Talk:Anti-Homosexuality Act, 2014

The Family
Could someone with some expertise of this topic tell me if The Fellowship (Christian organization) should be included into this article? See this article -- Dan Leveille TALK 18:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't have expertise of the topic, but the link you give, which quotes Jeff Sharlet as linking Bahati and that organization, would seem to be reasonable grounds for mentioning them (along with the source of the allegations). Pseudomonas(talk) 12:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Disagree with move
I am not at all sure that this was a good move. The previous title said what it is and this does not; what happens the next time any legislature anywhere in the world introduces a bill with the same name? I'm sorry, I don't want to trash the good work of the editor who moved it and I do understand why they did it: I just think it was a mistake, though. This title might work if this was a Ugandan-only encyclopaedia and there was never going to be another Ugandan bill of the same name. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 09:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with these comments. The title of the article must make an explicit link to Uganda otherwise it could refer to any piece of anti-homosexual legislation. Not specific enough. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Unless there's another bill of the same name and a certain amount of prominence then this name is better. The trend (looking around) seems to be that unambiguously-named bills and acts have the simple title even when the name is fairly generic (certainly for US and UK bills and acts). If ambiguity arises we can separate then. Pseudomonas(talk) 10:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * But looking, for example, at UK_acts_of_parliament and UK_acts_of_parliament doesn't provide that good a match for what you say - for a start they all have the date in, which I would have thought was pretty much essential. Oddly, the original editor's claim that this new article title matches the bill is not borne out by the bill PDF linked from the article: in that, it is very clearly entitled "The Anti Homosexuality Bill, 2009" so losing the date starts to look even more flaky. I'd go for that version as a compromise but would still prefer Uganda to be back in the article title for clarity. However, I am not going to spend long on the soapbox over this: having recorded my opposition to this unwise move, I think I'll go and do something else. :) Best wishes DBaK (talk) 18:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Do I mean "borne out" or "born out"? Confused? Yes, that's me. DBaK (talk) 18:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Mover's rationale
Thanks for noticing this. Here's a few points:
 * This title should be precise, not descriptive, since its a proper name.
 * The text on the official bill says "The Anti Homosexuality Bill, 2009"
 * Wikipedia articles cannot begin with "The" (See WP:THE)
 * "Anti Homosexuality" needs a dash, I honestly think this is their error.
 * Originally, I thought the "2009" in the text was not part of the actual title, just specifying the date, and the header of the other pages of the bill remove the "2009." I'd be open to moving this if we can decide on this being the official title.
 * I've noticed the naming conventions of legislations and bills have the location before it. United States Bill of Rights is technically "Bill of Rights" and California Proposition 8 (2008) is "Proposition 8" - though we don't need the "2008" since "California Proposition 8" has multiple articles.
 * Because of this, I've moved this article to Uganda Anti-Homosexuality Bill to follow this convention.

Thanks for pointing this out! :) -- Dan Leveille TALK 02:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the very clear rationale. It's much nicer when people set their stall out properly! In a perfect world I'd still rather see "2009" in too, as I agree that this seems to be part of the bill's name, but actually I think this version is pretty liveable-with. And of course nothing in here is set in stone so it can always be revised any time. I certainly think that the current version (Uganda Anti-Homosexuality Bill) is a big improvement on its immediate predecessor. Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 09:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Lively quote
The new quote from Lively is certainly interesting but looks far too long in my opinion to be quoted in full. I also worry that it's a form of apologetics - allowing Lively to justify the bill while decrying the worst bits around the death sentence. I suggest we simply summarise the sentiment of the passage without citing it in full. It's enough to say that he was instrumental in its formulation but now is unhappy at how draconian it is. I also have concerns about Lively's belief that men are coming into Uganda to corrupt "boys". The issue, if true, is at the margins of this debate as of course someone who has sexual relations with a child is called a paedophile and not a homosexual and can be either a man or a woman. So is it of relevance here? Perhaps only to illustrate Lively's basis of error. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I made a possible compromise:
 * Move the reference of the quote one step closer to the source. (Instead of boxturtle says that LifeSiteNews says that Lively says, I have changed it to LifeSiteNews says that Lively says.)
 * Include only one paragraph from the source instead of three. (This keeps the quote that added.)
 * (: What to include in this article is subject to a Lively debate. :)
 * --Kevinkor2 (talk) 05:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I removed quotation formatting, while retaining his remarks. The quotation's prominent placing gave undue weight to his dubious claims. Am86 (talk) 04:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks to both for the compromise - much happier with this. Contaldo80 (talk) 12:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Uganda to drop death penalty and life imprisonment
Yesterday an article was posted by Bloomberg stating that James Nsaba Buturo said that Uganda will drop the death penalty and life imprisonment from the bill "to attract the support of religious leaders who are opposed to these penalties." It's weird that no other sources verify this. -- Dan Leveille TALK 22:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Kill the Gays Bill
Hi. I don't feel that the references given support placing this name as an "aka" in bold at the top. From the citations it looks as if some journalists and activists are trying to promote the use of this term (and good luck to them, but that's PoV) but I don't see it as having - yet - anything like the strength of a true alternate name. Having it where it was almost made it look like an official name for it and seemed intrinsically PoV and almost accidentally deceitful. Sure, we should record this usage, and perhaps keep an eye on it with a view to changing it is it becomes more prominent, but the previous placement read to me as if we were trying to assist in its gaining currency, which is not our job. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 09:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing this out. I definitely agree. I wasn't too sure that "aka" was a good way to say it, but the term has been pretty common in the media. I think we need to simply change "also known as" to something more like "referred to in the media as" or something similar, because I believe this name has been pretty prominent. I changed it to "sometimes referred to in the media as." Anyone have suggestions on how we should better describe it's usage? -- Dan Leveille TALK 00:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks like someone beat me to this! :) -- Dan Leveille TALK 00:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Article improvement
I'm going to continue to work on the article. I will have to leave it for a few hours while I do actual work, though. Just a note to say I'm coming back. --Moni3 (talk) 18:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

reminder: Richard Cohen on Maddow

I think I'm missing a connection to AIDS, or the sources I've read haven't made a definite connection between Uganda's government reaction to AIDS and HIV, and homosexuality. Has anyone read any sources that connect Uganda's views on AIDS to this bill? I admit I read most of what is cited in the article very quickly to verify what is in the article or correct it to what is accurate. I may not have absorbed a connection to AIDS, but I recall skimming over some details about HIV and AIDS. --Moni3 (talk) 17:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Archbishop Cyprian Lwanga
I am puzzled by the article's assertion that the Catholic church supported this bill. It's true that a statement on it wasn't made until December, but Archbishop Cyprian Lwanga made not one but two statements opposing the bill in its entirety. This was reported in the Daily Monitor at this link; and the Vatican added weight to this when Fr Philip Bene, the legal attache to the Vatican's UN Mission made this statement at a UN panel discussion in the UN;

“Thank you for convening this panel discussion and for providing the opportunity to hear some very serious concerns raised this afternoon. My comments are more in the form of a statement rather than a question. As stated during the debate of the General Assembly last year, the Holy See continues to oppose all grave violations of human rights against homosexual persons, such as the use of the death penalty, torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment. The Holy See also opposes all forms of violence and unjust discrimination against homosexual persons, including discriminatory penal legislation which undermines the inherent dignity of the human person. As raised by some of the panelists today, the murder and abuse of homosexual persons are to be confronted on all levels, especially when such violence is perpetrated by the State. While the Holy See’s position on the concepts of sexual orientation and gender identity remains well known, we continue to call on all States and individuals to respect the rights of all persons and to work to promote their inherent dignity and worth.”

Here it is reported on the San Diego Gay and Lesbian News;

I think this article needs to be edited to include this.

Notdimjustthinking (talk) 23:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Soften?
What is this about? "The bill may soften the strongest penalties for the most egregious offenses to life imprisonment." Surely the whole tenor of the bill is to toughen penalties - to the extent of saying "...shall be liable on conviction to suffer death". If you're trying to say that someone is suggestting that they may now - after all the fuss - re-draft the bill soften the penalties, then say so. Snori (talk) 06:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It does say that. I don't understand what you don't understand. Can you rephrase your question? --Moni3 (talk) 21:51, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Clarification
I contacted User:Peaceblissharmony about reverting without discussing here.

What does this mean? Uganda's ethics and integrity minister, Nsaba Buturo, dismissed the activists' accusations saying it was part of a campaign to mobilize support and sympathy from outside.

Buturo's name does not need to be linked. It is already linked in the article above. Thank you for removing the other CNN source. It was substandard. --Moni3 (talk) 20:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you review the implications you create regarding the Catholic Church's objection to Uganda's legislation. The Pope has said nothing about it and has commended Uganda on it's climate of freedom. The Pope made a general statement about discrimination but there is a big qualifier, often over looked."UNJUST" it is unjust discrimination the church opposes. The Bishop of Hawaii has shed some light on the potential of this qualifier when he condemned gay relations and marriage and that any discrimination regarding such was not "unjustified." The Vatican is playing fast and loose with the lives and safety of LGBTQ persons and overlooks the evil even the promotion of such legislation creates by implicitly encouraging people to mistreat and even kill LGBTQ persons, which is in fact the result. Africa is rich with resources and particularly multitudes of ignorant people that organized religions can harvest in the name of something good. Their presence in any other part of the world is either not tolerated any longer or of diminishing toleration. anthony dennis caeton


 * Ok. This is what the article currently states: Uganda's Catholic Archbishop of Kampala Cyprian Lwanga stated in December 2009 the bill was unnecessary and "at odds with the core values" of Christianity, expressing particular concerns at the death penalty provisions. Lwanga argued that instead homosexuals should be encouraged to seek rehabilitation.[55] For its part, the Holy See has maintained excellent relations with Uganda, with Pope Benedict XVI receiving the Ugandan ambassador in December 2009 and commending the climate of freedom and respect in the country towards the Catholic Church. During this meeting, there was no mention of the anti-homosexuality bill.[56] However, three days earlier the Vatican legal attaché to the United Nations stated that "Pope Benedict is opposed to 'unjust discrimination' against gay men and lesbians".[57]


 * What do you think needs to be changed? --Moni3 (talk) 18:33, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

C Street: The Fundamentalist Threat to American Democracy
If there is information in this source (Chapter 4 of Jeff Sharlet, C Street: The Fundamentalist Threat to American Democracy (New York and London: Little, Brown, 2010), pp. 129-203) relevant to the article, it should be summarized and cited appropriately in the body. Mark K. Jensen, if you have the book, can you do this, making sure to note that the comments and conclusions belong to the author? --Moni3 (talk) 21:35, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

removal of image, see also section
If anyone has a rationale for removing them, I'm open to hearing it. Until then, I've reverted. --joe deckertalk to me 04:58, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Death penalty for what?
The first sentence says
 * introducing the death penalty for people who have previous convictions, are HIV-positive, or engage in same sex acts with people under 18 years of age.

That seems to say that anyone who's HIV positive gets the death penalty. Obviously something is missing here. Are they talking about people convicted of engaging in a homosexual act who in addition have had a previous conviction for the same, are HIV-positive, or have engaged in same-sex acts with minors? AxelBoldt (talk) 21:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Not just is there nothing missing there, but same sex acts more than once (period - no minor needed) carried the death penalty. Even once carried a minimum of life imprisonment (umm, what would the max be? death or torture are the only things higher that I can think of). As sickening and absurd as it sounds, it is exactly how it was reported. Treating someone with AIDS (as opposed to reporting them for "penalty") carried a prison sentence.
 * http://articles.cnn.com/2009-12-08/world/uganda.anti.gay.bill_1_gays-death-penalty-aids-prevention?_s=PM:WORLD
 * http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1946645,00.html
 * The death penalty was stripped out of the bill at some point... but...
 * What should also be noted is that an attempt was recently made to revive the bill, death penalty and all, which fortunately failed:
 * http://af.reuters.com/article/ugandaNews/idAFL5E7JN1YS20110823
 * Hope that helps. Best, R OBERT M FROM LI &#124; TK/CN 00:34, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The quoted sentence says "people", not "people engaging in homosexual acts". Every person with HIV gets the death penalty? Every person with a prior conviction gets the death penalty? That doesn't make any sense. It should probably read: "Every person who engaged in a homosexual act and has HIV gets the death penalty." And: "Every person who engaged in a homosexual act with a prior conviction for the same gets the death penalty." AxelBoldt (talk) 13:32, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Wishful thinking doesnt change things. :-( Every person who is HIV+ gets the death penalty. Every person found guilty of multiple homosexual acts gets the death penalty. Yes, those are separate things that each lead to the death penalty. Please dig through the links. It's what the various papers reported on it, and all we can do is publish what the RS' agree upon. Best, R OBERT M FROM LI &#124; TK/CN 14:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Recent edits
Since the IP | insists on WP:BRD: I hereby don't see anything wrong with the edits made and agree to have them reinstated. I'm certainly open to arguments why this should not be done, of course, though so far none have been delivered. --Conti|✉ 11:35, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It's the IP that needs to explain himself. The lead has OR and POV all over it.


 * The bill does not appear to apply the death penalty for minors of the same sex who engage in sexual acts with each other. The note is unsourced, which means whoever wrote it is interpreting Ugandan law for readers, violating WP:OR.


 * It has also received protests from international LGBT, human rights, civil rights, and scientific organisations which rejected the claims behind the need for the bill as utterly false. International reaction to the proposed bill has characterised it as barbaric and abhorrent. Redundant in a paragraph that already discusses the reactions from various organizations and governments, and furthermore unclear what "it" in the beginning of the sentence refers to.


 * Homophobia is rampant in Uganda and is thought to have been one of the causes of the bill. Interpretive: original research, passive language.


 * I've restored my edits, including ones about why Stephen Langa included information in the 2009. It is cited and directly relevant to the topic. Discussion should take place here. --Moni3 (talk) 11:49, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I generally agree with quite a few of the changes as well, but it should be discussed instead of an edit war being fought. Part of the removed text from the lead however is mentioned and sourced in the body of article already, and should be kept, perhaps reworded. --Scientiom (talk) 11:51, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, this is backward. I wrote the majority of this article and these substandard changes were made without discussion while I took a hiatus (from this kind of poor editing, I should add). There should be absolutely NO discussion about removing POV and OR from any article anywhere on Wikipedia. I see you've overturned my edits that did just that. You should at least revert that portion of your reversion. Take out the POV and OR. There are ways to reword some of the issues, but as long as the statements above are in the article it will fail at neutrality in the lead alone.
 * Furthermore, you're asking to discuss edits to an article with an IP that has yet to do just that. How long are you planning on waiting for this discussion? --Moni3 (talk) 11:56, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * @Moni - #1 has been changed by me - it should simply say that it's unclear - indeed it is quite unclear from reading the bill as to whether the penalties apply to minors. As for #2, perhaps it should be reworded? "It" changed to "The bill". Most of the text should probably be kept, as most of the specific wording even comes from the body of the article from sourced material. #3 - Perhaps we should look for a source for that, I'm sure we can easily find one - a recent poll in Uganda on attitudes towards LGBT people & issues pretty much showed that - I'll try and look for a source. Additionally I've also reinstated an obviously non controversial minor edit of yours: - any major edits we should be careful with to avoid an edit war. --Scientiom (talk) 12:04, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and addressed one of your concerns (#2) by changing "It" to "The bill". --Scientiom (talk) 12:09, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Let's review. Article was decent 6 months ago. A few editors made changes to the lead that introduced POV, OR, and unsourced content, sourced statements unnecessarily in the lead that were clearly sourced in the body, removed cited content linking evangelical Christians to the 2009 workshop, and made other poor copy editing changes. After I fix these issues and others (including removing outdated statements in the body of the article) with clear and concise edit summaries, an anonymous IP overturns my edits to the Wrong Version. Now we're here discussing this? For what reason? So we can all get along? These are some fairly fucked up priorities.
 * What exactly are we all waiting to do here, agree that POV, OR, and bad copy editing should be changed? What is the purpose of this discussion and why hasn't someone else besides me not only recognized this bad content but changed it? What if this IP simply is unable to recognize what OR and POV is? Seriously, folks. What the fuck? --Moni3 (talk) 17:46, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Since the IP doesn't even bother to show up here, let's just make the changes again and be done with it. He never gave a reason for why those edits were supposedly bad in the first place. --Conti|✉ 17:48, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Lead problems I've addressed in edits:
 * Kill the Gays bill either needs to be bolded or in quotes, not both.
 * Punctuation goes before citations.
 * An unsourced interpretation of Ugandan law does not belong in the article. "Possibly children as well" is unsourced. I removed both.
 * Homophobia is rampant in Uganda and is thought to have been one of the causes of the bill. is both POV and OR. A U.S. State Department cable made comments about homophobia in Uganda, which is cited in the article, but this is a very loose generalization of those comments and poorly written.
 * Same-sex relationships are currently illegal in Uganda—as it is in many verbs do not agree. Changed "same-sex relationships to "Homosexuality is currently..."
 * Changed MP to Member of Parliament. Not all English readers know on sight what MP means.
 * Removed unnecessary and duplicate sourcing existing in the body of the article per WP:LEAD
 * No source in the article, to my knowledge, supports this statement: "which rejected the claims behind the need for the bill as utterly false". "Utterly false" appears in a quote from an editorial that addresses the choice Ugandans must face between being gay and being African.
 * Per WP:LEAD, the lead must summarize the information in the article. "Criticism and condemnation" covers more specific issues of "International reaction to the proposed bill has characterised it as barbaric and abhorrent." This hammers a point to the extent that it violates POV. I removed the statement re "barbaric and abhorrent".
 * I joined the 3rd and 4th paragraphs; they address the same points.
 * I removed "It may be taken up again in the next session, expected to begin in June, but the bill would have to return to the beginning of the legislative process" because it's outdated.

The issues about homophobia and Uganda and the criticism and condemnation Uganda received is worth discussing if others feel that the lead is not strong enough. However, the lead and article must be seen in totality. It doesn't make a better article to say the same thing two or three times. Nor does it improve the article to misquote a source, or apply comments from a very specific source to general issues.

Elsewhere in the article:


 * I removed scare quotes from "heal homosexuality". They are not encyclopedic. The term "unnatural sex", however, was actually used in the source, which is why it has quotes around it. I restored the quotes and removed the scare quotes.


 * I restored this information:

I have seen no discussion or argument to remove it. It is directly relevant to evangelical influence on the bill, cited to reliable sources, and furthermore referred to further down in the article.


 * I shifted this sentence: In December 2009, the neighbouring countries of Rwanda and Burundi also discussed legislation that would criminalise homosexuality.  because it sounds dumb at the beginning of the section. It precipitates a topic sentence in the next paragraph, further evidence that whoever shifted it did not take the totality of the article, its cohesiveness, into consideration. --Moni3 (talk) 21:24, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

So overnight a bunch of edits were made to address the above points, instead of discussing them here, as BRD was intended (great job!). Anyway, I don't know if you guys ever constructed an article before, but the lead is supposed to summarize the body and right now there is information in the lead, including uncited quotes, that do not appear in the body. And what is someone's "fascination" with scare quotes? They're so "effective" at imparting "neutral" ideas.

Wikipedia is not a broken plumbing system you can fix with duct tape and tissues, so for fuck's sake, come on. Why don't you discuss here on the talk page exactly what it is you're trying to accomplish because you're just...making the lead suck more by stuffing citations in it that don't belong there, then making shit up about the death penalty for minors? Is it possible for editors to put some thought into the entire article instead of one sentence at a time? --Moni3 (talk) 11:56, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That is questionable actually, I had only changed that from "children" as the IP had placed. Better to not be specific at all and just say "people". --Scientiom (talk) 12:01, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Scientom, have you read the contents of the bill? --Moni3 (talk) 16:54, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, I have gone through the contents of the bill. --Scientiom (talk) 17:13, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I haven't read the contents of the bill since overhauled the article more than a year ago. At that time, nothing was in the contents of the bill that said children or minors would be subjected to the death penalty. Has it changed? If it has not, the obvious question here is why people are adding this and why I'm the only editor (save one who came by to remove the dubious tag I placed there this morning) to have an issue with this, particularly after I've made a big stink about it here on the talk page.
 * Before someone here comes along and assumes I think I'm God's gift to Wikipedia, I'm not. I misread things, make mistakes, and every one of us, me included, interprets information based on some inner mental filter. This is why it's essential that someone else read the sources, and preferably a lot of other someones. Because for me to be trying to protect the integrity of the information in this article against a lot of enthusiastic newbies (or worse, POV warriors) who have not considered reading the bill and the sources is ridiculous and not what a collaborative encyclopedia is for. --Moni3 (talk) 18:24, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Coming Out Straight
What source connects this passage to the bill? Cohen is a BLP. We have to be careful how we treat his involvement here and use the highest quality sources. Also the article should note that he is not a supporter of the bill. – Lionel (talk) 20:47, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The sources supporting the connection between Cohen's book and the Ugandan conference in 2009 are linked in the article. (Available here, here, and here). It an interview with Cohen himself. Be careful with your wording, please. Cherry-picking means whoever inserted the quote (me, in this case) chose it because it represented something other than what the quotee meant. There's no way to cherry pick this quote. It was the central focus of the sources.


 * This is currently in the article, sourced to the third link from the Rachel Maddow Show: Richard Cohen has stated he condemns the bill, and that the punitive measures in it are "incomprehensible". --Moni3 (talk) 20:57, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll stipulate to the book, but singling out this specific quote and setting it off with a template is WP:UNDUE. – Lionel (talk) 22:44, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The Manual of Style states that any quote longer than 40 words can get a blockquote. But I don't really care if it's in blockquotes or not. If it pleases you, either you or I can remove the blockquotes, but I'm not going to edit war with someone who places them around the quote again.
 * I disagree that this is UNDUE and you need to explain how you think it is. Rick Warren and Scott Lively have been seriously accused of interfering in the politics of a 3rd world country. The conference in 2009 that led to David Bahati drawing up this bill gave literature written by Cohen to Ugandan politicians that included faulty studies done by someone who has expelled from .... you know the drill... saying that gays are basically pedophiles. Ugandan politicians are quoted in this article as saying the same thing: gays are pedophiles. The sources, not me, are saying this is a direct connection. I fail to see how this is UNDUE at all. --Moni3 (talk) 22:53, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * We need a source that shows this causation: exact pedophile quote from book->2009 conference->Bahati->bill. Without this source we are left with WP:SYNTH and/or WP:UNDUE--take your pick.– Lionel (talk) 23:06, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The sources are making that connection. Rachel Maddow accused Cohen of having "blood on his hands". Btw, UNDUE means that material in the article is taking one or two sources, in the totality of all the sources, and placing emphasis on what they say far beyond what the rest of the sources address. This is rather hard to prove in this article. Most of the sources in this article are news sources, so they're covering immediate issues. One news source does not cover what another one covers, especially if they are published a year or several months apart. What I assume you're objecting to is six sentences out of 4446 words total in the article that you're saying places far too much emphasis on this issue. I don't think UNDUE is the argument you're looking for, but I don't know what is. --Moni3 (talk) 23:12, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

"The sources are making that connection": using multiple sources to support a derived conclusion is WP:SYNTH. We need a single source which states that the passage from Cohen's book about pedophiles inspired Bahati to craft the bill. We are not permitted to "connect the dots" nor lead the reader to a conclusion. WP:UNDUE: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints...articles should not give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views. " The coverage in the article devoted to this passage from Cohen's book is excessive considering it is based wholly on Maddow's minority view of the book passage. I.e. Maddow's view of this quote from the book is a fringe view. – Lionel (talk) 02:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I have to agree with Moni3's understanding of this. First, I'm not sure why you consider Maddow's view the minority view, nor secondly what other significant viewpoints you think exist. If you think such do exist, please, by all means, find them. Your argument seems moot until you do. I couldn't. R OBERT M FROM LI &#124; TK/CN 03:00, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Lionelt, I disagree with your conclusions here. The original clip played on the Rachel Maddow Show includes a video where Stephen Langa, the 2009 conference organizer, praises Richard Cohen. The passage you're objecting to is placed in a section that discusses American evangelical involvement in Uganda. It's entirely appropriate. In fact, it's rather understated. Time magazine makes a stronger connection between Langa, David Bahati, and evangelical influence. --Moni3 (talk) 12:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Moni3 is right on the money here. The claims that using that source would give it undue weight are totally without merit. Raul654 (talk) 18:36, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Provisions of life imprisonment
The following statement is in the lead: "...bill introduces life imprisonment for gays and lesbians who express their sexuality through relationships and/or romantic/sexual acts not involving sex,"


 * 1) What is a romantic/sexual act not involving sex?
 * 2) I read the bill contents again, which are cited in the article and can be read here. Life imprisonment is imposed on the following conditions:
 * under the offense of homosexuality, described in this section as sexual acts
 * someone who has entered into a same sex marriage
 * for someone who "attempts to commit the offence of aggravated homosexuality" which is pretty clear to me is a sexual act

I took this out once and Scientom put it back in with the edit summary "this is all information according to what is stated in the bill - there is a life imprisonment provision for any same-gender acts which do not involve sex; for sex (twice) it's the death penalty"

So what's going on? Scientom, what wording in the bill did you base this statement on? --Moni3 (talk) 21:14, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, i am not sure what scientom is basing his edits on. The bill is pretty clear about life inprisonment.MilkStraw532 (talk) 21:21, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Instead of removal, I'd recommended a fix. "...bill introduces life imprisonment for those who express homosexuality through sexual acts, entering into same sex marriage or attempts to commit..." Best, R OBERT M FROM LI &#124; TK/CN 21:33, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

These are the provisions under which the death penalty would be enforced:
 * A person commits the offense of aggravated homosexuality where the
 * (a) person against whom the offence is committed is below the age of 18 years;
 * (b) offender is a person living with HIV;
 * (c) offender is a parent or guardian of the person against whom the offence is committed;
 * (d) offender is a person in authority over the person against whom the offence is committed;
 * (e) victim of the offence is a person with disability;
 * (f) offender is a serial offender, or
 * (g) offender applies, administers or causes to be used by any man or woman any drug, matter or thing with intent to stupefy overpower him or her so as to there by enable any person to have unlawful carnal connection with any person of the same sex.

These are the provisions under which life imprisonment would be enforced:
 * Under the offense of homosexuality (as opposed to "aggravated homosexuality" as described above)
 * (a) he penetrates the anus or mouth of another person of the same sex with his penis or any other sexual contraption;
 * (b) he or she uses any object or sexual contraption to penetrate or stimulate sexual organ of a person of the same sex;
 * (e) (sic) he or she touches another person with the intention of committing the act of homosexuality.
 * the aforementioned same sex marriage,
 * or for someone who "attempts to commit the offence of aggravated homosexuality" --Moni3 (talk) 21:47, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Moni3 et al: So, would you be willing to entertain a more accurate rewording of that section then? Something in line with what you've dug up? Also, I'd like to point out something interesting that others may not have noted (this is under the assumption of exact snippets being used above). Homosexual anal and oral sex only carries life imprisonment if engaged in by men. Though, it seems a moot point with (e) above. Does it seem there's an open ended ambiguity in that one that makes (a) irrelevant? Inotherwords, even if (a) does not apply, touching (ie: not sex) with intent to do more warrants life imprisonment? Thoughts? R OBERT M FROM LI &#124; TK/CN 21:57, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Lead rewrite
I'm proposing a rewrite of the lead, the least of which would accomplish explaining the differences of aggravated homosexuality and the offense of homosexuality, what would earn the death penalty, and what would earn life imprisonment. Furthermore, several style issues I've brought up previous need to be addressed and a rewrite of the lead would do that.

This accomplishes several things:
 * It better explains the media calls the bill the "Kill the Gays bill", not the Ugandan gov't.
 * It removes the bold from the "Kill the Gays bill" bold or quotations, one or the other
 * It removes sourcing in the lead that does not belong in it. The lead, per WP:LEAD, should summarize information in the article that is sourced in the body. The only reason to cite something in the lead is for a quote, or for a statistic that is not covered in the body, such as the media name for the bill. Otherwise, multiple references in the lead are unnecessary. Those sources (which are bare refs, btw) need to be incorporated into the article. The New York Times article already is, so that is a duplicate reference. I don't think the Harper's reference has been included in the body, so that should be done.

Since pretty much any edit I make to this article is bafflingly overturned, I thought it would be super to introduce the discussion about this here. So go nuts. --Moni3 (talk) 22:22, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, a few points on the proposal above...
 * I'd add (for accuracy and proper portrayal) "as same sex sexual acts between males, the act of touching with intent to commit homosexual acts, ..." (bold to emphasize changes, and obviously not to be included)
 * I do see Scientom's cause for understanding the issue the way s/he does. And that would seem to be "Offense Part E" (as listed above).
 * I too am fine without cites in the lead. It would seem though (as I am sure you have noticed) that in contentious articles, not having cites in the lead causes no end of nightmares as people rip it apart as uncited because (AGF) they do not understand WP:MOS or (-AGF) they see it as means to remove content they do not wish in the lead.
 * Other than that, through a quick reading, I've got no objections. I'll re-read it a couple more times and more thoroughly and let everyone know if I come up with anything else. Best, R OBERT M FROM LI &#124; TK/CN 22:55, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Aside from the issue of penetration, which is obviously impossible without a phallus, women are included in the provisions of the bill. Note the "he or she" language.
 * My issue with the cites in the lead is that the sources currently in the lead may not be covered in the body, which is a significant problem. My primary concern is that editors are more comfortable making edits to the lead rather than expending the effort to read the sources and edit the body. There were no protests about the lack of citations in the lead for more than a year until several editors made substantial and inaccurate changes to it several months ago. Although I agree that occasionally someone will protest the lack of citations, that is usually taken care of by a gentle nudge in the direction of WP:LEAD. --Moni3 (talk) 23:18, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Point a states (unlike the rest) men only, and includes toys. We can theorize, but we know that's not permissible here.
 * (a) he penetrates the anus or mouth of another person of the same sex with his penis or any other sexual contraption;
 * That could include women, who have both an anus and a mouth, and the capability to use a "contraption", but specifically excludes them (by intent or accident - which is irrelevant at this point). Regardless, women get covered by the "touch with intent" part which specifies "he or she". As for the cites, I agree... sorry I didnt make that clear. I was just proposing why some many leads get overburdened with cites (such as one I'm currently involved in rewriting elsewhere). Best, R OBERT M FROM LI &#124; TK/CN 23:30, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe the confusion about men only here is that the bill states that any one or combination of violations of the "offense of homosexuality" will earn the perpetrator life imprisonment. Someone does not have to get penetrated with a penis to engage in a homosexual act, according to the bill. The males only language is inaccurate. --Moni3 (talk) 11:45, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I stand in awe of this proposal, as it covers pretty much everything I was going to try to work through. You have a misplaced comma before "if enacted" and I prefer "would, if enacted, ..." to "if enacted would ...", but I think you have a solid grasp of the salient points to cover at the beginning. In the last paragraph, I would just say "governments" instead of separating Western and other. FiveColourMap (talk) 15:36, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Moni3: I agree, as I noted by referencing that section (e) covers that. I was just saying we should be accurate in how we word it if we choose to subdivide each offense as done above (in which case, for (a) it needs to specify men, while clarity should be provided to indicate that women don't get off the hook either due to (e)). Other than that, you've got my support for this - and a "Well done!". Best, R OBERT M FROM LI &#124; TK/CN 17:17, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Although the awe is unwarranted, I appreciate the feedback. Robert, I'm actually contemplating if the article should be restructured. I'm not sure about that. But what might address your points is a table in the Overview of provisions section to put these "aggravated homosexuality" and "offense of homosexuality" points in an easy-to-read format. That way the bill's contents would be verbatim for anyone interested and cover the issue of penetration.
 * I'll wait a few more hours, probably until sometime tomorrow, and if I see no objections, I'll replace the lead with the one I wrote here. After reading it a few times, I can see it can stand to be tweaked a little for brevity and some other issues. --Moni3 (talk) 21:18, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * (facepalm). So simple. After which, that bit of wording can probably be tremendously simplified by not having to have a point-by-point. I've got lotsa work tonight, but I'll see if I can get back here to spend some time on this with all of you. Busy hopping through two other big ledes right now as well. Side note, as for me, I'll sit in awe. FCM can do the standing - I'm too lazy for that. Best, R OBERT M FROM LI &#124; TK/CN 00:26, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Moni, that is excellent writing. Say, can we clone you? I'd like to assign Moni4 and Moni5 to some articles on my watchlist that need looking after. Drmies (talk) 13:03, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I plan on asking her to be my ghost writer for articles here. No one will ever know... and I'll rack up a bunch more (than my feeble 2 assists) GAs, some FAs and a lot of content contribution - no one being the wiser. Crap... I just posted that plan on a talk page for the world to see, didn't I? I guess that plan is squashed before I even tried it. Back to doing it the hard way. :-( R OBERT M FROM LI &#124; TK/CN 17:12, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * This is a little off topic from the article contents, but still germane to this discussion. I appreciate the praise, but sincerely think the awe is far over the top here. I don't want to seem ungrateful, but the talk page here and a few other experiences I've had this week are indicating that the praise may be a symptom of a greater issue which I sincerely hope isn't me viewing my own skills as less than what they are.


 * What I did in rewriting the lead is not exceptional. Really and I swear to God it's not. I already knew the bill was linked as a source because I placed it there when I overhauled the article in January 2010. Following the inserting of misstatements about minors being subjected to the death penalty and the confusing same-sex nonsexual relationships earning life imprisonment in the lead, all I did was a) click the link already in the article that led me to the bill contents, b) ctrl+F for "life" and "death" in the bill, c) copy the relevant parts that answered what would earn someone the death penalty or life imprisonment and paste it to this talk page, then d) summarize that information and integrate it into the overall lead. A little bit of coding and familiarity with issues like WP:LEAD and the Manual of Style that I got from being gently or ungently corrected in my Wikipedia experience added some to it.


 * This kind of awe or praise creates an false chasm between what exists on Wikipedia and what should be done here. I don't have gifts others lack. I'm pretty much a clumsy bumbling idiot that has to read things a few times to get it, and even then I misread things and make mistakes. Anyone can do what I did. Anyone should have recognized the problems in the lead. It's very basic stuff. I do not deserve praise like this. What the site really needs are editors who can do the very least--read the sources--and discuss them intelligently, even if they disagree about issues. My fear is that editors see the actions I've done and do not realize that they are fully capable of performing them themselves. It's really just a door in your brain you have to open to access another possibility: if you have access to sources, you have better footing to edit. I've had the extreme good luck of having access to university libraries. That's about as exceptional as I get. Everyone likes an attaboy now and then, but what I'd love to see here more than anything else are thoughtful, engaging discussions and congenial arguments where source material is at the heart of the conversation. --Moni3 (talk) 17:39, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Decent writing is a craft. Congrats on having the craft. I'm just a drive-by fawner here, BTW: the subject matter is a bit too complicated for me. Drmies (talk) 19:19, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Cult Health Sex
Is anyone familiar with the journal Culture Health & Sexuality? They published what appears to be basically a media survey article this past September - ''[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21714747 Kill Bill! Ugandan human rights organizations' attempts to influence the media's coverage of the Anti-Homosexuality Bill]''. Is this worth including or is it too far off-topic? FiveColourMap (talk) 04:35, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd posit it is a credible source for such (peer reviewed and all, with decent educational backgrounds for those involved), so I guess that brings us to (1) where such content would fit in the article, (2a) does it portray a bias above and beyond stating a majority or minority view, (2b) is there a majority or minority view or study from elsewhere that has opposing results? and (3) is there sufficient relevance to include it?
 * My opinions: not sure on #1, (2a) I do not believe is an issue if #1 and #3 can be met, and #3 I think is met at least as a mention. As for #2b, I'm off to bed and haven't looked - nor was I proposing we need such. I'm simply stating that if such exists, it too needs to be covered, and we should apply due diligence to ascertain whether such exists or not. I'll look tomorrow afternoon.
 * Short version: I think probably so, at least as simply a mention and cite. Best, Rob R OBERT M FROM LI &#124; TK/CN 05:03, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

NPOV
Statements like "....export the American 'culture war' to Africa." (which is conjecture at best anyhow) can be found multiple times in this article. I don't want to add a NPOV tag just yet, since it's not frequent enough to overt, but I wanted to point it out. The Exiled Fighter (talk) 22:45, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Another point to note: "...two categories: "aggravated homosexuality", in which an "offender" would receive the death penalty..." As politically incorrect it may seem to label a homosexual as an offender, a person who breaks the law of aggravated homosexuality is in offense to the law (no matter how unreasonable the law may be) and is thus an offender, not an "offender", which applies a sarcastic bias. 96.240.178.231 (talk) 02:31, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

"Offender" vs. Offender
The revision on 11:23, 26 November 2012 undid a previous change. The previous change changed the word "offender" in the first paragraph to offender (without quotation marks), as the quotation marks generally seem to imply a non-neutral point-of-view (supposing that homosexuality shouldn't be a punishable offence, namely). The revision to undo was made on the grounds that the word offender was their (Uganda's) terminology, and should not be directly brought into Wikipedia. However, if this bill were passed, then it would become a law, and someone who broke that law would be an offender by any dictionary's definition of the word offender. For example, Merriam-Webster defines the word (in this context) as "to violate a law or rule".

In general, despite the questionable nature of the law itself, it is still a piece of legislation which, if passed, would correctly label someone as an offender of the law if they broke one of its tenets. To suppose that this is simply their terminology also seems to demand that we change every instance of the word offender in reference to any law on Wikipedia to "offender". In order to keep a NPOV I suggest that the original revision be kept, but I won't go into an edit war over so I'll see if anyone else has an opinion on it. Dab8fz (talk) 23:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * See for example, , , & . If reliable and secondary sources use this style, Wikipedia follows the sources. --Grotekennis (talk) 15:45, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * With the greatest respect, I don't think that "If reliable and secondary sources use this style, Wikipedia follows the sources." is correct. Where does it say that? Wikipedia has always in my view been quite clear about the fact that its own style trumps external style matters, which may be driven by all sorts of other factors. We are an encyclopaedia and those are all news sources, so I think it is not necessarily appropriate for our encyclopaedia article to follow their news-written style: in a broader sense "journalese" writing is something we often decry though, yes, this is a rather specialized example. I'm not (yet) taking a position on the quotes or not per se, just saying that I don't think that "follow the external sources' style" is an effective argument - though please feel free to point me to where it says this and I will back down most charmingly. :) Best wishes to all DBaK (talk) 16:01, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * You cited an LGBT news website, which could hardly be said as having an unbiased slant. And as said, Wikipedia shouldn't define neutrality just based on what new channels say - news channels have an audience to target and appease, after all. Wikipedia should judge neutrality using terminology that can best be agreed to support neither side of a debate. In this case, the use of the word offender in an unquoted manners demonstrates a dictionary definition of the word offender. Using the quotation marks implies that there is question as to whether or not this law should really be seen as legitimate.Dab8fz (talk) 02:23, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I think we also do need to consider Dab8fz's other point above, about '... also seems to demand that we change every instance of the word offender in reference to any law on Wikipedia to "offender"'. I did have a quick look at a few other articles where there is mention made of laws that, like these, many reasonable people would find repellent (e.g. slavery laws, laws in Nazi Germany etc) and I didn't see much evidence for the use of scare quotes like this ... it seemed to me more like, once it's a law, even a disgusting lunatic one, when you are breaking the law when you commit an offence, not an "offence". The disgusting lunacy is or should be made clear by the article content, not by a trick of punctuation. (In case of any doubt, this is me coming out (as it were) in favour of omitting the quote marks!) :) Best wishes to all DBaK (talk) 09:05, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

has nothing happened since 2011?
there's a couple references in the lead to the year 2012, and a quick sentence lower down that says 'parliament leader blah blah has stated the law will be passed by the end of 2012 as a present'. However, there's no real information on 2012's version of the law despite stating that it was a new version of the law, or how events are unfolding as related to the law being passed/not passed this year. L.cash.m (talk) 07:01, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Rachel Maddow's sexual preference
"American television host Rachel Maddow, who is openly gay" Why is it relevant that she's openly gay? If she was straight, but really 'into' gay rights, would that make any difference? This was a helpful article, but this sentence didn't make sense to me. Can anyone who follows this article maybe answer my question so I don't have to remove it? I'm still reluctant to change things myself. Thanks.

95.96.165.236 (talk) 23:17, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Oops, wasn't logged in. My signature:

Helemaalnicks (talk) 23:21, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it's by way of explaining why she might be personally interested in running a segment on the bill. I don't think it's very important, but it probably doesn't cause any harm either. - MrX 23:27, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


 * IMHO, it's relevant for NPOV in that acknowledging her sexuality (without any spin) provides an additional context for her interest in the bill to the reader. L.cash.m (talk) 06:51, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Clinton link spelling
The Hillary Clinton link was correctly spelt - that is, the URL was "wrong", but it really went there! Please see http://web.archive.org/web/20110721114442/http://www.hrcbackstory.org/2009/12/secratary-clinton-addresses-ugandas-%E2%80%9Canti-homosexuality%E2%80%9D-bill-in-speech-today/ for the archive. Please feel free to sort out the archived version of the ref if you get round to it before I do! Cheers DBaK (talk) 17:00, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Bill hasn't been signed into law yet
I'm no expert on Ugandan law, but I think marking this bill as an act is somewhat premature. The bill doesn't become law until the president signs into law and there is no indication that he has done that yet. The BBC article states "She says that Prime Minister Amama Mbabazi might follow up on his complaints about a lack of quorum, while it remains to be seen whether President Yoweri Museveni will sign the bill into law." Other sources say similar things such as PinkNews with "President Yoweri Museveni still has to sign the bill before it becomes law." Also, even if has been signed into law, I'll be surprised if its called "Anti Homosexuality Act, 2009". What happened to the hyphen and normally laws have the year they are passed added to their name, not the year they were introduced. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 18:14, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Content of the bill passed unclear
The content of the bill that was passed by Parliament today remains unclear as no updated copy of the bill has yet been published, which will make updating this article a challenge until things become clearer. While it may not be strictly a reliable source, this page contains some useful information and summarises various sources. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 20:46, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree, to draw attention to this. In the past, claims that the death penalty had been dropped from the bill were later shown to be unfounded.  Without the actual text of the bill as passed, we should not be claiming anything for certain.  At least one news source which has been following this bill for years is still referring to it as the "Kill the Gays" bill, suggesting there's some dispute what the bill actually contains. 24.57.210.141 (talk) 06:26, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Unconfirmed reports of bill being signed into law
There are some unconfirmed reports coming through that the bill has been signed by the president and is now law, though these are unconfirmed. Example. I would suggest not moving the article or changing its contents until these reports are confirmed. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 15:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Since there is no longer any doubt, I've updated the title of the article and given a link to the text of the act which seems to have been published at long last. There are still outstanding issues related to to parliamentary quorum, or lack thereof, when the bill was passed plus questions on the compatibility of the law with the Ugandan Constitution, but these can be added to the article as things develop. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 16:03, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Benefits of the Law
There is nothing in here about what kind of benefits might result from the law EG less homosexual rape, child molestation, etc. There surely should be sources that would give benefits of sodomy laws.24.227.157.82 (talk) 23:34, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The law deals with neither rape or child abuse – the Minority Report from the Ugandan Parliament suggested that the bill be replaced with one that does, but that suggestion was not implemented, and so such issues aren't really relevant. Benefits or lack of of sodomy laws are also not relevant as this law is not an sodomy law, as it outlaws sexual touching between members of the same-sex which isn't sodomy but doesn't outlaw sodomy between individuals of the opposite sex. Currently, the opinions of supporters of this bill are scattered throughout the article as they should be. It should be noted though that the vast majority of reliable sources in world-wide coverage to this bill are either indifferent or negative; only a very small minority are positive, and so this should be reflected in the article as per WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 19:02, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Links
>> World Bank freezes aid to Uganda over gay law (perhaps a "Repercussions section) >> unintended consequences>> Straight Man’s Burden>> Uganda’s Draconian Anti-Gay Law Is Making Countries Rethink Aid>> Uganda fury at David Cameron aid threat over gay rights>> Speaker clarifies Uganda Parliament’s stand on Homosexuality>> Rights Group: US Should Pull Ambassador Over Uganda Anti-Gay Bill(Lihaas (talk) 12:46, 28 February 2014 (UTC)).

I can't verify the following
Not reporting gay people is also made a crime punishable with imprisonment.[39]

I read the article but I don't see it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.193.86.168 (talk) 22:19, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I couldn't find it either and have removed that remark. Reading the act signed into law, the failure to report offence was not in the final bill and was not signed into law. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 16:37, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Current Status
The current status section needs to be revised -- it's out of date. I would also suggest moving the fact that the law was found unconstitutional to the first paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.180.165.205 (talk) 04:24, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Undiscussed removal of "Uganda" from title, May 2021
curprev 11:02, 9 May 2021 Cypp0847 talk contribs 93 bytes +93  Cypp0847 moved page Uganda Anti-Homosexuality Act, 2014 to The Anti-Homosexuality Act, 2014: per WP:NCGAL#Legislation thank Tag: New redirect

Requested move 25 March 2023

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. The definite article is the subject matter of this RM, which has consensus. Other moves can be discussed separately. (closed by non-admin page mover) { {ping&#124;ClydeFranklin }} (t/c) 22:54, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

The Anti-Homosexuality Act, 2014 → Anti-Homosexuality Act, 2014 – Under the convention at the beginning of WP:THE, the definite article should be removed. The article does not fall under the ambit of (1), since ‘Anti-Homosexuality Act, 2014’ and ‘The Anti-Homosexuality Act, 2014’ have the same meaning. The article does fall under the ambit of (2): in running text, one would write ‘the Anti-Homosexuality Act, 2014’, not ‘The Anti-Homosexuality Act, 2014’, just as one would write ‘the Constitution’, ‘the Anti-Terrorism Act, 2002’, &c; it follows that the name of the article should omit the definite article. Compare the examples at WP:NCGAL under ‘[l]egislation’, all of which omit the definite article. Docentation (talk) 16:41, 25 March 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. { {ping&#124;ClydeFranklin }} (t/c) 21:38, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:57, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Restore: Uganda Anti-Homosexuality Act, 2014 per WP:CRITERIA, particularly RECOGNIZABLE and also a nod to WP COMMONNAME is sources; there are readers and editors outside Uganda. The undiscussed move 9 May 2021 by Cypp0847 cited "per WP:NCGAL#Legislation" but that is clearly a minor guideline which does not trump the basic considerations of WP:TITLE and probably needs changing. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:49, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * ‘Anti-Homosexuality Act, 2014 (Uganda)’ is strictly preferable. First, it does not (incorrectly) suggest that the name of the statute includes ‘Uganda’ at the beginning. Second, it accords with existing practice for disambiguation of statutes—see the exemplars at WP:NCGAL.
 * ‘Anti-Homosexuality Act, 2014’ is perfectly recognisable, without the disambiguation. There are no other statutes of the same name and year with which it could be confused.
 * WP:UCRN is at best neutral on this question and arguably points against ‘Uganda Anti-Homosexuality Act, 2014’; there are 6130 results on Google for a search without ‘Uganda’ prepended, but 1970 with, which would give a ratio of 4160:1970 in favour of omission.
 * It is irrelevant that ‘there are readers and editors outside Uganda’; there are readers and editors outside the United Kingdom, and yet the title of the article Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Act 2022 is not ‘UK Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Act 2022’; there are readers and editors outside Pennsylvania, and yet the title of Act of Consolidation, 1854 is not the ‘Pennsylvania Act of Consolidation, 1854’.
 * WP:NCGAL is hardly a ‘minor guideline’; nearly all articles on legislation follow it, as a cursory inspection of any category of statutes shows. ‘Minor’ does not mean unimportant; topically restricted guidelines are arguably of greater moment than general guidelines, in that they were written with the specific case in mind—so ‘minor guidelines’ in the sense of topical restriction arguably are more persuasive, not less. Even if WP:NCGAL is of little moment, those ‘basic considerations’ are ‘goals, not…rules’. And even if those ‘basic considerations’ are overriding, its fellows, viz., concision and consistency (see 4 and the examples at WP:NCGAL), point the other way.
 * WP:NCGAL may ‘need changing’, but in that case the policy itself should be amended at the appropriate encyclopædia-wide level.
 * Docentation (talk) 17:20, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I’d suggest that this proposal should be raised separately from the omission of the definite article and therefore should not impede closing. Docentation (talk) 15:45, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.