Talk:LGBT rights in Sri Lanka/Archive 1

2018
I was thinking about redirecting this page to the Sexual minorities in Sri Lanka page, politics section, since this page is barely updated and the amount of information it would contain is quite small once you've gotten rid of the parts that aren't to do with LGBT rights. Hindianu (talk) 17:47, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Partisan edits
The userChandrani876 edited the text to forward partisan views and also failed to provide valid sources, it seems to be a form of vandalism. Please refrain from such editing. Muchsinomeeno (talk) 12:45, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Dead links
https://i-probono.com/home link does not provide any citation it just leads to the home page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chandrani876 (talk • contribs) 01:07, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Citations don't match with anything in article
This whole article needs to be reviewed and some of the links are not even working. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chandrani876 (talk • contribs) 01:12, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Need for sourcing
An editor removed as unsourced, a claim in the summary table that "Sexual and romantic orientations not classified as mental illness, while gender variance is." I believe the removal was unjustified because: As it happens, this claim does not appear to be sourced in the main text of the article either, so I have added a maintenance tag. Also, it would be better if it was made clear who was doing the "classifying". Does this mean by medical authorities, government authorities, or some other entity? So, also added a tag.
 * 1)  The claim that was left within the table cell was just as unsourced as the one removed
 * 2)  Few other claims in the table are sourced. (Only two, one I added the other day; and another on blood donation).
 * 3) My understanding is that, generally, summaries may not need citing directly,
 * 4)  be cited elsewhere in the article

I would request that the statement not be removed without discussion, unless a source can be provided that such orientation has been "declassified". In meantime, I am trying to find a few sources, some of which I list here. This thesis, a masters, so maybe not RS, but might provide leads to other refs. Some may be useful for the article as a whole. AukusRuckus (talk) 06:32, 23 February 2022 (UTC) I can leave it as no homosexuality isn't delisted as a disease with out a source while you have to source your claim that classification of sexuality isn't a disease is that my claim doesn't necessarily need proof. It is easily assumed between anti-gay attitudes, the illegality of homosexuality in Sri Lanka, and the fact that you have no sources contradicting this that makes my claim okay.
 * None of this sources you provided claim that the government or Sri Lanka Medical Association itself declassified sexual orientation as a disease, just some liberal medical colleges. You also added unrelated sources related to arguments to make homosexuality legal in Sri Lanka which is off-topic. The reason I can leave it as no homosexuality isn't delisted as a disease with out a source while you have to source your claim that classification of sexuality isn't a disease is that my claim doesn't necessarily need proof. It is easily assumed between anti-gay attitudes, the illegality of homosexuality in Sri Lanka, and the fact that you have no sources contradicting this that makes my claim okay. Meanwhile you would have to prove that is is delisted which you have not, so I'm reverting until you can give valid sources. The burden of proof to source this is on you, not me. Lmharding (talk) 04:31, 25 February 2022 (UTC) Striking blocked sock. AukusRuckus (talk) 10:55, 30 October 2022 (UTC)]
 * Obviously did not express myself at all well. None of the above sources are in any way intended to prove the legality or otherwise. Please do not speak to me this way, imputing to me things I have said.
 * I thought I and other interested editors might stumble upon a definitive source, if I collated a little relevant info and parked it here. I said above: "In meantime, I am trying to find a few sources, some of which I list here." and "Some may be useful for the article as a whole." Never imagined that all would be suitable or to-the-point, which is why they're on the Talk page and not in the article.
 * I am content to leave it as you have it now, since you clearly know better than all the prior editors, and I cannot deal with the unfriendliness; I mean, FFS! Really, where in the flying farfalle fair this come from: "You also added unrelated sources related to arguments to make homosexuality legal in Sri Lanka..."? I mean ... geezus! This is, or am I that disoriented?
 * I am no expert on WP policy either, but I am almost sure your contentions above, like:

"The burden of proof to source this is on you, not me"
 * and
 * are spurious.
 * It has been noted in the summary table as unclassified as a mental illness since 30 July 2020. It stayed that way with a "tick" until 1 June 2021, when an editor added that "Sexual and romantic orientations not classified as mental illness, while gender variance is." I think I read that in such cases of longstanding claims, if they on the face of it be factual, a  tag may suffice as an interim step . Please note I did not at any point say that you must provide a source. I was attempting to point out that the entire table is unsourced and therefore removal does not seem justified for that reason alone. For all I knew, there may have been good reasons to remove it: Lack of source in an unsourced table did not strike me as a good enough reason. Your mileage may vary.
 * (Sorry this is long. When I am less tired, I will attempt a highly edited TL;DR version. But sheesh!) AukusRuckus (talk) 09:41, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Blocks of text in summary table and infobox detail
I don't like the slabs of text I have put into the summary table; that's clearly not the best use of them. Just trying to be detailed as well as accurate. I feel like I have to do so to have any chance of keeping (sourced) info on the page. The "ticks" (existing before I ever edited here) are just removed, because their cites have "links that go nowhere", for example. I thought if there was a dead link, editors are either meant to find another source or tag it? It's definitely better to just assume that when a claim is unsourced (or the source is inaccessible), that the opposite must therefore be true.

Things that are not "law" still have a massive impact. Human Rights Commissions and Health bureaucracy mandates are at least. In this case there are sources to say they are having an impact. I know WP is not here to WP:RGW, but I can only imagine the terror if I were in SL, looking for info and seeing all the worst (that may actually only be notional - and that's bad enough) highlighted on a WP article. More importantly, some of these quick-fire discards actually reduce accuracy. It would be preferable to discuss and arrive at a consensus, no? AukusRuckus (talk) 11:02, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @Lmharding: Same discussion points as above for infobox as for table. It seems very harsh that your edits remove anything I put into the table or box, "too wordy", but you apparently feel you are entitled to decide what constitutes legal penalties and can place as much detail as you see fit? Is it your way or the highway?
 * I note that you had a similar dispute with other editors about vigilante actions versus legal penalties some time ago. Why can we not discuss it also before you immediately revert my well-sourced and explained edits? AukusRuckus (talk) 05:25, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Lmharding: This revert added an erroneous cite which a bot had inserted (I had previously left an unused ref name label which the bot "rescued"). You reverted to that version, thinking it was the removal of changes to the table, thereby adding 774 bytes. Your text should have only been around 200 bytes. I have no objection to that in the table (accurately), I thought did.
 * I only removed the text from the table because of your previous concerns that they were too wordy. I retained all the sourced claims, moving to the body of the article, with new sections carefully formatted and placing the cites correctly. And then you accuse me of ...
 * I am sick of going round in circles... I do not see you very often on talk pages, but I notice you frequently direct other editors there. Very disheartening to be so readily disregarded — and then insulted. AukusRuckus (talk) 05:35, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The part that is overwordy is your overuse and constant rehashing of multiple notes and side notes that don't add any bearing to the summary. I left the summary as it should be with info that actually pertains to the actual punishments I saved space by removing one note that you added that added pointless bytes of notices. You can just leave them here and if they have questions anyone who wants to know why the info was added can see the message here. Legal penalties apply to what a real person can experience in the country eiyher by a random guy beating him or a government official executing them. I would rather we give the full picture rather than leave some important detail as a citation or hidden citation. It feels more organized and clear that way. I feel like you have a way you want it written and reverting me constantly is your way of trying to wear me down. Just my perception.Lmharding (talk) 05:58, 17 April 2022 (UTC) Striking blocked sock. AukusRuckus (talk) 10:55, 30 October 2022 (UTC)]
 * @Lmharding Please respond at to my request to withdraw your ES remark. Thanks. AukusRuckus (talk) 06:24, 17 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Vigilante executions: these artivcles 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?Lmharding (talk) 11:22, 29 July 2022 (UTC) Striking blocked sock. AukusRuckus (talk) 10:55, 30 October 2022 (UTC)]