Talk:LGBTQ rights in India/Archive 1

Archive 1

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on LGBT rights in India. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131214030210/http://barandbench.com/comment/44159 to http://barandbench.com/comment/44159

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:46, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Possible copyright problem

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that 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. Diannaa (talk) 21:18, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

November 2017: Editing dispute

User:144.121.69.94 (talk) we can open a dialogue here as to why you believe the information on this article needs to be changed. Removing and changing large sections of content without properly explaining why is confusing and we have to make sure all points of view are presented. Wikipedia has a strict Neutral Point of View guideline DeniedClub^{❯❯❯ talk?} 23:22, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

IP sockpuppet using Glype proxy mangling characters

Will somebody please block this IP 2606:5680:1000::6521:960 using a PHP proxy script which mangles characters. RajuChutiya (talk) 18:49, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Edit dispute

Please tell me why the info about the one illegal same sex marriage should be included in the info. Doesn't it confuse the point that it's illegal? I'm new and trying to learn why this would be important information since India banned it Russianvodka (talk) 21:30, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I assume you are the rotating IP's? See WP:BRD & WP:EW. You were bold, then you were reverted. Now the onus is on you to discuss these proposed changes instead of reverting again. Sro23 (talk) 21:42, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

No this is one of my first edits. Now as for the edit same-sex marriages are illegal in India. If we post that there was one "successful" same-sex marriage which technically wasn't really recognized by the government of India it confuses the point that people of the same sex can't marry and also contradicts the rest of the page saying that it's banned. Also doesn't that make it irrelevant? Russianvodka (talk) 21:58, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I completely disagree. It does not confuse the point of same-sex marriage as it is strictly written that same-sex unions are still illegal. The information you are removing is relevant because any governmental recognition, even if not 'officially', is a victory for LGBT rights as a whole in India. The fact that any same-sex union was, even in the most minimal sense, allowed to proceed in India sets a precedent that could be used in future debates about same-sex union in India. It also helps show the development of India's marriage equality. The fact that the government of India even slightly tolerates same-sex is important, once again, to LGBT rights as a whole in India.

Also it is important that if you are the person who believes same-sex progress needs to be removed from this article, then you need to prove why before removing it. The burden of proof is not on other editors to tell you why something should stay, the burden of proof is on you to tell us why it should be removed. Considering the edits made, you are the only one so far with a controversial opinion of the content of the article, and multiple editors have reverted your changes, meaning that the consensus of your fellow editors is that the content should stay. We can have a discussion here and gather consensus on the topic, before we make any edits to the current article as it is. Anyone is free to add their input (: DeniedClub^{❯❯❯ talk?} 00:49, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I read your original wording and will remind you that you are breaking WP:Civil and WP:PA so watch your tone and no attacking please. As for your message I will not revert it but if others give their opinions I will take a look at their commments as well. If there is a consensus one way or another we can see what will be done next depending on what others say.Russianvodka (talk) 01:46, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

You are right, my original wording was a bit harsh and I apologize for that. Thank you for allowing a discussion on this. We can allow time for more opinions. We have both made our positions pretty clear but of course feel free to add on whenever you want.

By the way, I see that you are new, and just a tip is you can add a colon before your replies on talk pages to help format the replies with indents. Just add a colon for each reply. (eg. :Reply1, ::Reply2, :::Reply3) DeniedClub^{❯❯❯ talk?} 01:52, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Legal status of Same-sex sexual intercourse in infobox

Wondering what other editors think about how we should address the legal status of Same-sex sexual intercourse in the infobox. It is currently says "Decriminalised in 2009; Re-criminalised in 2013; Decriminalised again in 2018", whereas I'm thinking it would be more appropriate to simply "Legal since 2018" with a detailed description in the text. This is the usual practice, see for example, LGBT rights in Thailand or LGBT rights in Fiji. AusLondonder (talk) 09:50, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

@Auslondonder, Homosexuality has been legalized, it is a matter of great pleasure for Indian people. Fayaz Rahman (talk) 10:06, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

It should be kept short. —Gazoth (talk) 12:31, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Jammu and Kashmir

What about legal situation in Jammu and Kashmir state as there is a different law than that in the rest of India? Jammu and Kashmir State Ranbir Penal Code or RPC is a criminal code applicable in Jammu and Kashmir. Indian Penal Code is not applicable here under Article 370 of the Indian constitution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.51.136.158 (talk) 14:21, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Can we use a question mark since the status is unclear atm? Letters From Adi (talk) 12:44, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Mention of legal difficulties

@Anand5102: If you have any issues with the wording in the lead, discuss it here instead of edit warring. You cannot remove mention of legal difficulties just because same sex sexual intercourse was decriminalised. There are other aspects that should considered too, such as same sex marriage and adoption by same sex couples, both of which are not legal in India. —Gazoth (talk) 13:48, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps not the most encyclopaedic style

I'd just like to raise that parts of this article is written as someone's personal opinion - in particular:

After the defeat of Kali and Munni, three years later we saw Kamla Jaan run and win the position of the mayor of Katni in MP. Then there was Shabnam Mausi, who was elected to the Legislative Assembly in 2002 as well. In the huge political machinery, Heera won a seat at the city council of Jabalpur, Meera won a similar position in Sehora, and so did Gulshan in Bina. In December 2000, Asha Devi became the mayor of Gorakhpur, and Kallu Kinnar was elected to the city council in Varanasi. I am sure there are many more low level, inconspicuous bureaucratic positions that were held by the hijras but did not whip up any excitement for the media — not to mention the cases where they were probably threatened, bullied and killed to prevent them from running for seats. This brings us to the current elections, which has Mangesh Bharat Khandye running for the Thane Lok Sabha seat.

Further, I think some thought needs to be put into whether 'transgender' is the appropriate word in many cases. It seems to often be used simply as a synonym for Hijra, which is by no means accurate. However, I have noticed many Indians conflating the two terms. Hijras are a third gender, and while they come under the transgender overarching category by some definitions, are by no means the same thing. All fish are vertebrates, but that doesn't mean you can use the word 'vertebrates' when you mean 'fish'!--89.197.1.50 (talk) 14:37, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

• Agreed -- SriHarsha Bhogi (talk) 08:18, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

If there is still material of this sort in the article, it is worth checking whether there has been some WP:COPYPASTE issues. MPS1992 (talk) 08:43, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Anti-discrimination protections

In none of the articles provided can I see explicit mention of anti-discrimination laws. I have found some evidence myself of existing laws being used to fight the Section 377 case, but nowhere does it state that those laws have been applied as generic anti-discrimination laws that can be used by the populace. If you can find hard sources than you may amend. Hindianu (talk) 22:24, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

A quick Google gave me the following article from the BBC that hints at anti-discrimination laws not being available yet: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-45429664 Hindianu (talk) 22:34, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

I will quickly state what I think the confusion is. There are several laws/instruments that were employed during the Section 377 case in order to paint the Section as being discriminatory against homosexuals, hence the Supreme Court would write that it considered the Section to be 'discriminatory' due to laws like the Right to Privacy and consequently it was able to repel the law. But this in no way equates to actual anti-discrimination laws that can be used by the populace and such laws have not been stated by either the Supreme Court nor the Government of India. The 'discriminatory' language used by the Supreme Court only refers to the Section 377 case. Hindianu (talk) 09:35, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

No, again that is not it. The Supreme Court, not only repealed Section 377 ruling it unconstitutional and discriminatory, but also explicitly stated that all discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is a violation of constitutional rights. This is supported by one of the many links I used, and you removed. https://www.livemint.com/Politics/fEiZSRM7ng7Ja4ssTyfl8J/Historic-verdict-holds-hope-for-samesex-marriages-adoption.html "At the same time, individuals who face discrimination because of their sexual orientation can now mount a challenge in a court of law" That is as clear as it can be!

Or from the ruling itself: https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article24880700.ece/binary/Sec377judgment.pdf "Any discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation would entail a violation of the fundamental right of freedom of expression" This does not only refer to Section 377, but to all discrimination. The Supreme Court ruled that Article 15 and 16 of the constitution prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation through the category of sex. Again, I highly suggest you read Case law Panda2018 0 (talk) 10:36, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree with most of Panda2018 0's observation and also some of Hindianu's observation.

Section 377 Judgement of 2018 made Article 15 of Indian Constitution be applicable to 'Sexual Orientation' and NALSA Judgement of 2014 made it applicable to 'Gender Identity'. This means any 'discrimination' that is prohibited in the Article 15 of Indian Constitution can be challenged in a court of law. However there is still no anti-discrimination law that follows this article concerning the discrimination against sexual minorities. SriHarsha Bhogi (talk) 11:37, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

The Court mostly used language such as this: "Any discrimination on the basis of one‘s sexual orientation would entail a violation of the fundamental right of freedom of expression." In point 51, gender identity is protected by the Court and transgenders are covered by this. The Right to Expression, Right to Dignity, and the Right to Privacy extends to homosexuality. It's main focus was to deal with Section 377, and though I agree that this would mean further challenges can be made at court to establish whether anti-discrimination instruments can be utilized by LGBT, until these instruments have clearly been established, it is wrong to say that the anti-discrimination instruments outright exist.

I guess the issue is whether the language used constitutes anti-discrimination laws. Being one screw-driver away from having anti-discrimination laws doesn't mean India has anti-discrimination laws. For example, much of Sri Lanka's relationship laws are gender neutral and allow for LGBT to be included, and anti-discrimination laws and the like have been recognized by the Supreme Court, but that doesn't mean that we can conclusively say that Sri Lanka has same-sex unions until someone goes to the trouble of confirming that civil unions are possible to obtain.

I propose we use the following language: "The Supreme Court has expanded the existing constitutional protections against discrimination along sex/gender to transgender people, and has also extended the Right to Privacy, Right to Expression and Right to Dignity to LGBT people too." We need explicit statements stating that LGBT people are covered under anti-discrimination laws; in Sri Lanka you have the Supreme Court, the Government, and a further amendment into law stating that discrimination against LGBT people is unconstitutional. Until a governmental organization specifically states that discrimination on the basis of "xxx" is unconstiutional, as what has happened in Nepal and Sri Lanka, we can't tick the boxes which state discrimination against homosexuals is banned for work etc... Hindianu (talk) 23:45, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

• Agreed. -- SriHarsha Bhogi (talk) 17:17, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I prefer the wording "Certain states have established explicit legal protections for transgender people. The Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution of India as banning discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation (Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India) and gender identity (National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India), though this has yet to be tested through the courts or enacted in statutory law." This would showcase the two Supreme Court rulings, and also make it clear that no explicit laws have been enacted by the government nor have the merits of the two rulings been actually used in a discrimination case. Panda2018 0 (talk) 18:31, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

My problem with stating that there are anti-discrimination protections is that the facts only allow for LGBT to be covered under certain existing rights, namely the Right to Privacy, Right to Expression and the Right to Dignity; I may have missed the part of the verbitum which extends any existing anti-discrimination laws to LGBT (as in Sri Lanka and Nepal). Unlike Nepal, there has been no clear change in the text of any laws that provide LGBT with anti-discrimination laws, and unlike Lanka, there has been no outright/explicit confirmation from government or judicial authorities that anti-discrimination laws have been extended to LGBT. The only thing you can state is that transgender people are protected under constitutional gender identity legislation. You might be able to state that the various Rights discussed in the Supreme Court verdict have been extended to LGBT. Hindianu (talk) 01:00, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Tamravidhir's revert

Hi Tamravidhir, you recently reverted my edit with the edit summary "Not constructive". Can you clarify how that edit was "Not constructive"? — Newslinger talk 07:24, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

@Newslinger: I note that your edits did not add constructively to the article. You added two organisations' name to the "see also" section. To note there are many such queer organisations in India and if the same are added in the "see also" they may amount to spam. The same should be appropriately included in a list of LGBT organisations, which I notice you did here but without a reliable source. Per MOS:SEEALSO: "The links in the "See also" section should be relevant, should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic, and should be limited to a reasonable number". I do not see favourably the selective inclusion of one or two such organisations whose notability has not been established in the article. With regards to the italicisation of the judgment, I will restore it. If you wish to include such links to the "see also" section I would urge you to gain consensus here first per WP:CONSBUILD. --Tamravidhir (talk) 10:02, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

And as you did here, yes, the same may be included in Template:LGBT in India. --Tamravidhir (talk) 10:04, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

​My edit added one organization (Fifty Shades of Gay), which is a new article I had recently patrolled. I added it because the other organization you're referring to, Indradhanu: IIT Delhi, was already in the "See also" section, and appeared to be of similar or lesser importance to the organization I added.

This dispute is now moot, because I've already removed Indradhanu: IIT Delhi from the "See also" section, and added both of the organizations to {{LGBT in India}}. However, I would have appreciated a more detailed edit summary in the revert than "Not constructive", as it would have clarified what you were objecting to. Thanks for your explanation, and I'll add citations to the entries in the List of LGBT-related organizations and conferences article now. — Newslinger talk 10:14, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I understand. When I mentioned "not constructive", well, I literally meant that. Irrespective, thanks for assuming good faith. Best. --Tamravidhir (talk) 10:17, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Neutrality of the article

In the edit Special:diff/1028165218, @Wiki6995 has changed the heading "Public opinion" to "Public opinion and support". This is WP:UNDUE and is not neutral. The surveys and polls increase in support should have been sourced under the old section "Public opinion", with all viewpoints from reliable sources. Changing the title has given undue weight towards support.

Ipsos survey pdf (link): If it is considered a primary source WP:PRIMARY, should the content sourced from it be accepted, on the basis of a descriptive statement of facts? Also, please tell me why it is, or why it is not, a primary source. -- DaxServer (talk) 09:00, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

@DaxServer: The change from "opinion" to "opinion and support" was because the heading now includes 'engagement'. If you read under the engagement section, it is different means of showing support. Alternatively, you can make it into two separate headings: Public Opinion (with subheadings as following: Visibility and exposure, Discrimination, Marriage Equality, Adoption Rights) and Public Support (with subheadings as following: engagement). Can you please clarify the cause of the confusion? Is it the appearance of a biased organization? Ipsos is a multinational market research company. They are not an LGBT organization. Even if they are an LGBT organization, I don't see a reason to doubt the percentage of respondents they have reported and that's the only information I have used on the page. There is no interpretation here. Wiki6995 (talk) 19:38, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

@Wiki6995 Yes, please the heading back to "Public opinion" and expand topics under it. It is supposed to contain support and non-support alike.

As to the Ipsos survey pdf, I don't know if it is considered primary source or secondary. I'm also requesting an assessment from other editors. -- DaxServer (talk) 12:25, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Title and the leading text don't correspond.

The title says, "LGBT rights in India" but in the leading text it is "LGBTQ". I will be changing it to make it more uniform. If any editor has concerns, feel free to raise them here or on my talk page. Lord Clayton7 (talk) 02:34, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 January 2019 and 24 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Fitoarevalo.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2019 and 6 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Isatheiguana.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2020 and 2 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Myusername101, Browan1, Marroyo7, Kbalamurrugarajan.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Anti-discrimination laws

There are no EXPLICIT national anti-discrimination laws covering sexual orientation.

Lower courts do not have the power to make laws. The Parliament alone possesses legislative supremacy and thereby ultimate power over all political bodies in India.

Source: https://time.com/6247937/india-same-sex-marriage-supreme-court/ Dustssics (talk) 09:18, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Arind7

@Arind7 I reverted your edits, please find some WP:RS for your claims. Please don't start edit war. Timovinga (talk) 07:03, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Information of various parties involved

There are many groups mentioned that had stake or influence in the treatment of the LGBT community in India. However, these groups are mentioned very briefly, many times mentioned with no background and many are not hyperlinked. I would suggest giving a hyperlink, or a brief sentence containing background information in order to give the reader more context as to the forces at play so they are not just names on a page. I think it is important for the reader to understand who had certain points of view. Stud3nt1947 (talk) 18:54, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia often has a strong left-wing bias, and a number of editors from India try to counter-act that bias considering the situation that most LGBTQ in India are right wing. So you often get a two types of articles that tends to focus on either side of the argument. Arind7 (talk) 09:28, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Timovinga is removing large amounts of texts without discussion across numerous articles

@Timovinga is removing large sections of texts across numerous articles concerning LGBTQ and India and/or Hinduism citing vague reasons such as "unreliable sources" even when numerous sources have been provided including both primary and secondary sources. I suggest that if he continues to remove text then he needs to be banned from editing topics related to LGBTQ and India.

I ask @Timovinga to refrain from removing large amounts of text in relation to India, LGBTQ and Hinduism. Your edits are unilateral and seem to be vandalism. If you have an alternative opinion to add then please feel free to build on the article. Arind7 (talk) 11:14, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Furthermore your most recent edit on this article proves my point:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LGBT_rights_in_India&diff=prev&oldid=1197136466

The edit was completely unwarranted and unsubstantiated considering I was removing and merging two duplicate paragraphs about the same event in the same section. Arind7 (talk) 11:31, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

@Arind7 Please provide the sources and information you want to add. Timovinga (talk) 13:58, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Restoring uncontested text

Hi. I have no idea what my previous account's password is so I made a new one.

I want to double check whether it's okay to restore the uncontested text that was removed as a single revert a few days ago. If there are no objects then I will continue. Arind8 (talk) 10:15, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

You are again using non reliable sources. Timovinga (talk) 20:59, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Most of what I put back wasn't actually written by me but largely re-ordering. The one tag is available does not seem to be valid: are you saying that the Hindustan Times and HRC are unreliable sources? Or do you just disagree with what was written?

Anyway there are numerous sources out there and I've added a range from various universities and news outlets. Arind8 (talk) 08:49, 26 January 2024 (UTC)