Talk:LGBTQ rights by country or territory/Archive 4
 | This is an archive of past discussions about LGBTQ rights by country or territory. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Timeline
I think Singapore should be added to the list only once the sodomy law is actually repealed. PM's declaration of intent stated to the Parliament is not a change to the law. On another note, I'd like the timeline ony to list UN nations (and unrecognised territories). Subnational jurisdictions make the list overly detailed and difficult to read. Timelines regarding subnational jurisdictions could better be placed in national pages (eg. LGBT rights in [country]). If a consensus was already reached on keeping this list here, I'd suggest to use some text coding as to differentiate nations from subnational units (eg. bold text for nations, normal text and no flag for subnational units) helping readers identify nations more rapidly. Finedelledanze (talk) 10:10, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
- "ony to list" What is ony? Dimadick (talk) 03:31, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- "only to list" maybe? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:25, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
Erroneous color in Map
In the map of "Decriminalization of same-sex sexual intercourse by country or territory", Chile appears as if it has been decriminalized since before 1989, when in fact it was legalized in 1999, meaning that the correct color to apply to it is orange instead of yellow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IRRUTIA5 (talk • contribs) 00:16, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Vatican City
what's with the N/A on adoption by same-sex couples? Masterball2 (talk) 07:47, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Lead addition suggestion
I want to copy this tidbit over from the LGBT migration article, I think this is where it belongs but because of the edit protections I wanted to check here first. At the beginning of the third paragraph, right before "in 2011": "The Yogyakarta Principles, initially drafted by international human rights experts in 2006 and updated with additional recommendations in 2007, state the rights of LGBT people to live free of harm. Though they are not enforceable, they have contributed to LGBT-friendly legislation worldwide." Citation link: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2015.10.030 Avamcclung (talk) 05:18, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
Singapore
Add Singapore to the timeline, please. 2401:F540:7:1000:0:0:0:6613 (talk) 23:00, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 5 December 2022
 | This edit request to LGBT rights by country or territory has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
All LGBT people can serve in military in Greece, the conscription is enforced for men only 2A02:1388:20E1:CA7F:8142:D1E9:7521:125E (talk) 03:10, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. I see a checkmark in the "LGB people allowed to serve openly in military" column for Greece. What changes are you requesting? Cannolis (talk) 04:01, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
Table formatting changes
Hello, I am proposing that the formatting of the tables be simplified to use the standard "wikitable" class, with no other attributes apart from perhaps the font size (not less than 90%). What are your thoughts on this? --Minoa (talk) 20:09, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
- Do you mean those found in the section LGBT rights by country or territory#LGBT-related laws by country or territory? They appear to be table-within-table, and the inner tables come from five templates like Template:LGBT rights table Africa. You need to keep the collapsible code. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:34, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
- I mean the grid tables in the section "LGBT-related laws by country or territory", as in the one that currently has a header darker than the regular "wikitable". I do not mean the collapsible wrapper thing. --Minoa (talk) 15:59, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
"South Asia" needs an overhaul
There are a few issues I have with the way the "South Asia" grouping is represented in the map.
- In India the most common form of marriage is "common law marriage" based on pre-colonial customs, meaning that in the majority of cases the colonial marriage law is not used. The Supreme Court recently gave recogition to LGBTQ marriage in the sense that live-in couples, including LGBTQ couples, are provided the same marriage rights as married couples. This essentially means that gay common law marriage (unregisitered cohabitation) is legal and should be marked as such on the map. (https://www.thepinknews.com/2022/11/25/same-sex-marriage-petition-india-supreme-court/)
- In Sri Lanka the Supreme Court stated that punishment for gay sex should not be warranted as it was based on 19th century customs of England, and therefore the law is legally unenforced and should be marked as such on the map. (https://gec.ey.gov.tw/File/A0DC201A8E3C1A62?A=C)
- In both Pakistan and Bangladesh, there are cases where the law is genuinely enforced and therefore the law is not "unenforced" and should be marked as enforced on the map. https://www.humandignitytrust.org/country-profile/pakistan/ https://www.humandignitytrust.org/country-profile/bangladesh/
- With Nepal I am mostly happy with how things are written. But it should be noted that Indian law has overtaken Nepali law as the most tolerant of LGBTQ.
- In Maldives there is generally a welcoming attitude towards LGBTQ on the tourist islands, but Sharia Law is found in some of the non-tourist islands.https://www.outofoffice.com/blog/the-law-vs-reality-gay-travel-to-the-maldives/ But at the same time there have been some politically motivated arrests of locals and migrants. https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/08/10/maldives-arrests-gay-sex-politically-motivated
~~~~ Novomanias (talk) 11:29, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
minor spelling error
In the sri lanka section of the table, it should be unenforceable, not unenforcable. thanks Nayar Ihale Malog (talk) 07:26, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2023
| This edit request to LGBT rights by country or territory has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The punishment in Libya is death under the militia
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/libya-gay-men-prisoners-torture-death_n_2192481/amp
https://www.hrw.org/news/2015/06/08/islamic-states-war-gays
https://goatysnews.wordpress.com/2012/11/26/twelve-men-to-be-mutilated-and-executed-by-libyan-militia-for-allegedly-being-gay-261112-2130z/ Sonoflibya (talk) 08:29, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Already done This is transcluded from Template:LGBT rights table Africa anyway. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 01:09, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Canada
As of December 2022 Women who have sex with Men who have sex Men can donate blood with no deferral whatsoever. thanks, tom950 Tom950 (talk) 16:40, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
Collapsible Sections
Hello. The extension of this article is too long for it to not have collapsible sections, especially as one has to navigate through the entire history and maps sections just to read the main informative tables. 200.54.142.46 (talk) 03:01, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
- Agreed, can't we just collapse all the maps by default? Dajasj (talk) 11:11, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
- I have collapsed all maps. Wracking talk! 04:43, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
Uganda's Introduction of the Death Penalty for "Aggravated Homosexuality"
Good evening. Uganda has recently altered their laws to make the punishment for "Aggravated Homosexuality" the death penalty. The Ugandan government has also instated a 20 year to lifetime prison sentence for promoting homosexuality. I think this would constitute a change to the map. Sky2462 (talk) 01:52, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
- This is a reply since I don't know where to ask or how to ask, but can presidential statements (like, on Twitter or Written on a government website (.gov)) or official websites explaining the laws in a simple or habitual language (example: https://www.cancilleria.gov.co/en/nationality-0) or THE law in an online source (http://www.secretariasenado.gov.co/constitucion-politica) be valid sources for edits? Xproot (talk) 22:23, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
Constitutional Protections map has long past needed an update
The constitutional protections map is long past due an update and has a few errors. Although, I do wonder should we create a new legend that states whether a state has implicit protections (Based on court ruling or read in with other legislation) or explicit protections (stated in constitution.)
Implicit Protections:
Canada protects sexual orientation implicitly
Taiwan protects sexual orientation implicitly thanks to a court ruling
Andorra protects sexual orientation implicitly thanks to a 2005 court ruling
Belize protects sexual orientation implicitly thanks to the court ruling that decriminalized sodomy in 2016.
Botswana protects sexual orientation implicitly thanks to the court ruling that decriminalized sodomy in 2019 and was later upheld.
Antigua and Barbuda's ruling that decriminalized sodomy in 2022 protects sexual orientation and gender identity.
Barbados ruling that decriminalized sodomy in 2022/2023 was interpreted to also protect sexual orientation.
Explicit Protections:
South Africa's constitution protects sexual orientation explicitly.
Portugal's constitution protects sexual orientation explicitly.
Sweden's constitution protects sexual orientation explicitly since a 2002 constitutional amendment.
San Marino's constitution protects sexual orientation explicitly thanks to a referendum.
Kosovo's constitution protects sexual orientation explicitly.
Mexico's constitution protects sexual orientation explicitly since a 2011 constitutional amendment.
Netherlands constitution protects sexual orientation explicitly since 2022/2023.
Fiji's constitution protects sexual orientation and gender identity explicitly since 1998 for SO and once again since 2010 for GI.
Cuba's constitution protects sexual orientation and gender identity explicitly since a 2019 referendum.
Nepal's constitution protects sexual minorities (which can be interpreted broadly) since 2015.
Bolivia's constitution protects sexual orientation and gender identity since 2008.
Ecuador's constitution protects sexual orientation and gender identity.
Malta's constitution protects sexual orientation and gender identity.
Switzerland's situation is a rather broad protection and hard to interpret and I don't think should be shaded on the map but, I digress.
If you need sources I can provide, but these are all noted on their respective wiki pages. SunnyWinx (talk) 22:32, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
- Forgot to add of course, the Brazilian, German, American, jurisdictions and one Venezuelan sub jurisdiction that protect can also be mentioned. Nevada in the U.S. became the first state to protect SOGI in 2022, although I don't know when it goes into effect or if it has.
- (Also the British Caribbean overseas territories that already have) SunnyWinx (talk) 22:38, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 24 July 2023
| This edit request to LGBT rights by country or territory has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change the current status on the map of legal identity changes in Russia from permitted (purple) to forbidden (red). Sources: https://apnews.com/article/russia-lgbtq-transgender-procedures-banned-21b88f53b9a74a646400d63ce93bde6f; https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/24/world/europe/putin-transgender-transition-surgery-russia.html. 91.254.94.28 (talk) 23:06, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page LGBT rights by country or territory. Please make your request at the talk page for the image files concerned. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 05:48, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
Blood donations in Iceland and India
Why do blood donations (in men and women) in Iceland and India contradict themselves? Aminabzz (talk) 10:37, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
Kenya
The entry for Kenya in the table shows a checkmark under the "Laws concerning gender identity/expression" section. But the site used as reference says in its "At a glance" section that Legal gender recognition is NOT possible. It says, however, that "in 2022, Kenya became the first African country to grant universal rights and recognition to intersex people," which perhaps is what was used to argue for the checkmark? Still, while the rights of intersex people are very important and should be considered, I believe it is misleading at best and an outright lie at worst to say that Kenya's laws protect and recognize gender identity/expression. FranzBarron (talk) 22:00, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
"Homosexuality legal" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect Homosexuality legal has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 21 § Homosexuality legal until a consensus is reached. GnocchiFan (talk) 15:06, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Recognition of rights
The first para should read:
Recognition of rights affecting lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people varies greatly by country or jurisdiction…
Human rights are universal. Only their recognition changes from one country to another. MakingItSimple (talk) 16:39, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- Your suggestion makes sense. I think "rights affecting" still makes sense though, as it could refer to other affected legal rights. Happy to hear what you think. 23impartial (talk) 00:13, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
legal or lawful?
The table in the article says that in some countries there is no legislation as regards homosexuality, and notes that in these countries homosexuality is legal. Should't that be 'lawful? I am not a lawyer, although I do have some experience with the law and my understanding is that 'legal' pertains to where a specific law exists, whereas 'lawful' pertains to the general spirit of the law whether or not a specific law exists. I'll wait to see if anyone has any views then might edit this. Charlie Campbell 28 (talk) 00:09, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- I think the distinction is incidental and minor enough such that using both within one article would be unnecessarily confusing. Remsense留 06:19, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you, @Remsense. Respectfully, though, I do not agree. The words mean different things and the difference isn't incidental, in my opinion. It is relevant that some states have specifically legislated whereas other have not. Justifying an act on the basis of the latter is harder and the lack of specific legislation means there is less likely to be wider protections for gay people. I will wait to see if anyone else has a view. Charlie Campbell 28 (talk) 07:04, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
- I think a better alternative to both words being used is a more detailed explanation, rather than the reader just being expected to know the distinction. Remsense留 07:10, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
- That seems like a good idea. Thanks. Charlie Campbell 28 (talk) 07:18, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
- I've followed advice from @Remsense and added a note at the top of the table to the effect that for simplicity 'lawful' and 'legal' are used interchangeably. I've also edited out the statement that execution is still practised in Nigeria's Bauchi. The supporting reference did not refer to actual executions. It seems that there, like other Nigerian provinces, people are sentenced to death for homosexual acts by sharia courts but this is reduced by the state governor as both sharia and state law apply in these places. This is consistent with the Nigeria reference at the Wikipedia article Capital Punishment for Homosexuality. Charlie Campbell 28 (talk) 07:53, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
- Charlie Campbell 28, thank you for the careful work. Remsense留 08:02, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
- If I understand you correctly, your removal was not that the death sentence handed out was untrue, or from an unreliable source (Reuters), but rather based on the distinction between (1) whether the death sentence in Nigeria exists and is still handed down on the one hand, and (2) whether the death sentence eventually results in an execution, on the other. Is that right?
- If so, then I would keep the mention and the citation, but handle it slightly differently in this article. Narrowly, you are not wrong about the distinction, however it is still very appropriate to mention a stoning death sentence by the Nigerian court in this article, along with Hazzad (2022) to cite it. The reason is twofold:
- Per WP:AT policy, this article is about LGBT *rights*, which is related to laws and legal procedures, and the presence of a death penalty for homosexual behavior is legal procedure highly relevant to the article topic; one can hardly imagine something more relevant to LGBT rights in a jurisdiction.
- There's a possibe a WP:RELTIME issue in saying that death sentences *are not* being carried out (as opposed to, "have not been carried out as of <publication date of source>)", as well as whiffs of WP:CRYSTAL: the death sentence is a fact; whether stays, commutations, or successful appeals based on federal-state internal Nigerian politics happen later is always a possibility, but we can't know that based on past performance, and shouldn't speculate about it, nor avoid mentioning the death sentence simply because previous ones haven't been carried out (yet; who's to say they won't be if a state governor changes?). U.S. death sentences in certain states were not carried out for a couple of decades, then they were again.
- It is not irrelevant that death sentences are not carried out (especially to the person concerned!) but unless that distinction is worth a column in the tables (doubtful; do you disagree?) then I would think that the way to handle this is to mention the death sentence along with the citation in the body, and then follow it up with an explanatory note noting that as of X date they have not been not carried out for Y reason; it's best to include the citation again in the note. (If you run into a problem embedding a citation within the {{efn}}, ping me.) Finally, I agree with Remsense regarding the legal/lawful issue. Mathglot (talk) 18:04, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, @Mathglot. I see the note re: not enforced remains, so that's fine. As for the rest, I'm reading up on the relevant policies to learn and thank you for the helpful comments. Charlie Campbell 28 (talk) 22:40, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
- I've followed advice from @Remsense and added a note at the top of the table to the effect that for simplicity 'lawful' and 'legal' are used interchangeably. I've also edited out the statement that execution is still practised in Nigeria's Bauchi. The supporting reference did not refer to actual executions. It seems that there, like other Nigerian provinces, people are sentenced to death for homosexual acts by sharia courts but this is reduced by the state governor as both sharia and state law apply in these places. This is consistent with the Nigeria reference at the Wikipedia article Capital Punishment for Homosexuality. Charlie Campbell 28 (talk) 07:53, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
- That seems like a good idea. Thanks. Charlie Campbell 28 (talk) 07:18, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
- I think a better alternative to both words being used is a more detailed explanation, rather than the reader just being expected to know the distinction. Remsense留 07:10, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you, @Remsense. Respectfully, though, I do not agree. The words mean different things and the difference isn't incidental, in my opinion. It is relevant that some states have specifically legislated whereas other have not. Justifying an act on the basis of the latter is harder and the lack of specific legislation means there is less likely to be wider protections for gay people. I will wait to see if anyone else has a view. Charlie Campbell 28 (talk) 07:04, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Greece request
| This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Greece has now legalised same sex marriage.www
- Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Geardona (talk to me?) 02:50, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Geardona, while this wasn't strictly in the requested format, it was fairly clear what was being requested as far as I could tell. Remsense诉 04:02, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
Re: Map of Constitutional discrimination laws by sexual orientation and/or gender identity by country or territory
I noticed that Cuba is highlighted as grey on this map, which means "No national or local level constitutional discrimination laws covering sexual orientation and/or gender identity."
However, the 2019 Cuban constitution bans "discrimination based on gender, race, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Cuba#2019_Constitution)
Article 42 of the constitution: (https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Cuba_2019)
> "All people are equal before the law, receive the same protection and treatment from the authorities, and enjoy the same rights, liberties, and opportunities, without any discrimination for reasons of sex, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, age, ethnic origin, skin color, religious belief, disability, national or territorial origin, or any other personal condition or circumstance that implies a distinction injurious to human dignity."
Can we have the map changed to reflect this? According to the legend, Cuba should be purple, as they cover both sexual orientation and gender identity. Himisuda (talk) 04:19, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Community Economic and Social Development II
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2024 and 12 April 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sneha. .0529 (article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Sneha. .0529 (talk) 19:35, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
Dominica
Dominica has abolished its sodomy law, so the timeline and "laws by county" table should be changed to reflect this.
https://76crimes.com/2024/04/22/anti-sodomy-law-dominica/
https://dominicanewsonline.com/news/homepage/news/breaking-news-dominica-high-court-rules-punishment-of-homosexual-acts-as-unconstitutional/ 2A00:23C5:FC94:4801:689D:C075:9823:6003 (talk) 20:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
“Western European” countries and other countries put into the wrong geoscheme
Some countries are not put in the correct geoscheme for certain continents. For example, the UK is erroneously stated to be in West Europe when it is in Northern Europe. OMGShay 92 (talk) 11:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- The UK is in the northwest of Europe and can be classified as either Western European or Northern European depending on the context. 130.88.208.72 (talk) 18:11, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
LGBT in Bahrain
Same-sex sexual activity is punishable by Bahraini Penal Code provisions on incitement to immorality.
some of the past cases in the bahraini press are:
https://www.alayam.com/online/local/609527/News.html
https://www.alayam.com/alayam/first/525850/News.html
https://www.alayam.com/alayam/Courts/282567/News.html
https://www.alayam.com/alayam/local/385187/News.html
https://www.alayam.com/alayam/Variety/415745/News.html
https://www.alayam.com/alayam/Variety/120709/News.html
https://www.alayam.com/alayam/Variety/449454/News.html
https://www.alayam.com/online/local/779868/News.html
https://www.alayam.com/alayam/Courts/232648/News.html
https://www.alayam.com/alayam/Courts/542074/News.html
https://www.alayam.com/alayam/local/468667/News.html
https://www.alayam.com/alayam/Courts/286833/News.html
https://www.alayam.com/alayam/Courts/283906/News.html
https://www.alayam.com/alayam/Courts/257307/News.html
https://www.alayam.com/alayam/Variety/412689/News.html
https://www.alayam.com/alayam/Courts/273655/News.html
https://www.alayam.com/online/local/785273/News.html
https://www.alayam.com/alayam/Courts/276860/News.html
https://www.alayam.com/alayam/Courts/168942/News.html
https://www.alayam.com/online/local/855553/News.html
http://www.alwasatnews.com/news/945690.html
https://alwatannews.net/Bahrain/article/978487/%D8%AD%D8%A8%D8%B3-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D8%AA%D9%87%D9%85%D9%8A%D9%86-%D8%A8%D8%AA%D8%B1%D9%88%D9%8A%D8%AC-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B4%D8%B0%D9%88%D8%B0-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AC%D9%86%D8%B3%D9%8A-%D9%88%D8%A5%D8%BA%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%82-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D8%B7%D8%B9%D9%85 Khalidhassan78 (talk) 17:13, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Gay and Lesbian rights in the Gaza Strip
Gaza should changed to none as the legality of homosexuality is not explicitly defined in its laws and there is no evidence of the enforcement of any (non-existent) anti-gay laws by the ruling government. https://www.palestine-studies.org/en/node/232088 https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/ap-corrects-story-falsely-claiming-homosexuality-illegal-palestinians Lucycobra (talk) 14:54, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- FYI, several discussions by editors have concluded that The Electronic Intifada is not generally to be considered a reliable source. Remsense诉 14:58, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- I was using it mainly for the full quote by Dr. Anis F. Kassim which is missing from my original source. Lucycobra (talk) 15:12, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- I had added in that source before as well, to LGBT rights in the State of Palestine but it was removed, as a person who disagrees with the most recent consensus for that source (I would have favored Option #2). I think for now, however, that article is fine, stating there is "Mixed legality" of LGBTQ+ in State of Palestine: "West Bank – legal since 1951, equal age of consent [;] Gaza Strip – no consensus on applicability of British 1936 Sexual offences provisions to homosexual conduct" Historyday01 (talk) 15:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- I was using it mainly for the full quote by Dr. Anis F. Kassim which is missing from my original source. Lucycobra (talk) 15:12, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Same-sex marriage in Nepal
Can someone provide an official and authoritive source that proves same-sex marriage is legal in Nepal?
- There have been two separate court rulings directing the Nepali government to provide same-sex couples with spousal visas, but considering that there have been two court rulings over the same matter, has anything actually changed in real life? [1]
- There has been one same-sex marriage registered in a rural area, but it seems to be between transgender people. [2]
WindofWasps (talk) 18:25, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- The following article written on the 14th December 2023 claims that Nepal did not achieve marriage equality "quite yet". There was a register created to "recognise" same-sex marriages while the supreme court case was pending, but this article claims that "inconsistent bureaucracy make it virtually impossible for most queer couples to marry". Furthermore the one that was eventually recognised by the Nepali government was between a cis-gender male and a transgender female.
- https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/12/14/did-nepal-achieve-marriage-equality-not-quite-yet WindofWasps (talk) 18:32, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
LGBT rights map is incorrect
Hello.
I want some help in editing the map being used on LGBT rights by country or territory (Template:World laws pertaining to homosexual relationships and expression).
The information concering South Asia appears to be incorrect:
- Pakistan should be changed to "Prison, with arrests or detention"
- Bangladesh and Sri Lanka shoud be changed to "Prison, not enforced" (I have no idea why Bangladesh is coloured as having same-sex relationship legal protections).
There have been no arrets in Bangladesh or Sri Lanka during the past several years so I doubt they should be included.
I have a feeling that Pakistan might be controversial, but the following do state that there are arrests of LGBTQ in the country, especially the UK foreign office summary:
Pakistan
Shironese (talk) 14:18, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- PK: "although Pakistan has not convicted sexual minorities on the grounds of anti-homosexuality legislation, the situation is different within families, as 'hundreds of homicides are committed each year in the country in the name of family “honour”.'"
- We don't map 'honour'-killings, so yellow seems right. — kwami (talk) 00:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- The key is about arrests not convictions. In that case both Bangladesh and Pakistan should be light orange "Prison, with arrests or detention". In fact Pakistan has an unenforced death penalty on the books, so it ought to be dark orange actually. Both seem to be glossing over the reality.
- There was one example post of an arrest in Sri Lanka, but upon further investigation it seems that it was not actally an arrest but the couple threatened to commit suicide, so were taken to hospital by the police. There doesn't seem to be anything for consensual sex. SamanthaWinning (talk) 12:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- I did make some of these changes, and several more, but reverted myself when people objected. So far the refs haven't panned out. E.g. AFAICT Pakistan does not have the death penalty on the books. I'll take a look at the one you posted on the map talk page on Commons. — kwami (talk) 19:44, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, I got about halfway through your supposed refs for Pakistan, and they pretty much all failed verification.
- Since you've proven incapable of backing up your claims, I'll want something better before wasting any more of my time with lists of supposed sources. Specifically, provide quotations from each source that you think proves your claim, with a page, paragraph or section number if the source is not searchable so that we can verify that it says what you think it says. — kwami (talk) 21:30, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- Gay relationships are still criminalised in 72 countries, report finds | LGBTQ+ rights | The Guardian
- Pakistan does have the death penalty on the books. SamanthaWinning (talk) 09:40, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- kwami, be mindful of the language you choose. Regardless of the duration you have been editing Wikipedia, disrespectful interaction with other editors is prohibited. Period. 2604:4080:13F8:8320:183:756D:FB7B:E055 (talk) 21:36, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- Homosexuality in Pakistan can be indirectly punished to death through the Offence of Zina. This source is from 2022.
- "2.4.1 The Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) does not explicitly refer to same-sex sexual activity, but Section 377 defines ‘carnal intercourse against the order of nature’, as punishable by a fine and/or imprisonment for a period of 2 years to life. There is ambiguity on whether Section 377 applies to women, but it is assumed the law applies to both men and women. The Offence of Zina (Enforcement Of Hudood) Ordinance of 1979 criminalises any form of penetration in a sexual act outside of marriage. Whilst consensual same-sex sexual acts are not explicitly covered by these provisions since LGBTI people are not able to marry they suggest that any same-sex sexual acts that involve penetration could be prosecuted under sharia provisions and may be punished by death. There are no laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, consensual same-sex sexual acts are prohibited as are same-sex civil unions or marriages, and same-sex couples cannot adopt children (see Legal rights and Application of the law)."
- https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/pakistan-country-policy-and-information-notes/country-policy-and-information-note-sexual-orientation-and-gender-identity-and-expression-pakistan-april-2022-accessible--2 WindofWasps (talk) 23:05, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
- We haven't been counting adultery laws in other countries. — kwami (talk) 00:54, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- I did make some of these changes, and several more, but reverted myself when people objected. So far the refs haven't panned out. E.g. AFAICT Pakistan does not have the death penalty on the books. I'll take a look at the one you posted on the map talk page on Commons. — kwami (talk) 19:44, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
why are all the country sub section in templates.
it makes it hard to edit. Rguyr (talk) 02:50, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- It's so improvements and updates can be synchronized across multiple pages. Remsense诉 02:55, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Information focusing LGBT rights enjoyment or preference and opposition by 36 countries
The table contains information focusing LGBT rights enjoyment or preference and opposition by 36 countries.
| Country | LGBT rights enjoyment or preference level | LGBT rights opposition level | LGBT or LGBTQ rights status |
|---|---|---|---|
 Algeria |
— | Mild opposition | Opposing LGBT rights a bit |
 Argentina |
High enjoyment or preference | — | Highly enjoying or preferring LGBT rights |
 Australia |
High enjoyment or preference | — | Highly enjoying or preferring LGBT rights |
 Austria |
Moderate enjoyment or preference | — | Enjoying or preferring LGBT rights |
 Bangladesh |
— | High opposition | Highly opposing LGBT rights |
 Brazil |
High enjoyment or preference | — | Highly enjoying or preferring LGBT rights |
 Canada |
High enjoyment or preference | — | Highly enjoying or preferring LGBT rights |
 Chile |
High enjoyment or preference | — | Highly enjoying or preferring LGBT rights |
 China |
— | Moderate opposition | Opposing LGBT rights |
 Denmark |
High enjoyment or preference | — | Highly enjoying or preferring LGBT rights |
 Egypt |
— | High opposition | Highly opposing LGBT rights |
 Finland |
High enjoyment or preference | — | Highly enjoying or preferring LGBT rights |
 France |
High enjoyment or preference | — | Highly enjoying or preferring LGBT rights |
 Germany |
Moderate enjoyment or preference | — | Enjoying or preferring LGBT rights |
 India |
Mild enjoyment or preference | — | Enjoying or preferring LGBT rights a bit |
 Indonesia |
— | High opposition | Highly opposing LGBT rights |
 Iran |
— | High opposition | Highly opposing LGBT rights |
 Israel |
High enjoyment or preference | — | Highly enjoying or preferring LGBT rights |
 Italy |
Moderate enjoyment or preference | — | Enjoying or preferring LGBT rights |
 Japan |
High enjoyment or preference | — | Highly enjoying or preferring LGBT rights |
 South Korea |
— | Neither enjoying or preferring nor opposing LGBT rights | |
 Mexico |
High enjoyment or preference | — | Highly enjoying or preferring LGBT rights |
 Netherlands |
Moderate enjoyment or preference | — | Enjoying or preferring LGBT rights |
 Nigeria |
— | High opposition | Highly opposing LGBT rights |
 Norway |
Moderate enjoyment or preference | — | Enjoying or preferring LGBT rights |
 Pakistan |
— | High opposition | Highly opposing LGBT rights |
 Philippines |
Mild enjoyment or preference | — | Enjoying or preferring LGBT rights a bit |
 Poland |
Moderate enjoyment or preference | — | Enjoying or preferring LGBT rights |
 Russia |
— | Moderate opposition | Opposing LGBT rights |
 South Africa |
Mild enjoyment or preference | — | Enjoying or preferring LGBT rights a bit |
 Spain |
Moderate enjoyment or preference | — | Enjoying or preferring LGBT rights |
 Switzerland |
Moderate enjoyment or preference | — | Enjoying or preferring LGBT rights |
 Thailand |
Mild enjoyment or preference | — | Enjoying or preferring LGBT rights a bit |
 Turkey |
— | Mild opposition | Opposing LGBT rights a bit |
 United Kingdom |
— | Neither enjoying or preferring nor opposing LGBT rights | |
 United States |
High enjoyment or preference | — | Highly enjoying or preferring LGBT rights |
2603:7000:B500:5D4:2CE3:391E:911A:21C (talk) 19:27, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- What is your point, exactly? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:35, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- My point is that:
- Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Denmark, Finland, France, Israel, Japan, Mexico and the United States enjoy or prefer LGBT rights very much.
- Austria, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Spain and Switzerland enjoy or prefer LGBT rights.
- India, the Philippines, South Africa and Thailand enjoy or prefer LGBT rights a bit.
- Neither South Korea nor the United Kingdom either enjoys or prefers or opposes LGBT rights.
- Algeria and Turkey oppose LGBT rights a bit.
- China and Russia oppose LGBT rights.
- Bangladesh, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Nigeria and Pakistan oppose LGBT rights very much.
- 2603:7000:B500:5D4:68DE:BA26:7A38:9662 (talk) 00:41, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- My point is that:
Information focusing LGBT rights acceptance or support and aversion by 36 countries
The table contains information focusing LGBT rights acceptance or support and aversion by 36 countries.
| Country | LGBT rights acceptance or support level | LGBT rights aversion level | LGBT or LGBTQ rights status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Algeria |
— | Mild aversion | A bit averse to LGBT rights |
| Argentina |
High acceptance or support | — | Highly accepting or supporting LGBT rights |
| Australia |
High acceptance or support | — | Highly accepting or supporting LGBT rights |
| Austria |
Moderate acceptance or support | — | Accepting or supporting LGBT rights |
| Bangladesh |
— | High aversion | Highly averse to LGBT rights |
| Brazil |
High acceptance or support | — | Highly accepting or supporting LGBT rights |
| Canada |
High acceptance or support | — | Highly accepting or supporting LGBT rights |
| Chile |
High acceptance or support | — | Highly accepting or supporting LGBT rights |
| China |
— | Moderate aversion | Averse to LGBT rights |
| Denmark |
High acceptance or support | — | Highly accepting or supporting LGBT rights |
| Egypt |
— | High aversion | Highly averse to LGBT rights |
| Finland |
High acceptance or support | — | Highly accepting or supporting LGBT rights |
| France |
High acceptance or support | — | Highly accepting or supporting LGBT rights |
| Germany |
Moderate acceptance or support | — | Accepting or supporting LGBT rights |
| India |
Mild acceptance or support | — | Accepting or supporting LGBT rights a bit |
| Indonesia |
— | High aversion | Highly averse to LGBT rights |
| Iran |
— | High aversion | Highly averse to LGBT rights |
| Israel |
High acceptance or support | — | Highly accepting or supporting LGBT rights |
| Italy |
Moderate acceptance or support | — | Accepting or supporting LGBT rights |
| Japan |
High acceptance or support | — | Highly accepting or supporting LGBT rights |
| South Korea |
— | Neither accepting or supporting nor averse to LGBT rights | |
| Mexico |
High acceptance or support | — | Highly accepting or supporting LGBT rights |
| Netherlands |
Moderate acceptance or support | — | Accepting or supporting LGBT rights |
| Nigeria |
— | High aversion | Highly averse to LGBT rights |
| Norway |
Moderate acceptance or support | — | Accepting or supporting LGBT rights |
| Pakistan |
— | High aversion | Highly averse to LGBT rights |
| Philippines |
Mild acceptance or supporting | — | Accepting or supporting LGBT rights a bit |
| Poland |
Moderate acceptance or support | — | Accepting or supporting LGBT rights |
| Russia |
— | Moderate aversion | Averse to LGBT rights |
| South Africa |
Mild acceptance or supporting | — | Accepting or supporting LGBT rights a bit |
| Spain |
Moderate acceptance or support | — | Accepting or supporting LGBT rights |
| Switzerland |
Moderate acceptance or support | — | Accepting or supporting LGBT rights |
| Thailand |
Mild acceptance or support | — | Accepting or supporting LGBT rights a bit |
| Turkey |
— | Mild aversion | A bit averse to LGBT rights |
| United Kingdom |
— | Neither accepting or supporting nor averse to LGBT rights | |
| United States |
High acceptance or support | — | Highly accepting or supporting LGBT rights |
2603:7000:B500:5D4:2CE3:391E:911A:21C (talk) 19:38, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- What is your point, exactly? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:35, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- My point is that:
- Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Denmark, Finland, France, Israel, Japan, Mexico and the United States accept or support LGBT rights very much.
- Austria, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Spain and Switzerland accept or support LGBT rights.
- India, the Philippines, South Africa and Thailand accept or support LGBT rights a bit.
- Neither South Korea nor the United Kingdom either accepts or supports or is averse to LGBT rights.
- Algeria and Turkey are a bit averse to LGBT rights.
- China and Russia are averse to LGBT rights.
- Bangladesh, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Nigeria and Pakistan are very much averse to LGBT rights.
- 2603:7000:B500:5D4:68DE:BA26:7A38:9662 (talk) 00:42, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is based upon reliable sources, not subjective original analysis by users. Zenomonoz (talk) 01:38, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- I still don't understand what you are asking for. I don't see any tables resembling these in the present article, the only mentions of some of these countries (e.g. Algeria, Bangladesh) are in tables transcluded from e.g. Template:LGBT rights table Africa, Template:LGBT rights table Asia, etc. and concealed inside collapsible boxes within LGBT rights by country or territory#LGBT-related laws by country or territory. Are your tables (i) suggestions for improving existing content; (ii) suggestiond for additional content; or (iii) an analysis of what we presently have in the article? If (i) or (ii), we definitely need reliable sources, per the policies on original research and verifiability; if (iii), see WP:NOTFORUM. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:16, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- My point is that:
LGBT travel advice focusing on 36 countries
The table contains LGBT travel advice focusing on 36 countries.
| Country | Risk level | Caution level |
|---|---|---|
| Algeria |
High risk | No travel allowed |
| Argentina |
No risk | Regular caution |
| Australia |
No risk | Regular caution |
| Austria |
Low risk | Increased caution |
| Bangladesh |
High risk | No travel allowed |
| Brazil |
No risk | Regular caution |
| Canada |
No risk | Regular caution |
| Chile |
No risk | Regular caution |
| China |
High risk | No travel allowed |
| Denmark |
No risk | Regular caution |
| Egypt |
High risk | No travel allowed |
| Finland |
No risk | Regular caution |
| France |
No risk | Regular caution |
| Germany |
Low risk | Increased caution |
| India |
Low risk | Increased caution |
| Indonesia |
High risk | No travel allowed |
| Iran |
High risk | No travel allowed |
| Israel |
No risk | Regular caution |
| Italy |
Low risk | Increased caution |
| Japan |
No risk | Regular caution |
| South Korea |
Moderate risk | Travel reconsidered |
| Mexico |
No risk | Regular caution |
| Netherlands |
No risk | Regular caution |
| Nigeria |
High risk | No travel allowed |
| Norway |
No risk | Regular caution |
| Pakistan |
High risk | No travel allowed |
| Philippines |
Low risk | Increased caution |
| Poland |
Low risk | Increased caution |
| Russia |
High risk | No travel allowed |
| South Africa |
Low risk | Increased caution |
| Spain |
No risk | Regular caution |
| Switzerland |
No risk | Regular caution |
| Thailand |
Low risk | Increased caution |
| Turkey |
High risk | No travel allowed |
| United Kingdom |
Moderate risk | Travel reconsidered |
| United States |
No risk | Regular caution |
For LGBT citizens:
- Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Denmark, Finland, France, Israel, Japan, Mexico, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Switzerland and the United States are no-risk countries, which require them to exercise regular caution when they visit these countries.
- Austria, Germany, India, Italy, the Philippines, Poland, South Africa and Thailand are low-risk countries, which require them to exercise increased caution when they visit these countries.
- South Korea and the United Kingdom are moderate-risk countries, which require them to reconsider travel before visiting these countries.
- Algeria, Bangladesh, China, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Nigeria, Pakistan, Russia and Turkey are high-risk countries, which block travel for them.
As an LGBT citizen:
- Exercise regular caution when you visit Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Denmark, Finland, France, Israel, Japan, Mexico, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Switzerland and the United States due to no risk.
- Exercise increased caution when you visit Austria, Germany, India, Italy, the Philippines, Poland, South Africa and Thailand due to low risk.
- Reconsider travel before visiting South Korea and the United Kingdom due to moderate risk.
- Avoid Algeria, Bangladesh, China, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Nigeria, Pakistan, Russia and Turkey due to high risk.
2603:7000:B500:5D4:2CE3:391E:911A:21C (talk) 18:53, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- What is your point, exactly? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:34, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- My point is that:
- No-risk countries include Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Denmark, Finland, France, Israel, Japan, Mexico, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Switzerland and the United States, requiring LGBT citizens to exercise regular caution when they visit these countries.
- Low-risk countries include Austria, Germany, India, Italy, the Philippines, Poland, South Africa and Thailand, requiring LGBT citizens to exercise increased caution when they visit these countries.
- Moderate-risk countries include South Korea and the United Kingdom, requiring LGBT citizens to reconsider travel before visiting these countries.
- High-risk countries include Algeria, Bangladesh, China, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Nigeria, Pakistan, Russia and Turkey, blocking travel for LGBT citizens.
- 2600:4041:51E1:7000:303C:C8BB:CAEA:3E6D (talk) 23:43, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- I still don't understand what you are asking for. Please see my reply below. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:17, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- My point is that: