Talk:LGBT rights in Eswatini

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:History of Swaziland which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 16:01, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Removal of sourced information
The changes made in this set of edits by @ removed sourced information and were all done without any edit summaries. The deletions are unjustifiable, as far as I can see. The primary aim of the edits appears to be to remove any nuanced or specific information that differentiates the level of enforcement of laws and also any mention of men and women being treated differently under the law. I don't know why. This editor appears intent on removing specific information on many LGBT rights in... any number of country articles. There is no informative response from Lmharding when they have been approached by several editors. Not sure what to do from here...Keep trying to fight spot fires? AukusRuckus (talk) 12:54, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It was reverted. I did that to try to shorten information down to not overkill in details but in this particular situation, I take my edits back. Disregard your version is more correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lmharding (talk • contribs) 15:44, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @: [?] It wasn't reverted. At least, not until I changed it yesterday. Perhaps you trying to "shorten it", but the tack you took to do that was non-NPOV. This is because, the bits you decided to remove all referred to: the non-enforcement of the law; or the non-applicability of the law to women. This is a pattern you have commonly displayed on several LGBT articles, over the objections of several editors.
 * What I don't understand is: why? Why these particular aspects as targets for removal? Why don't you think they're suitable? It's very difficult to understand your approach unless you explain it... AukusRuckus (talk) 05:02, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Re the above (the TL;DR version): Sources saying there have been plans to introduce a new law criminalising lesbian sex acts and prescribing a penalty is not the same as saying such a law is in force. We would need an actual RS that states it is so. My main point in bringing your September edits up at AN/I is because, given you agreed with me in June, it's difficult to understand why you couldn't discuss your change of mind first. I just don't get why you would go that way. AukusRuckus (talk) 11:58, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The long version: Thanks for your reply at AN/I regarding your last edits here. As you know, the ILGA saying:  is not the same thing as them as saying "they have" such a law. If it were so, ILGA would state it, as their source for this information is their own earlier reports: the 2020 report gives the 2012 ILGA report as the citation for this information. Subsequent ILGA reports of 2013–2015, say the same as the 2012 one:  The (2015) report says the same, except saying that progress is unknown at that time. Given that the latest (2020) ILGA report still refers (only) to " government ", this seems to be squarely in WP:CRYSTAL BALL territory.
 * There sources which say directly that female same-sex sexual activity is not criminalised, including all the ILGA reports noted here. While true that the last two reports (2019 and 2020) appear less strong on the point, it goes no further than: "consensual same-sex sexual activity—at least among men—has been widely understood to be illegal". In my view this is not enough to remove the sourced information that there is no criminalisation for females.
 * As for the penalty, that has not been introduced, according to all the sources used in the article, that give penalties, . On page 325 of ILGA report 2020, it says: "Penalty: Undetermined". I am going to return it the previous, unless I hear from you in the next few days. AukusRuckus (talk) 11:58, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * ALSO, about collaborating: Mainly though, I brought this up on the AN/I page more because I want to understand why you did not think it worthwhile to discuss this further. As we had already had an exchange about these points, and you were already aware of my views—with which you concurred (above)—it's hard to understand why you would not mention that view of the matter had now changed and explain why. If you had, then it could have been discussed: either I would have convinced you that the sources do not justify the change, or you would have convinced me that they did. At the least, you could have said in an edit summary that you were citing new sources that support the change. It's just so hard to know why edits are made if there's no reasoning stated for them, and recent actions on this article seemed like a good example of some of the perceived issues with your editing style, as discussed at the AN/I. I really want to understand. AukusRuckus (talk) 11:58, 2 October 2022 (UTC)