Talk:Capital punishment for homosexuality

Legend of the map

The map is based on the ILGA database. If you click the "information" icon which brings up the "Map details", it provides this explanation of the difference between the two "death penalty" categories:

For the two death penalty categories, “full legal certainty” is understood as the absence of disputes about whether the death penalty can be legally imposed for consensual same-sex sexual conduct. This legal certainty may be derived from the existence of written, codified laws unequivocally prescribing the death penalty for same-sex conduct, as it is the case in Brunei, Iran, Mauritania, Nigeria (12 northern states), and Yemen. This list also includes Saudi Arabia, where fundamental laws mandate courts to apply Sharia law “as derived from the Qur’an and the Sunna”. In this particular case, even if the death penalty is not codified in black letter law (in a formal piece of legislation), a broad consensus—supported by judicial practice and ancillary sources—has made it legally certain that Saudi Arabia’s legal system considers the death penalty a possible and appropriate punishment for same-sex conduct. Conversely, the lack of clear provisions mandating the death penalty for consensual same-sex sexual acts, the existence of disputes between scholars and experts with regard to the interpretation of ambiguous provisions, and the need for judicial interpretation of certain “generic” crimes to encompass consensual same-sex sexual acts has led ILGA World to classify the remaining five UN Member States as jurisdictions where there is no full legal certainty.

So the difference is nothing to do with whether the death penalty for homosexual acts is actually practiced, or whether it is always or only sometimes imposed. It is about whether there is a consensus it exists under the law, or whether it is a matter of debate whether it does. Brunei is an example of a country in which the law isn't actually enforced in practice (at least it hasn't yet been and let's hope it never will be), but in which it is nonetheless very clearly on the books, so ILGA puts it in the "legal certainty" category. I changed the captions to be my best effort of reflecting the actual distinction per ILGA, but someone else changed them again to be less accurate. I'm going to revert back to my version. If you disagree, please explain your argument here as opposed to just reverting without explanation. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 11:32, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

@Pastelitodepapa: I saw your edit to the image caption, I'm not sure it is accurate. I don't think "Death penalty a possibility" is an accurate summary of the situation, because the certainty or lack of certainty is not about whether the death penalty will actually be applied or not – it appears that in some of those states in which it is legally certain, that law is not currently being put into practice – the lack of certainty is rather about the theoretical question of whether it is a legal penalty in principle (whether or not that principle is put into practice). I think the previous wording captured this nuance better, I think your new wording does a poorer job of doing so. @AukusRuckus: do you have an opinion on this? SomethingForDeletion (talk) 23:22, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Among a whole lot of other adjustments, I removed the wording "Death penalty a possibility" from the image caption. Although "possibility" is a word used by ILGA, they are discussing the legal possibilites that are in dispute. Labelling the legend in that way would seem to suggest, as you mention, SFD, that the uncertainty is whether the law will be put into practice or not. As the ILGA make clear, the "uncertainty" in these cases is whether the law actually provides for the death penalty at all.

Having said all that, I would be happy to abide by an RfC, or other, less formal consensus process, if a different view emerges. For the moment though, I think we can say there's enough of a "local consensus", to not have the "possibilty" version as the caption. Hope that helps. AukusRuckus (talk) 14:26, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Now looking back at the change I've made, though, I'm unhappy with how I've expressed it. (I was trying to have the label lead with the 'uncertainty' part to highlight that, and to match the order of the first label.) Please improve it, put it back as it was in SFD's earlier version, or some other similar form (but not, for my money, "Death penalty a possibility").AukusRuckus (talk) 14:26, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I think your new wording Unclear if death penalty is a legally possible punishment; consensual adult same-sex acts criminalized is fundamentally accurate. Maybe it would sound better as something like Consensual adult same-sex acts criminalized, but debated whether death penalty is a legal punishment. I don't have a problem with going back to my original wording either, although I worry that it confuses enough people that they are going to be tempted to "improve" it to be worse. Also, do we need to say consensual adult in the caption, or can we just assume it from the context? If we want to be hyperaccurate, we might want to add "private non-commercial" too–although of course many people would consider it wrong to execute people for prostitution or public sex, many would not see it as being as wrong as doing that for private non-commercial consensual adult acts. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 01:01, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

You may have seen it already, but I had yet another go at the label in the image caption. My aim is to have parallel constructions for both parts of the caption, the red and orange legend labels, as I believe that's easier for readers to follow. (And, as you say, SFD, I'm hoping that it'll be a less tempting target for people to "improve"!) Your thought on perhaps not needing to say 'consensual adult' here was a good one, so I dispensed with it. Let me know if you think it's okay. AukusRuckus (talk) 14:02, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

IP edits

154.47.19.132, you reverted me with summary "partial revert, you undid edits of North Korea", yet you have reverted various changes which have nothing to do with North Korea, including my change to the map legend text I discussed above. Could you please explain and justify your changes in detail? I think they'd be much better received if (1) you keep each edit small and on only one part of the article (2) for each edit you write an edit summary explaining the reasoning behind it. Also, although you aren't by the rules strictly speaking required to do so, people would appreciate it if you made an account and edited with that, and again you might find your edits better received if you did that. I'm going to revert you. Please don't just undo my revert without at least posting some explanation of your reasoning here. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 01:14, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

The edits for North Korea are as followed:

• North Korea, death penalty listed as specified with a source for death penalty sentences announced for homosexual activity as offenses of morality laws.
• Then I changed the wording of the legend from "Consensual adult same-sex acts criminalized, but unclear whether death is a legal punishment" to "Consensual adult same-sex acts are a possibility of a death penalty" as it seems more direct and essentially says a similar message but avoids speculating or WP:NOTSCANDAL.
• Then I removed the statement "These sentences have invariably been overturned" as the source does not mention or support that statement and that addition is best speculation, and at worse words made up from thin air.
• Then I changed " While adherence of the country's legal system to sharia allows for capital punishment for same-sex sexual activity— as with other sex acts by married persons outside marriage under zina provisions —there are no known instances of imposition of the death penalty" to "Adherence of the country's legal system to sharia allows for capital punishment for same-sex sexual activity under zina provisions; enforcement is unknown" as it not only removes off topic discussion about adultery which is off-topic, but also allows for it to be written with the possibility of unreported executions as that can't be ruled out in the report.
• Finally in the note for the Amnesty report, I added that this interpretation that seems to be added to the summary twice is just that: an interpretation, and the application of anti-gay laws in the UAE are not confirmed to be only used for rape. Merely, this is Amnesty's opinion not law. 154.47.19.132 (talk) 01:58, 14 August 2023 (UTC) Striking block-evasion; layout clarified. 13:10, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Can you please break all those edits up so we can discuss them individually? I can say specifically with respect to Then I changed the wording of the legend from "Consensual adult same-sex acts criminalized, but unclear whether death is a legal punishment" to "Consensual adult same-sex acts are a possibility of a death penalty" as it seems more direct and essentially says a similar message but avoids speculating or WP:NOTSCANDAL – it isn't "essentially says a similar message", it changes it from an accurate representation of what the source says to a misrepresentation of what the source says, and there is no speculation involved in that. (And you completely ignored my request to discuss the map legend in the Talk page section above before reverting it again–why?). As to all your other edits, I don't have the time to address all of them right now, but several of them I have similar doubts about whether they are accurate representations of what the cited sources are saying, or whether you are even basing them on cited sources at all. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 02:04, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

If you have objections, explain in detail your reasoning. Do not just revert without explaining here first — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itssmeagain (talk • contribs) 07:43, 14 August 2023 (UTC) Striking block-evading sock. 13:10, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

UAE death penalty sources

[1] as well as [2] say is it a punishment, while this source from Amnesty International contradicts itself and claims it is debated on the meaning of the law but it also says death can be applied. We should rule out Amnesty if this voice is in the minority that says it can be debated when there are plenty of sources that do not debate its meaning or do not mention its meaning in its conclusion. This source from Amnesty overreaches to try to find a conclusion that is not there and the few other sources that may exist out there that "agree" with the conclusive punishment being debatable only source it directly or indirectly, essentially parroting this source. Pieinthesky1 (talk) 15:00, 8 June 2024 (UTC) Pieinthesky1 (talk) 15:00, 8 June 2024 (UTC), a block-evading sock of Jacobkennedy (SPI page), long-term abuser of this, and other LGBT-related, pages (as also seen in the section above, "IP edits", by 154.47.19.132 and Itssmeagain). [Striking sock 10:00, 9 June 2024 (UTC)]

References

Iran???😡

Law is unclear that gays can be put to death in Iran? Are you serious? RickyBlair668 (talk) 15:20, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

The article puts Iran in the "Complete legal certainty" category not the "Legality unclear" category. So you are complaining that the article is saying something it doesn't actually say. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 02:00, 9 June 2024 (UTC)