Talk:LGBT rights in Angola

Untitled
Is homosexuality still illegal? Angola adopted new penal code http://www.plusnews.org/pt/Report.aspx?ReportId=78418 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.12.171.218 (talk) 20:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

....and in 2010 an entirely new constitution was adopted. The article as it stands is thus outdated. --Aflis (talk) 17:27, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on LGBT rights in Angola. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716081456/http://www.asylumlaw.org/legal_tools/index.cfm?category=261&countryID=233 to http://www.asylumlaw.org/legal_tools/index.cfm?category=261&countryID=233
 * Added tag to http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/travelling-and-living-overseas/travel-advice-by-country/sub-saharan-africa/angola?ta=lawsCustoms&pg=3

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:03, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Can someone please add this reference
https://www.jurist.org/news/2019/01/angola-decriminalizes-homosexuality-bans-discrimination/ Also I would like to point out I find it funny that it says homosexuality is legal in Angola in the LGBT rights in Africa article but not in the Angola article. Apparently maybe the articles need a little tweaking. 50.68.237.196 (talk) 23:02, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Has the new penal code entered into force?
I cannot find any source indicating that the new penal code decriminalizing homosexuality has received the president's signature and got published on the official gazette, entering into force. Can someone please help? Possibly can any Angolan LGBT association please intervene? Thank you Finedelledanze (talk) 08:53, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Removal of material without discussion
@Lmharding: When you made the edit which expunged information about discrimination protections, you wrote in ES: "removed articles that do not have anything to do with protections in goods and services".

The claims that you removed said:
 * Article 214 covers both employment and goods and services. That is what the source also says.
 * And in addition to that articles covered other things: e.g. Article 216 covers defamation and hate crimes; 172 provides penalties for threats of harm (against LGBT individuals and groups, among others), and so on. The source agrees.

You also inserted this "Additionally, there were plans to put in protections for goods and services, but they have not been placed." using as support the existing reference from which the '(Discriminação)' quote below is taken. It in no way supports your claim. You would need a different source for that.

The following are extracts from references that were used to support the paragraphs you deleted:

Please help me to understand your thinking on this. I know you have said you feel my edits per the sources on another LGBT page is bullying, but I am really just trying to keep the articles accurate, to the best of my ability, and I do not think you are interpreting the sources correctly. Rather than discuss the issues, you remove any changes, and seem to spring to attack any different perspectives. I want to understand why you think this is ok. I concede I may well be wrong, but I edit and try for consensus in good faith. This seems to irritate you: if I do not accept your viewpoint, then, without making arguments from the sources ('it's common sense', etc,), you return to your preferred version, sometimes making rather dismissive and slightly demeaning comments. I thought long and hard about whether to broach this at all, but I can discern a concerning pattern. To be honest, I am rather scared of the reaction I will get to my changes, and what I've said here - if I get an answer at all (outside of edit summaries).

Nevertheless, I really feel responsible for helping to maintain accuracy on WP, and the statement you placed, and the reasons you gave for your deletions, are demonstrably incorrect in this case, so, in the interest of good articles, I will be restoring the information, along with more recent supporting sources. If you still feel this is wrong, I hope you will discuss here first, before reverting or making changes which contradict the sources. Maybe you will convince me!

Also, I am still waiting for a response (on LGBT rights in Texas talk page) to my request about the unfounded aspersion you cast, if you could please find a moment to go to that page. Thanks. AukusRuckus (talk) 15:12, 18 April 2022 (UTC)