Thanks for your reply. That's very helpful of you to supply the search links. To tell the truth, I am uncertain to what extent the addition of these evaluative words is a problem. My own instinct is that we should not include them – not because they're not true, or a good case cannot be made for them – but just because the evaluation should be left to the reader. OTH, they're so clearly right!
I would actually like to hear the opinion of other editors, and that's really my only reason for objecting: Just hoping for a community view, before all the LGBT articles are changed. If we both asked for a discussion at talk pages (not sure which ones), I would gladly go with whatever the general feeling is.
I think the big question is do reliable sources use these descriptors? If the majority of mainstream reliable sources do, then we should. If the majority don't, then we shouldn't.
SomethingForDeletion (
talk)
05:43, 8 June 2024 (UTC)reply
In my opinion, the death penalty for homosexuality is enough for a "severe" qualifier, although reliable sources will help support the seriousness of the situation. If that is not possible, countries with the death penalty for homosexuality should be noted as such in the first paragraph of the lead. For example, the second sentence in
LGBT rights in Uganda could state something like "Same-sex sexual activity is illegal for both men and women in Uganda, and punishable by life imprisonment, or death if "aggravated"." --
Minoa (
talk)
07:44, 8 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Could you please look at
this diff? I think it might be the same person back with a new account, once again removing cited information for no good reason. I already reverted them once today so I don't want to get in any trouble by edit warring.
SomethingForDeletion (
talk)
05:41, 8 June 2024 (UTC)reply
No probs, I wanted to be rid of them; thanks for letting me know. Don't worry about the stuff below, I brought it on myself by trying to clean up while the sock was still in play. I must like banging my head against a brick wall!
AukusRuckus (
talk)
03:31, 9 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I apologize for reverting ahfreakeefamous. I was, perhaps incorrectly, under the impression that reverting was fine if it was to undo sock activity. I will wait and let the right action be taken by admins.
Pieinthesky1 (
talk)
15:55, 8 June 2024 (UTC)reply
This is really odd, @
C.Fred:, but I believe quite strongly that Pieinthesky1 is a sock of
Jacokenedy; and Rayanmou07 was also one of Jacobkennedy's socks ... erm? ... which would mean ... that Pieinthesky1 was reporting / fighting with themself?
AukusRuckus (
talk)
16:05, 8 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Besides, ElephantMario was right about that IP user in the first place. I don’t know why he was banned. Rayanmou07 and jacobkennedy have different thoughts and are two different people.
Ahfreakeefamous (
talk)
16:11, 8 June 2024 (UTC)reply
118.107.220.59 has reverted Ahfreakeefamous’ edits and this IP might be an alleged sock of jacobkennedy
The aforementioned IP on the page “Legal system of the United Arab Emirates” restored to last edits of previous socks; I need you to revert his edits. I also need the page protected. Thank you.
91.75.6.80 (
talk)
02:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Another IP 169.255.56.205 has reverted my edits. Please undo his edits and protect the page “Legal system of the United Arab Emirates”.
91.75.6.80 (
talk)
02:50, 11 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I have a strong feeling that 91.75.6.80 is bubblemario based on his edits, and seeing his history of editing certain legal pages in the UAE.
169.255.56.205 (
talk)
07:45, 11 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Thanks for your reply. That's very helpful of you to supply the search links. To tell the truth, I am uncertain to what extent the addition of these evaluative words is a problem. My own instinct is that we should not include them – not because they're not true, or a good case cannot be made for them – but just because the evaluation should be left to the reader. OTH, they're so clearly right!
I would actually like to hear the opinion of other editors, and that's really my only reason for objecting: Just hoping for a community view, before all the LGBT articles are changed. If we both asked for a discussion at talk pages (not sure which ones), I would gladly go with whatever the general feeling is.
I think the big question is do reliable sources use these descriptors? If the majority of mainstream reliable sources do, then we should. If the majority don't, then we shouldn't.
SomethingForDeletion (
talk)
05:43, 8 June 2024 (UTC)reply
In my opinion, the death penalty for homosexuality is enough for a "severe" qualifier, although reliable sources will help support the seriousness of the situation. If that is not possible, countries with the death penalty for homosexuality should be noted as such in the first paragraph of the lead. For example, the second sentence in
LGBT rights in Uganda could state something like "Same-sex sexual activity is illegal for both men and women in Uganda, and punishable by life imprisonment, or death if "aggravated"." --
Minoa (
talk)
07:44, 8 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Could you please look at
this diff? I think it might be the same person back with a new account, once again removing cited information for no good reason. I already reverted them once today so I don't want to get in any trouble by edit warring.
SomethingForDeletion (
talk)
05:41, 8 June 2024 (UTC)reply
No probs, I wanted to be rid of them; thanks for letting me know. Don't worry about the stuff below, I brought it on myself by trying to clean up while the sock was still in play. I must like banging my head against a brick wall!
AukusRuckus (
talk)
03:31, 9 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I apologize for reverting ahfreakeefamous. I was, perhaps incorrectly, under the impression that reverting was fine if it was to undo sock activity. I will wait and let the right action be taken by admins.
Pieinthesky1 (
talk)
15:55, 8 June 2024 (UTC)reply
This is really odd, @
C.Fred:, but I believe quite strongly that Pieinthesky1 is a sock of
Jacokenedy; and Rayanmou07 was also one of Jacobkennedy's socks ... erm? ... which would mean ... that Pieinthesky1 was reporting / fighting with themself?
AukusRuckus (
talk)
16:05, 8 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Besides, ElephantMario was right about that IP user in the first place. I don’t know why he was banned. Rayanmou07 and jacobkennedy have different thoughts and are two different people.
Ahfreakeefamous (
talk)
16:11, 8 June 2024 (UTC)reply
118.107.220.59 has reverted Ahfreakeefamous’ edits and this IP might be an alleged sock of jacobkennedy
The aforementioned IP on the page “Legal system of the United Arab Emirates” restored to last edits of previous socks; I need you to revert his edits. I also need the page protected. Thank you.
91.75.6.80 (
talk)
02:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Another IP 169.255.56.205 has reverted my edits. Please undo his edits and protect the page “Legal system of the United Arab Emirates”.
91.75.6.80 (
talk)
02:50, 11 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I have a strong feeling that 91.75.6.80 is bubblemario based on his edits, and seeing his history of editing certain legal pages in the UAE.
169.255.56.205 (
talk)
07:45, 11 June 2024 (UTC)reply