Talk:LGBT rights in Sri Lanka

Vigilante executions
@: None, precisely zero, sources support "vigilante executions". Please remove that from the table, or quote exactly where the source says that. I looked and looked; they do not say that.

I would remove myself, but your accusations have me worried. Thanks AukusRuckus (talk) 06:48, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Additional- @: Why is your version
 * Article 365 of the Sri Lankan Penal Code criminalizes "carnal intercourse against the order of nature". Penalties: up to 10 years in prison with fines, forced anal and vaginal examinations, arbitrary detention, beatings, torture, vigilante executions, and vigilante attacks.
 * so much more superior to the earlier one?
 * Article 365 of the Sri Lankan Penal Code criminalizes "carnal intercourse against the order of nature". Penalties: up to 10 years in prison with fines;

authorities impose forced anal and vaginal examinations, arbitrary detention and beatings, which constitutes torture;

vigilante attacks without redress occur.
 * Can you please be specific? (I note you did not object to the extra information I included; was it just you did not like that it was specific about whom was doing what, under what circumstances? I think it was clear and precise; it conforms well to what the sources actually state. AukusRuckus (talk) 07:05, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * This is where I got that from.
 * And I felt like it was shorter the way I wrote it, same info so not sure what you're upset at. Lmharding (talk) 06:05, 19 May 2022 (UTC) [Striking blocked sock. 11:01, 30 October 2022 (UTC)]
 * a) Not upset; just wondered why it was so important that it to be said your way... It's fine AukusRuckus (talk) 10:41, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi @. Would you mind providing a quote from the source that you believe means we can say "vigilante executions", please? I really want to understand and would be very appreciative, if you could. Thanks.
 * (And just start a whole new section at bottom here, if you have any further queries about sourcing for "orientation not a mental illness" that I did not clear up in my edit, and I'd be happy to discuss further. I hope you're feeling better. Thanks again) AukusRuckus (talk) 15:31, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * (And just start a whole new section at bottom here, if you have any further queries about sourcing for "orientation not a mental illness" that I did not clear up in my edit, and I'd be happy to discuss further. I hope you're feeling better. Thanks again) AukusRuckus (talk) 15:31, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Still no sources for "vigilante executions"

 * b) Where in the, are you getting "vigilante executions"? Please be specific. It is not in any of the  anywhere that can be seen. (Did  mean "where in the WP article".)  AukusRuckus (talk) 10:41, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * c) I contributed the specific wording of that par you're quoting to back up your "execution" claim: Its sources say nothing about "vigilante executions". AukusRuckus (talk) 11:12, 20 May 2022 (UTC) Updated AukusRuckus (talk) 10:40, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Take 3: Sources for "vigilante executions"
@: I have asked here several times for an exact quote where the sources say "vigilante executions", and you have been repeatedly notified by other users—as well as me—on different articles that the sources you use do not speak of vigilante executions. When I asked you above, you replied with a paragraph from this Wikipedia article (one that I had written into the page), saying "This is where I got this from". Please.

Please provide a quote from the source that you believe allows WP to claim "vigilante executions". No other argument will do. As I cannot see, in good faith, sufficient evidence for this claim, if there are no quotes provided here (which we can then discuss), I will be justified in removing the claim.

Following that, I will be asking for community input on the appropriateness of putting the same formulation of "x in prison with fines, forced anal examinations, beatings, torture, vigilante executions, and vigilante attacks." into the infoboxes and summary tables of so many LGBT articles, as for example (not a full list):
 * LGBT rights in Uganda adding to info box "Vigilante executions, beatings and torture are also tolerated."
 * LGBT rights in Tanzania Vigilante executions and attacks are also tolerated.
 * LGBT rights in Zambia fines, vigilante executions, torture, beatings, vigilante attacks and forced anal examinations
 * LGBT rights in Saudi Arabia with ES "some of these are common sense and don't need a content tag can be implied as true based on basic knowledge of Saudi laws/attitudes, others removed of edits done by banned editor... and multiple reverts and removing tags/requests for sourcing

Even sourcing, my view is these claims do not belong in the infoboxes―they are not legal penalties; they are illegal penalties, even if police do them—and possibly not in the tables either, as mostly these statements are not discussed in the body of the articles. (There has been an earlier discussion on this point over here in 2020―not that we have to abide by it, but just to note what was discussed there as a starting point might be helpful). AukusRuckus (talk) 08:25, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Contents of sources for VE
In the meantime, I looked carefully at the sources that are in the WP par you quoted above, and the closest they come to anything remotely like that are the following:

To be clear, I am not saying there is no violence, murders, torture or mistreatment. I am saying it's muddying the waters, to make it like a "standard disclaimer", and above all, WP needs clear, reliable sources that directly say what we claim they do: (No WP:SYNTH!) AukusRuckus (talk) 08:25, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Difficult Process




 * Thanks, @, I appreciate the effort you went to there. See:
 * Before when I asked 'where is "vigilante executions" coming from?', you quoted a paragraph from the article, one that I had written (see above where you said "This is where I got this from"). But I am actually asking  is the claim for "vigilante executions" coming from. So I looked at all the sources in the paragraph you quoted, and have shown what I found, also above. I cannot find "vigilante executions" at all.
 * It should be removed unless a source says it.
 * (Your point about the difficult process of sex-confirming treatment and document change is valid, but I wasn't questioning that, so I don't understand your latest reply[?]...) Thanks. AukusRuckus (talk) 10:53, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Lmharding: Could we talk about the sources supporting "vigilante executions" and what vigilantism entails, please? I note in this edit you have removed the maintenance tags ("cite needed" and "dubious-discuss"}, without further discussion. AukusRuckus (talk) 11:02, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Summary for WP:30
In the infobox and Summary table, one editor wishes to list "vigilante executions" as a "penalty". My take has been that this is undue for several reasons: I will ask the other editor to make a short summary here, too. Our discussions are above in and its subsections. AukusRuckus (talk) 12:49, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) None of the sources provided say "vigilante executions" (see ), although some do mention community violence
 * 2) The violence described is illegal; they are, so should not be listed as "penalties"
 * 3) Describing the kind of killings that are actually hate crimes as "vigilante executions" would suggest that—probably—nearly every country in the world should list vigilante executions as possible "penalites". Unfortunately, hate crime murders are committed in many places.
 * 4) Specifically, listing it in the infobox has no community consensus. An old discussion at  took the view that such extra-judicial violence should not be in the infobox; I am unable to find any more recent attempts to change that earlier view

Third opinion
3O Response: I feel that this is a pretty clear case of MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE: that the infobox is to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article [...] The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. The key facts – prison time, torture, etc. – are already present, and to also include vigilante actions will make it an example farm. Additionally, I believe that extrajudicial actions are off-topic since this is about legal rights. I suspect that this has creeped in from the long and ill-defined lists at the end of LGBT rights by country or territory, which has a number of problems itself. Given that this is an issue across a number of articles, it may be worthwhile to hold an RfC for broader consensus, after which a note can be added to the documentation for Template:Infobox LGBT rights. This is a non-binding third opinion, but I hope it helps! – Reidgreg (talk) 15:49, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . I appreciate you looking at this for us. I will wait for a response from my collaborating editor, to see how they feel, but I may well follow your suggestion to open a WP:RfC. It couldn't hurt, right? It'd be nice to get the whole topic area singing from the same hymn sheet (on infoboxes, I mean!). Thank you for your time and help. AukusRuckus (talk) 11:16, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello @: Any thoughts? AukusRuckus (talk) 11:16, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the response. Extrajudicial punishments that are common and unavoidable I feel should be added to warn and mention them as if they are legal because if they are not government acted by the government doesn't do anything about it it's just like they're doing it since they aren;'t stopping or punishing it. That is my take. Lmharding (talk) 11:21, 22 August 2022 (UTC) [Striking blocked sock. 11:01, 30 October 2022 (UTC)]
 * I understand what you're saying and if it can be well-sourced that extrajudicial killings are common and tolerated by authorities, that could certainly be included in the article, then possibly make its way to the article lead. To be clear, if high-quality sources which take a thorough look at the subject make prominent note of extrajudicial killings, then we follow the sources and include that in the article.  However, I'd still be disinclined to include such in the infobox.  Keep in mind that it is our job to summarize reliable sources, not to issue warnings, WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, or advise (Legal advice).
 * If you proceed with an RfC on this across articles, try to read over any related discussions you can find to consider the past issues, pose a clear question, and post it at a central location like the infobox/template talk page. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:09, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Notification and discussion
, I have opened a request for a third opinion at. You may wish to write a summary of the disagreement at Talk:LGBT rights in Sri Lanka. Thanks. AukusRuckus (talk) 13:01, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I replied, the user responding gave what I feel is a conflicting answer mentioning it shouldn't be but after I made my arguments changing to say it should be included. So that didn't solve much *shrugs* Lmharding (talk) 20:58, 28 August 2022 (UTC) Striking blocked sock. AukusRuckus (talk) 11:01, 30 October 2022 (UTC)]
 * Where do you see the conflicting part?
 * said "that could certainly be included in the article, then possibly make its way to the article lead.", referring, I believe, to the of the article, still concluding it should not be in the infobox. Perhaps they will confirm that here, or advise that I have misunderstood? AukusRuckus (talk) 04:06, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, precisely. Two sentences after what's quoted above, I restated my opinion that "However, I'd still be disinclined to include such in the infobox." – Reidgreg (talk) 14:03, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Right to change legal gender
Ah, I think I understand now, @ what you were doing here under "Difficult Process". You meant to start a new section and were referring to my edit here, where I say "removed the "low-tech hospital, etc." part - not mentioned in source, and if sourced, needs discussion in body rather than in infobox - but let's please discuss that"

Sorry I misunderstood! But before we go on to that, can we please address the sourcing for "vigilante executions" above? Thanks. AukusRuckus (talk) 11:09, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi @:
 * Bit surprised you have made those changes without discussing any further, following my reply to you 29 July, above. Could we please discuss it first? Also the "dubious-discuss" and "cite needed" tags were removed, also without any reply from you at: ·  ·  · including under Could we please continue the two discussions before either of those changes are made again? Thanks.
 * New text added to infobox in lieu of text in :


 * Text that was removed and replaced by above (in green) + with proposed additions (in black):

AukusRuckus (talk) 11:02, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I wonder whether you might talk about whatever issues you may have with my changes, here, rather than go ahead and restore your preferred version. I was under the impression we had a discussion ongoing, until you again began a series of changes, none with edit summaries, on 12 August and beyond. Thanks. AukusRuckus (talk) 10:08, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Difficult Process (gender change)

 * Hence why I listed sex changes as comlicated in Sri Lana. This is from All Five Fingers are not the Same. Lmharding (talk) 07:48, 29 July 2022 (UTC) [Striking blocked sock.  11:01, 30 October 2022 (UTC)]
 * Thanks, @, I appreciate the effort you went to here. Please excuse me re-formatting the text of your post above, it is not normally done on Talk pages, but I am having great trouble reading all but the most clearly laid out text now. My visual disability is progressively worse. That is the only reason I rearranged a little, so I could see it and read it.
 * With regard to your quote from the 5 Fingers report, I do really understand how difficult it is in some places, and had read all of the testimony in that report. But my question to you, above, was: What supported "vigilante executions"? AukusRuckus (talk) 10:53, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

"Compromise" involving gender identity area

 * Despite this edit summary: "(the compromise involved the gender identity area)", the last post you made on the subject was this:
 * "Also clearing all of the gender change section in a huff is not the answer, I will restore our old compromise with your edit.Lmharding (talk) 08:25, 20 August 2022 (UTC)"
 * Before that, you listed quotes from the 5 fingers report above, in response to my queries anout vigilante executions. There is no agreed version, as there has been little discussion on the matter. Quoting the source is great, but does not equate to "but anti-gay attitudes, unqualified medical staff, and low tech facilities rarely allow it" as you want to change it to.
 * My objections are:
 * The source does not say "rarely allowed". That is WP:SYNTH
 * It is unencyclopaedic in its expression, e.g. "low-tech"
 * Its descriptors are vague: "anti-gay", "unqualified", etc.
 * The detailed description in the final par of conforms far better to the source; it gives specifics. This means readers are advised of what sources say and can draw their own conclusions about whether this is "anti-gay", or whether doctors are "unqualified", rather than being  so. That is how WP is supposed to present material
 * Medical vetting, only, not surgery, is required under Sri Lankan law, per source so part of your edit is factually incorrect
 * It does not belong in the infobox per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE
 * I am more than happy to discuss further and attempt consensus, but for now seeing as it was an established edit, I am restoring that along with deletion of "vigilante execution" while it's ongoing. Hope to hear from you. AukusRuckus (talk) 04:06, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

And ... back to "vigilante executions" again (brief mention of gender change)
You ignored my response in a discussion above Vigilante executions: these articles involve killing of LBGBT in Sri Lanka. This one involving a transgender person killed and this one of a suicide bombing of gay people Should I update the article with these sources? Also clearing all of the gender change section in a huff is not the answer, I will restore our old compromise with your edit. Lmharding (talk) 08:25, 20 August 2022 (UTC) [Striking blocked sock. 11:01, 30 October 2022 (UTC)]
 * @ I wonder whether you might, as a kindness, re-read my post above at, where I say: "I appreciate the effort you went to here... but I am having great trouble reading all but the most clearly laid out text now. My visual disability is progressively worse... and then carefully note where and when your "ignored post" was placed?
 * Once you have done that, do you still feel the above is the most appropriate way for you to approach me regarding your concerns?
 * After a long hunt, I found your "response in a discussion above", the one I supposedly "ignored"; posted on 29 July 2022 in an old, unused section titled, "Blocks of text in summary table and infobox detail". No posts had been placed there since 17 April 2022, 3 months . There was no ping included in your post. How was I expected to find it, exactly? Anyone can make a mistake but given error, your attitude here is uncalled for. AukusRuckus (talk) 12:52, 20 August 2022 (UTC)