert to the edit I last made in the article. Thank you. 194.247.60.2 (talk)
 * "They can be added to the article text. But it is my view they should not be added to the infobox unless they are official legal penalties. Sorry if that wasn't clear. Other views welcome. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:22, 29 January 2020 (UTC)" I would say that is consensus. Your meddling is not appreciated in this matter Dartsilly194.247.60.2 (talk) 20:50, 8 February 2020 (UTC) [Blocked IP user. AukusRuckus (talk) 14:24, 21 October 2022 (UTC)]
 * Sorry, 194.247.60.2 but your lack of indents and quote marks above makes your comment pretty much unreadable. It's not my job to correct it. And please don't quote me in your edit summaries as the sole arbiter of what can or cannot be added to this article. It's a matter of consensus. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:38, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It feels like your throwing me under the bus for rewriting what you said. 194.247.60.2 (talk) 00:19, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * So where does the conversation go from here? Does anyone else have an opinion to add. 194.247.60.2 (talk) 07:39, 19 February 2020 (UTC) [Blocked IP user. AukusRuckus (talk) 14:24, 21 October 2022 (UTC)]
 * Official, legally sanctioned penalties in the infobox. Extra-judicial punishments, if well-sourced to be commonplace, in the article text. Captainllama (talk) 16:53, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 March 2020
Change Article 354 of the Federal Penal Code states: "Whoever commits rape on a female or sodomy with a male shall be punished by death." This is a prohibition against rape, and consensual sodomy. The Federal Penal Code, which follows Sharia Law, does not replace the legal system of each emirate, unless it is contrary to the federal law. Hence a person could be charged with the Federal Penal Code, or under a local (emirate) penal code. Imprisonment, death, fines, floggings, and deportation are commonplace. to Article 354 of the Federal Penal Code states: "Whoever commits rape on a female or sodomy with a male shall be punished by death." This is a prohibition against rape, and consensual sodomy. The Federal Penal Code, which follows Sharia Law, does not replace the legal system of each emirate, unless it is contrary to the federal law. Hence a person could be charged with the Federal Penal Code, or under a local (emirate) penal code. Imprisonment, death, fines, floggings, and deportation are commonplace. Additionally, although not officially sanctioned by the Emirati government, chemical castration, forced psychological treatments, beatings, forced hormone injections, and torture have been tolerated. 194.247.60.2 (talk) 17:52, 1 March 2020 (UTC) [Blocked IP user. AukusRuckus (talk) 14:24, 21 October 2022 (UTC)]
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: I'm satisfied these changes should be made, however, my concern is around the formatting of the references. Are you able to (1) indicate page numbers where you are referring to a document (the PDFs) and (2) reformat the new references (9 through 17) using the cite web template.  Goldsztajn (talk) 21:53, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Article 354 of the Federal Penal Code states: "Whoever commits rape on a female or sodomy with a male shall be punished by death." This is a prohibition against rape, and consensual sodomy. The Federal Penal Code, which follows Sharia Law, does not replace the legal system of each emirate, unless it is contrary to the federal law. Hence a person could be charged with the Federal Penal Code, or under a local (emirate) penal code. Imprisonment, death, fines, floggings,  and deportation are commonplace. Additionally, although not officially sanctioned by the Emirati government, chemical castrationMamba OnlineLGBT Nation, forced psychological treatments, beatings , forced hormone injections> , and torture have been tolerated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.247.60.2 (talk) 06:11 (UTC), 2 March 2020 (UTC)   [Blocked IP user. AukusRuckus (talk) 14:24, 21 October 2022 (UTC)]
 * ❌ Unclear what exact changes are being suggested. Maybe use bold text to show clearly what is new/ different? Or else do one sentence at a time? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:17, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * it seems like you're being hostile and stalling trying to complicate a simple edit. I'm just gonna bring it to a dispute board. 91.197.129.74 (talk) 22:05, 6 August 2020 (UTC) [Blocked IP user. AukusRuckus (talk) 14:24, 21 October 2022 (UTC)]
 * I see. If you feel that strongly, then please go ahead. That might resolve this continuing episode one way or the other. Kind regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:09, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 January 2019 and 18 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Xwboy123.

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

Legal penalties
The article opens "Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people in the United Arab Emirates face legal challenges not experienced by non-LGBT people." So the article should focus on legal penalties. "Vigilante executions" are not legal penalties. They could be covered in the article main body, if adequately sourced, but should not appear in the infobox or lead section. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:49, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It is sourced, does occur, and has a valid citation. How about this compromise edit at the end "Vigilante executions are also tolerated." Then it will be implied as a punishment that may or may not be directly done by government (since nothing says the government officials don't do this as well) but taking the law in their own hands has not been stopped or discouraged by the Emirati government. There are some clarity issues about whether or not it's just citizens doing this or if this practice goes all the way up the chain of command to the president and high ranking officials hence why it's better to be safe than sorry to add it everywhere but imply this unspecified detail. We cannot prove either way so knowing how anti-gay the UAE government and society is it seems probable it happens at every level. Also I see no rules specifying only legal punishments allowed in the punishment box. You are the one of maybe 2 people claiming this. 194.247.60.2 (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.247.60.2 (talk • contribs) 06:44, 29 July 2021 (UTC) [Blocked IP sock. AukusRuckus (talk) 14:24, 21 October 2022 (UTC)]
 * No, we don't assume "government officials do this as well" without sources. I would agree there are "some clarity issues." Didn't we have a very similar discussion here over a year ago? Didn't User:Captainllama provide a conclusion on 25 February 2020 above? I would not object to adding "Vigilante executions are also tolerated" at the end of the lead section. But I would be interested to hear what Captainllama thinks. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:32, 29 July 2021 (UTC) p.s. please indent your posts, thanks.
 * However, the source you provide to support the claim that "Vigilante executions are also tolerated" is this about 30 men "thought to be gay". I don't see any firm evidence whatsoever for "vigilante executions". Martinevans123 (talk) 07:48, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

The source says “The boys risk huge consequences and discriminations in their future careers if their names get out, not to mention the lives of some of them are at risk if their families are conservatives, as it may lead to so called ‘honour killings’,” she said." Honor killings and vigilante executions are synonyms of each others hence it's supported. 194.247.60.2 (talk) [Blocked IP sock. AukusRuckus (talk) 14:24, 21 October 2022 (UTC)]
 * No, those are not synonyms. Also "it may lead to so called ‘honour killings’".... then again, it may not. And even if they do, there is no evidence whatsoever they would be "tolerated". We don't even know if the men at this single reported "party" were gay?? Martinevans123 (talk) p.s. I wonder could you indent your posts here? Thanks.
 * Why won't it be tolerated? They execute gay people it's obvious they wouldn't value gay people or gay lives. It doesn't matter if the people at the party were gay or not it's the fear and risk they felt of the possibility of honour killings. I have a few more sources I found With more than one source are we good to add it now?194.247.60.2 (talk)  [Blocked IP sock. AukusRuckus (talk) 14:24, 21 October 2022 (UTC)]
 * I wonder could you point out where those sources mention " vigilante executions"? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:03, 29 July 2021 (UTC) p.s. I have indented your reply above to show that it is a reply. Could you please do the same from now on?
 * Sure. In Metro "‘Of course I’m not going to put people in danger, but I genuinely want to be an ally for people who don’t have a voice if I happen to have this big voice in pop culture. Those are the fundamental things I stand for.’ In the UAE, all sexual activity outside heterosexual marriage is considered a crime, with punishments including jail time, floggings, beatings, death, torture, fines, vigilante execution, and deportation."
 * In ESUC "In some places LGBT identity is seen as a ‘Western’ phenomenon, one that is somehow exported into unsuspecting countries via strongarm marketing tactics or ‘brainwashing.’ In some countries it is still illegal to be LGBT, and in 13 countries homosexuality is punishable by death: Afghanistan, Brunei, Iran, Maruitania, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Somaila and United Arab Emirates. In some places such as the Chechen Republic, Uganda, Cameroon and Senegal police turn a blind eye or are even complicit in rampant anti-gay violence and vigilante executions. Here is a link to an interactive map showing different countries’ attitudes toward LGBT people." 194.247.60.2 (talk)  [Blocked IP sock. AukusRuckus (talk) 14:24, 21 October 2022 (UTC)]
 * Re this restore, please self-revert. We have agreed nothing. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:35, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * At WP:RSP it says "The reliability of Metro has been compared to that of the Daily Mail and other British tabloids." It is generally considered not reliable. As for ESUC, since when has the UAE been part of "Chechen Republic, Uganda, Cameroon and Senegal"? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:44, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I feel like the edit is justified and I stand by it. The sources now do support and say exactly what they specify. The wording can be changed to "Although it's unknown whether the Emirati government supports it, honor killings and vigilante executions sometimes occur" along with the sources if that takes care of any other concerns. Deleting is not an option I feel is correct. 194.247.60.2 (talk) 11:46, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Update: I found an article from newsgroove that says the same thing as Metro. Would you prefer replacing that source? I can do that no problem. .194.247.60.2 (talk) 11:54, 29 July 2021 (UTC) [Blocked IP sock. AukusRuckus (talk) 14:24, 21 October 2022 (UTC)]
 * The newsgroove story is directly sourced from Metro? I'm sure your sources do indeed "say exactly what they specify". But they are not sources we can use here, I'm afraid. Kindly self revert. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:35, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

If you have a news article which is serious investigatory journalism into vigilante executions or honour killings in UAE, that would be a high quality reliable source. But passing claims in an article about an entertainer, that isn't a high quality reliable source. Unsourced claims on the website of an American church aren't a high quality source either. Mr248 (talk) 02:24, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Honour killings documented here as well. Hnor killings are a form of vigilante executions so both are covered under these sources. 194.247.60.2 (talk) 05:57, 31 July 2021 (UTC) [Blocked IP sock. AukusRuckus (talk) 14:24, 21 October 2022 (UTC)]
 * Have you actually read the first source? It has no relevance whatsoever to this article. We've already discussed the second story, from 9 years ago, about "unconfirmed reports" of "30 men who may have been gay". Time for you to stop here, now, I think. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:33, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually the issue with that 30 men article was mainly the source was unreliable before. The source quoted here saying the same thing is deemed acceptable in your perrenial sources page. "There is rough consensus that PinkNews is generally reliable for factual reporting, but additional considerations may apply and caution should be used. Most of those who commented on PinkNews' reliability for statements about a person's sexuality said that such claims had to be based on direct quotes from the subject." As for the first source it's being resinded from entry. I will not accept your dimissive and horrible tone. I don't and won't stop anything. I'll keep entering sources until a source is accepted. One of them has to be decent. In the meantime your attitude is unacceptable and unkind. Change it. 194.247.60.2 (talk) 10:28, 31 July 2021 (UTC) [Blocked IP sock. AukusRuckus (talk) 14:24, 21 October 2022 (UTC)]
 * IP194, you haven't answered my first question. Why is a brief article about honour killings in the Punjab relevant here? I'm sure there's nothing wrong with Pink News. But the sources you have provided here are simply rubbish. I think you may need to stop, even if you don't want to, or you may be sanctioned. Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:36, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It was a mistake. So it's not as relevant as I first thought it was written by a newspaper named UAE not talking about the UAE. It's a simple misunderstanding. Here's a suggestion, since Pink News is seen as valid put the Pink News as the only source for now as I had previously written the addition for honor and vigilante attacks and if a better source comes along it'll be replaced by that one. If one cannot be found and someone else besides you decides to take it down until a better source is located, then that is how it'll stay on my side until then. Fair enough? Are you threatening me with that last comment? 194.247.60.2 (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.247.60.2 (talk • contribs) 11:01, 31 July 2021 (UTC) [Blocked IP sock. AukusRuckus (talk) 14:24, 21 October 2022 (UTC)]
 * No, not fair enough, at all. We have no good source to support the claims that "vigilante attacks" or "honour killings" occur, or are tolerated by the authorities, or are used as legal penalties, in the UAE, in response to LGBT activities. I'm not "threatening" anyone. I am suggesting that if you insist on pushing an agenda here, without any suitable sources, you may be blocked as being WP:NOTHERE. We don't post things in the hope that "a better source may come along". Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:17, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

There are no extant cases of execution for this either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.218.140.146 (talk) 13:50, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Those who defend this misinformation spam references that do not actually address this valid point. AABmartin (talk) 18:05, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

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

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

So where this is all going, is that I'm about to do an edit which will restore the inadvertently removed full citation for B. Douglas's 2012-09-14 post at queerty to the article, and replace the bare urls by reintroducing the six or seven "queerty" named refs that got orphaned a bit ago. In order to avoid any confusion going forward in multiple citations for *different posts* from Queerty, I will use the name "Douglas-2012" for this ref, instead of the old name, "queerty". This is all strictly housekeeping, and changes nothing in the content of the article; nor does it add or subtract any references, all it does is make the references fuller, and show up on one line in the "References" section, instead of showing up on seven different lines with the same (bare) information. Hope we are all still on agreement on this. I will go implement this now. Mathglot (talk) 20:08, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅. Mathglot (talk) 20:21, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I see that there is another orphan, namely "hdt", currently generating an error in the "References" section. I'll see if I can go fix that one. Mathglot (talk) 20:23, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅. Mathglot (talk) 20:36, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for you assistance. I appreciate it.Lmharding (talk) 22:42, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * One last thing on the housekeeping topic: here's a tip that I hope will help&mdash;please consider keeping your housekeeping edits separate from your content edits. What happens if you combine a completely anodyne housekeeping task (such as rescuing orphaned refs, which can be complex and lengthy) with a content change (which could be a hot button for another editor), is that you risk having your edit reverted because of the latter, which throws out the beneficial housekeeping change at the same time.
 * Ironically, you have both fallen into this trap:
 * AukusRuckus, in this edit of 29 July, you consolidated a number of duplicate refs using named refs; kudos for that. Unfortunately, rather than stop there and hit "Publish", you also rewrote the "Legality" section (thank you for your very clear edit summary). That made it very difficult for anyone who disagreed with the content change to undo only that part, without throwing out the ref consolidation at the same time. (In fact, I think that indirectly set the stage for the bareurl problem that occurred later.) That's too bad, because it must have cost you some time to do the ref consolidation (and also for me, to rescue them later).
 * Lmharding, in this edit on 7 August, you made one in a series of edits which  added some content, but also removed the anchor citation "queerty" (which in your edit right before that one still had the definition of it in note 1 in section . I imagine you must have noticed the red H:CERNT error in the references section at the bottom of the page after saving, and didn't know why, and that you then tried to fix the problem in these four edits by at least adding the urls back in.  Thank you for that; that improved the article by ensuring that WP:Verifiability was restored (although with the issues of bareurls previously noted). In your case, I think that in your attempt to add new material replacing the old, you forgot that replacing material might also remove a source, in this case the anchor source for all the named refs which linked backed to it. This led to the red error you saw, and your fixes after.


 * So that, I think, is the full story of what happened with the series of references being consolidated, inadvertently removed, and restored initially as bareurls. Separating housekeeping edits from content edits will prevent this from happening; remember whenever removing a source to use the "Preview" button before saving (should always do that anyway), to make sure that there are no red errors in the "References" section; that will help catch problems before they start. Hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 00:06, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for the advice and help. I will keep your suggestions in mind. Lmharding (talk) 18:21, 16 August 2022 (UTC)