Talk:LGBT rights in Uzbekistan

Edit summary mistake
@: NO sources were removed. Please reinstate the longstanding and detail, including separate legal treatment of males and female This part survived, at least.

And once again, the standard catch-all ("Beatings, torture, vigilante executions and attacks") is not sourced and is WP:UNDUE.


 * 3 Jan 2022 US
 * 3 Jan BF
 * 6 Jan 2022 US
 * 7 Jan BF
 * 8 Jan US
 * 11 Feb LMH
 * 11 Feb mt format issue
 * 14 Feb LMH undid mt
 * 26 June AR
 * 30 June 2022 reinstated "with fines. Beatings, torture, vigilante executions and attacks are also common," only; claimed "sources were removed" LMH
 * 30 June AR
 * section 121 can apply to lesbianism LMH
 * S121 is about coercion AR
 * S130 LMH
 * more LMH

Other editors have had problems with the addition of "with fines. Beatings, torture, vigilante executions and attacks are also common." as evidenced by the page's history:


 * January
 * Jan 2022 again
 * Feb 2022
 * Feb 2022 again
 * More in Feb
 * and again
 * March 2022
 * April 2022
 * My change
 * LMH most recent changes


 * with erroneous edit summary claiming "references removed with no reason" If you are going to revert someone you need to actually know what you're talking about. No references were removed. It is extremely discourteous to do this. AukusRuckus (talk) 09:44, 30 June 2022 (UTC) Striking part AukusRuckus (talk) 10:07, 30 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Actually the source mentions a case where someone was murdered for his sexuality. Maybe leave the source and the tags for now, then it can be noted that additional sources would be nice to have. Lmharding (talk) 19:04, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * NO sources were removed. Properly formatted and consolidated sources were added and existing sources put into standard CS1/2 style and consolidated. Your blanket reversion, as usual, undid style and format improvements. You need to be more selective in how you do your reverting.
 * A person being murdered for their sexuality is evidence of extreme prejudice and lack of safety for LGBTQI persons. It is the same as "vigilante executions". You have been told this on so many occasions, on so many article talk pages by so many editors, yet you continue your campaign to insert it into as many articles as possible. Why?
 * You responded above with a clear lack of understanding of the topic and WP editing policy. You ignored my point that your claim of removed sources was wrong. AukusRuckus (talk) 13:49, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Edits in infobox
@ ; @: I have left most of the wording, but added a little more context. I still think it does not belong in infobox as they are not legal penalties, but at least they are well sourced. Please consider carefully before changing back to your preferred version, as I've really tried to take your view on board. The way it is now, it explains about the violence, and is clearer to read. Please, would you be kind enough to talk about it here? [Note, though, I have left out "vigilante executions" as these are not sourced. "Murders" and "hate crimes" are better, more accurate descriptors.]

(I did not remove the legislation cite, either now or the previous time you said I had. It is above the blockquote, which is the WP:MOS recommendation. LMH's edit in June meant there were 2 copies of the same source: one formatted above, and one unformatted below.) Thanks. AukusRuckus (talk) 08:27, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Law on rape: not about lesbianism
@: I have reverted your edits as the section you refer to, § 121, deals only with rape by coercion; sexual assaults must not in any way be conflated with same-sex sexual activity. It's unbearably hurtful for some people to have these concepts muddled. More important for WP, though, it's false information in the article. No reliable source cited states sexual acts between females are criminalised in Uzbekistan (although they do face discrimination). AukusRuckus (talk) 09:38, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Section 130: not about lesbianism
@Lmharding, about removing material that shows the distinction made under Uzbek law, between men and women and the insertion of Article 130, please note: This section does not have anything to say about sexual acts between women:

Men and women can equally be charged under it, sure, but Article 130 is about pornography. It's about giving or showing "objects" to those under 21 years of age, so has nothing to do with the criminalisation of sexual acts between females. Also, none of the reliable sources we have say lesbianism is proscribed; they say the opposite. AukusRuckus (talk) 12:31, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Just like pornography laws of Indonesia and morality laws of Egypt, it doesn't have to say lesbians or lesbian sex; these more general laws are often applied to disliked and hated groups that may not be directly listed in sodomy laws. I vote to leave it as this is a morality law with a general coverage and it can be applied to whoever this applies to, including lesbians if the law wants to apply it. Remember, there are no rules or powers stopping them from doing so. —Lmharding (talk • contribs) 00:33, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see what you mean about pornography laws. That is why I left it in the article. I believe and agree with you that Uzbeks most likely discriminate against lesbians and authorities may use every means at their disposal to target lesbians, and other hated groups. But that is saying something different. And needs sourcing.
 * There's two big problems with using Article 130 to suggest sex between females is criminalised. The RS we use in the article agree that it is male same-sex relations that are criminalised, none suggest lesbianism is dealt with under the criminal law; Article 130 itself says nothing about sex acts. There are many laws that apply equally to people of both sexes. Perhaps this provision (we do not know, though) is also used to target and persecute lesbians. Still, it remains a fact that the Uzbek law does not criminalise same-sex sexual conduct between females.
 * Please ask for a WP:3O opinion, if you would like one. It would be respectful of you to leave the article in the state I will be returning it to in the meantime, as the sources are clear on this point. Perhaps other editors' opinions will agree with your view, and we should change it then. In the meantime, you made a WP:BOLD change which has been challenged by another editor as well as myself. Following WP:BRD, I request that you try to gain consensus first please, before reinstating to your preferred changes, which have been undone several times before (by others). Thanks AukusRuckus (talk) 08:52, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

A dispute settlement about the matter had been handed in order for a third opinion to mediate the edit and see what they think they prefer for this article. Lmharding (talk) 19:27, 26 August 2022 (UTC)