Talk:Criminalization of homosexuality

See also section
Edit in discussion -

Hi,. Please see See alsos and MOS:SEEALSO. The only consensus on this is that - "The "See also" section should not include red links or links to disambiguation pages (unless used for further disambiguation in a disambiguation page). As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body". This edit does not violate that consensus. It mentions nothing about Navboxes links. The reason why I added them here is because the Navbox does not show when using mobile. Helper201 (talk) 21:33, 14 January 2022 (UTC)


 * The article is pretty complete. Any links that are sufficiently relevant to the topic are either already linked in the article or should be added. But I think your see also section includes some links that are tangential.
 * I'm generally skeptical of see also sections because in my experience they tend to be magnets for links that are not verifiably related to the article topic. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  21:36, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The thing is this breaks no Wikipedia guidelines and only you have shown any issue with it. To you alone enforce a unilateral banning of me being able to add this seems like WP:OWNERSHIP. Helper201 (talk) 21:42, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

WikiProject Crime assessment
I have tentatively assessed this article as C class on first reading because this is the first time I have read the article and I have not had time to go through the B-class checklist, yet. Personally, I think the article is not stable enough to be a good article because there is a dispute over the See also section being present, or not. There should at least be a See also link to the list article LGBT rights by country or territory, also, for balance I would have thought there is a need to discuss the Decriminalization of homosexuality, but I see that an article by that name is currently a redirect. In the absence of a contrary viewpoint in a different article, the current article needs to explore how criminalization first occurred historically as well as explore how decriminalization has occurred in the past in the many states where homosexuality is no longer criminalized, as well as the current calls for recriminalization or harsher criminalization and enforcement that seems to be happening in some countries. This is why this article gets a C class rating for Crime from me. If others have a different opinion and think the article warrants a B-class rating or higher in the Crime or other WikiProjects feel free to reassess the article, but I don't think this can be a Good Article until it is at least a B-class assessment rating for the majority of WikiProjects. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 23:32, 14 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I've added a link to LGBT rights by country or territory. For future reference, the historical reasons for criminalization and decriminalization of homosexuality are already covered in the "history" section. There are multiple paragraphs in the article about decriminalization, but I'm unsure whether it would be an improvement to spinoff a new article on decriminalization since the topics are integrally connected. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  00:12, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Recent addition of UAE to states with capital punishment
This edit has added UAE to the sentence: "at least six UN member states—Brunei, Iran, Mauritania, ... Nigeria, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen" where homosexual acts are "punishable by death". Is that what the source says, though? It seems to be—at least—uncertain (p.82). If it does say that, then maybe the first part of the sentence needs to change to "...at least seven UN member states". AukusRuckus (talk) 07:54, 17 April 2022 (UTC)


 * It may be so but the cited source says at least six, not including the UAE since it's uncertain according to ILGA-World. I'll revert the edit. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  07:58, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

This article is biased against LGBT people
This article reads as if jailing people simply for being gay is valid position, with wording like "Arguments for" "Argumnets against", no, it needs to be presented for what it is, a massive violation of freedom and human rights, homosexuality is normal and natural and is present in animals and indigenous cultures accepted sexual diversity, it only has the stigma it has now for the influence of religions such as Christianity and Islam 2806:108E:22:746A:6D6A:4F14:18E5:30B2 (talk) 15:11, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Readers can judge for themselves if the "arguments for" have any merit. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  15:41, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Discrepancy between graph and text
In section "Post-World War II decriminalization trend", there is a graph which appears showing China decriminalizing homosexuality somewhere around 1910, while in same section's text it is stated that China decriminalized only in 1997?--Staberinde (talk) 16:58, 25 March 2023 (UTC)


 * The 1997 date is based on a Chinese law that didn't explicitly mention homosexuality but was used to go after gay people. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  00:23, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe addition of some kind of explanatory footnote to graph's caption could be worth considering? Taking into account how substantial portion of the world population resides in China, date used for it has a very noticeable effect on shape of such graph.--Staberinde (talk) 12:10, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Lead section
Per MOS:REDUNDANCY, I have rewritten the first sentence, which was previously "Criminalization of homosexuality is the classification of some or all sexual acts ... as a criminal offense". Feel free to revert my edit and let me know about it if you disagree. Thanks! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 21:22, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Copy editing notes
Hi all, I'm doing a quick copy edit at the start of my copy edit for the Guild of Copy Editors. Pinging, who made the request.

I'll leave notes here that may require more attention or research than a simple copy edit. Generally, I try to take the perspective of a reader who is unfamiliar with the topic and keep in mind variations in English usage, including non-native speaking. (read: I'm trying to be thorough :])

These comments are related to "Ancient through early modern world" and a bit of the next section; I'll save the lead for last.


 * Although the actual text of this law is lost, it likely prohibited free Roman citizens from taking the passive role in same-sex acts.
 * Define "passive role"– either with a clearer term, in the sentence, or as a footnote.


 * In 15th-century central Mexico, homosexual acts between men could be punished by disembowelment and smothering in hot ashes.
 * What society was this? Previous sentences refer to states, rulers, or legal codes. Even a wikilink would help (being mindful of easter eggs though, it's probably best in prose).


 * It is unclear how strictly sodomy laws were enforced; one theory is that enforcement was related to moral panics in which homosexuals were a scapegoat.
 * The phrase "one theory" is kind of weasel-y to me, but mostly just unclear. Whose theory is this? If the theory is worth including in the article, I think there should be a better way to introduce it to the reader, maybe by qualifying it (i.e. "some historians..."). Another issue with the sentence: what were homosexuals a scapegoat for? It's unclear; either add "scapegoat for..." or stop the sentence at "moral panics."


 * English monarch Henry VIII codified the prohibition of homosexuality in England into secular law with the Buggery Act 1533, an attempt to gain the high ground in the religious struggle of the English Reformation.
 * "an attempt to gain the high ground" is needlessly wordy and idiomatic, but I'm too unfamiliar with the subject to confidently change it myself.


 * This law, based on the religious prohibition in Leviticus, prescribed the death penalty for buggery (anal sex).
 * You could possibly use a more specific wikilink than Leviticus here, like The Bible and homosexuality.


 * Many present-day jurisdictions criminalize homosexuality based on colonial criminal codes they adopted under British rule.
 * The paragraph that follows is a bit confusing. I think the term "present-day jurisdictions" causes some of the confusion, as it makes me think these laws are still in effect, but the section ("History") and following sentences make me think not. It seems like it's probably a mix (still existing in some places, repealed in others); that should be more clear in this paragraph.
 * I think this could be solved by re-ordering sentences. Maybe structuring the order instead as "Colonial laws --> Laws still existing post-independence" would flow better (thinking chronologically), rather than talking about present-day first.


 * Via military occupation or emulation of the French criminal code, the Scandinavian countries, Spain, the Netherlands, Portugal, Belgium, Japan, and their colonies and territories—including much of Latin America—decriminalized homosexuality.
 * Unless the source says "the Scandinavian countries", I would specify which countries. Definitions vary. If the source does say "the Scandinavian countries", linking to Scandinavia could be helpful.

Of course, these are all just my personal opinion! :] Let me know if there are any questions. Wracking 💬 07:09, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm back with the last of the edits! This is obviously a very well-written article, but I want to share those kudos again. I especially appreciate the strategic and needed redlinks. Alright, here's the notes:


 * West Germany convicted about the same number of men under the same law until 1969, when homosexuality was partially decriminalized.
 * clarify "about the same number"


 * Decriminalization of homosexuality by country or territory (remastered).svg


 * This map could be improved. The coloring is not clear (orange and red look very similar, even to a non-colorblind person). Some advice may be found at MOS:COLOR, but I would suggest using the same color, at different opacities, for decriminalized areas. The Graphics Lab is always a great resource.


 * Those prosecuted under such laws tend to be disproportionately from working-class backgrounds, unmarried, and between twenty and forty years old.
 * The source does not seem to be talking about laws more generally, but laws specifically in Hungary. (from what I garnered in the Google Books preview)


 * Supporters of paternalism argues that the state can interfere in citizens' private lives to secure a vision of the common good.
 * possibly change "can" to "should"


 * His demand for equality before the law and in religion on the basis of an innate, biologically-based sexual drive—beginning with the decriminalization of homosexuality and ending with same-sex marriage—are similar to those sought by LGBT rights organizations in the twenty-first century.
 * This sentence needs a rewrite. Possibly break it into two sentences, or just delete the bit between the dashes altogether. Also, there is no subject-verb agreement– what is "are" connected to?


 * As a result of social changes, in the twenty-first century, the majority of people in many Western countries view homosexuality as morally acceptable or not a moral issue.
 * This sentence is pretty clunky. I was looking to reword it and checking for WP:SYNTH, but the cited page number for Linhart (251) doesn't exist as far as I can tell. Possibly a citation error here?

I'll likely be marking the edit as done shortly, but don't hesitate to reach out with any questions.

Wracking 💬 02:27, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Ugandan Act of 2023: LGBTQ identity an offence?
Hi @: This statement in the article: "The 2023 Ugandan anti-homosexuality law is the first to make it illegal to simply identify as LGBT", does say what the source claims, yes, but that source seems incorrect, on the face of it. I think @ might have a point: that's not what the law says.

I realise WP must say what reliable sources say, and I'm no legal expert, but the Act doesn't mention or imply "identification as LGBT" is an offence. At first I thought it was going to be just a WP:HEADLINES thing, but the first two NBC-Reuters paragraphs repeat it. The piece ascribes the "identifying as LGBTQ-offence" to Human Rights Watch: "The new measures appears [sic] to be the first that would outlaw merely identifying as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or queer (LGBTQ), according to the rights group Human Rights Watch." I've read through all the HRW items on "Uganda" and "LGBT" for 2023 but can't find this claim in HRW's posts.

Maybe it's just because "identifying" is not defined by Reuters, and they're referring to the draconian and ill-defined ban on "promotion"–which does cover a lot of ground–and that's what they mean by identifying? Either way, I think WP should make this uncertainty clear, if we're going to have it at all. Reuters is obviously a RS, but it seems odd ... do any other sources say this?

I note that neither the Ugandan Parliament (who don't seem to feel any need to downplay the effect of the Act; quite the contrary), nor the United Nations' condemnatory statement mention this aspect. Thoughts? AukusRuckus (talk) 11:19, 9 July 2023 (UTC)


 * as stated in the article about the 2023 Ugandan act and verifiable here, "A person commits the offence of homosexuality if the person— ... (d) holds out as a lesbian, gay, transgender, a queer or any other sexual or gender identity that is contrary to the binary categories of male and female." (t &#183; c)  buidhe  04:18, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, buidhe, the light dawned after I posted the above: The clause is in the Bill; but not in the, which, as passed, does not contain 2(1)(d): "holds out as [LGTQ]... contrary to the binary categories ... [etc]." Instead, the final version, the Act itself, (i.e., the law as legislated and promulgated) has, in Part II: Homosexuality and Related Practices; Section 2. The offence of homosexuality, only clauses (1) to (5). [There is now no clause (1)(d) at all]. Interestingly, the Act's 2(5), p. 8, says: "For the avoidance of doubt, a person who is alleged or suspected of being a homosexual, who has not committed a sexual act with another person of the same sex, does not commit the offence of homosexuality under this section." So, you know, they backed down in a slight way.
 * I realised after I posted that it was from the Bill (a "draft Act" or "proposed law"), released in March, that all of those articles syndicated from Reuters which mention the "identifying" bit were dated. I only become aware of the story late, after the Bill was passed and became an Act, so missed the earlier versions of this vicious bit of chicanery, as did the Ugandan Parliament in the end, as they obviously had advice that it would create legal hassles of gargantuan proportions (and the stinking "promotion" part is nearly as restrictive). They've shown themselves to be willing to go far with repressive laws, but 'thought crimes' was obviously a step too far, even for them! (Small mercies.) AukusRuckus (talk) 05:56, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Good point, removed. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  06:00, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Criminalization of homosexuality
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Criminalization of homosexuality's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "WP": From Capital punishment for homosexuality:  From Androgyny:  From Sharia:  

Reference named "washingtonpost.com": From Al-Qaeda:  From Capital punishment for homosexuality:  From Christianity and homosexuality: Jacqueline L. Salmon, Rift Over Gay Unions Reflects Battle New to Black Churches, washingtonpost.com, USA, 19 August 2007 

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. Feel free to remove this comment after fixing the refs. AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:27, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Pope Francis opposition to criminalisation
Should there be information on this in the article? (Reuters) GnocchiFan (talk) 12:03, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

A Misleading Article
This article is clearly bent toward liberal ideology, and does not evidentially weigh both social science and medical history as well as other religious studies beneficial to the topic. While this topic can be sensitive to some people groups, this does not justify the clear bent and language used to argue specific ideologies. Until this article is revised to be bipartisan, it will only propagate a non-scientific, uncritical agenda unhealthy to readers who may actually be misled by its proposals. 209.59.232.217 (talk) 06:28, 3 May 2024 (UTC)