Talk:Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India/Archive 1

Trial section OR
I tagged this section because it mostly cites supreme court documents which are WP:PRIMARY sources, it should be cited to WP:RS secondary sources. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:42, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Swami Chakrapani
Although he's been referred to by the international press, do we have particular reason to believe that this ideological activist is actually notable? Especially in the context of this article? I'm not sure. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 18:43, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * deleted Whereisthy (talk) 09:17, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Blame-laying
The article here, and the ITN piece on the main page, refer to Section 377 as a "colonial-era law". Is there a reason for specifying this? If the law was passed in 1861 it was hardly unique; many countries held homosexuality to be illegal, or immoral, and I don't see anything to suggest pre-colonial India was any different. OTOH if this was a colonial imposition on an unwilling India, then the country has had 70 years to jettison it (as the colonial power in question, Britain, has already done). IMHO to refer to it as a colonial-era law, rather than a 'long-standing', or a '19th century', law feels like a blame-laying exercise. Any thoughts? Moonraker12 (talk) 22:34, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * While it is blame-laying, whether or not the blame is justified depends on the eye of the beholder. India was comparatively unique before colonial tentacles really set in for its atmosphere of social understanding about LGBT relationships specifically and sexuality more generally (not that, of course, this meant that overall social and political rights were as advanced as they are today, in comparison). At the end of the day, besides, labeling of Section 377 as "colonial" is something constantly done by reliable sources. Wikipedia is simply following standard RS procedure. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:59, 8 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm not completely aware on North India, but South India certainly had plenty of homosexuals freely running about. We have homosexual artwork on temples and the colonialists repeatedly talked about the immoral homosexuality found in India. Hinduism and Buddhism didn't hate on homosexuals too. Also, the law is dormant in Sri Lanka but hasn't been repelled due to the complexities of the Civil War. Whereisthy (talk) 09:28, 10 September 2018 (UTC)


 * 1) This is generally how the RS refer to it. It is not our job to second guess them. 2) Colonial-era refers to time origin. It is factually accurate and speaks to the complicated legal history of India. It does more damage to not recognize this origin than to potentially imply, indirectly, that one of the parties is "to blame". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.11.127.253 (talk) 21:32, 12 September 2018 (UTC)