Talk:LGBTQ rights in Uganda

Is there life imprisonment or not?

The article seems to be unclear on whether Ugandan law allows for a life sentence for homosexual activity or not. On one hand it says that there is a life sentence, but on the other hand it says that the law instating the life sentence was overturned by the Ugandan Supreme Court. What's the truth here? —Pinnerup (talk) 20:21, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Are "vigilante torture, beatings, and executions" penalties?

"Vigilante torture, beatings, and executions" may be very common (although I did not see that phrase in the current sources) but, in my view, they are not legal penalties. As such, I think they should not appear in the infobox and should be mentioned only in the article main body, making it clear they are not penalties as such. What do other editors think? I think it would be preferable to discuss this and seek consensus instead of simply edit warring. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:59, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

This might be relevant (with better sourcing and less WP:SYNTH):
     "Vigilante torture, beatings, and executions are common"

It does not belong in infoboxes or summary tables, though, because these are clearly meant for legal penalties. Adding them there only reduces clarity. If there is consensus for it, that would be one thing, but I cannot see any agreement on any of talk pages of these LGBT articles. And the editor who wants to add it should be the one to do the work of gaining consensus. At this point, there's around half-a-dozen or so editors running round as that one editor's "clean-up crew". AukusRuckus (talk) 13:57, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it's getting to be extremely tiresome. Especially when the same contentious edits are being made repeatedly across multiple articles. If this level of disruption carries on, there may be case for requesting a topic ban. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:51, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Lmharding, will you please stop edit warring as you did here, with no kind of explanation, and instead engage in discussion on this page? Martinevans123 (talk) 07:24, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Reverted, governmental officials are part of the vigilntw attacks hence why it should stay. Add non-governmental to specify that particually so you have it in there even though government persoanl have also been known to do that. Compromise edit. Lmharding (talk) 00:41, 6 July 2022 (UTC) [Blocked sock of Jacobkennedy; strikeout applied AukusRuckus (talk) 05:49, 26 October 2022 (UTC)]

Extended talk, pointlessly, to blocked sockpuppet. (Round 1: July 2022; Round 2: September 2022)

Lmharding I have correctly indented your post above. I am hampered in reading screens as I have a vision disability and use assistive devices. If posts are not indented, it causes me real problems in following the discussion. You need only to use the same number of colons +1 as that used by the person you are replying to. Thanks. You will see I have removed the vigilante material from the "penalty" section of the infobox. Instead, I inserted a short, properly sourced par in a sub-section called "Violence and harassment". It really should not go in the info box. That is not what they're for, and many editors have said this to you. Please do not put it back in, without gaining consensus, or you really will be edit-warring. AukusRuckus (talk) 08:00, 6 July 2022 (UTC) Lmharding, you write: "governmental officials are part of the vigilante attacks". My understanding of the word "vigilante" means that your claim is self-contradictory. What is your understanding of the word "vigilante"? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:37, 6 July 2022 (UTC) Both government officials that stray off course and normal civilians attack LGBT it's mixed but of course I mean vigilante as civilians. It's just a mix hence why it's such an intensive problem hence why those edits should remain in the talk page being such a common issue, so much that it's unavoidable hence it's a serious life risk for LGBT. in Uganda. Lmharding (talk) 11:55, 7 July 2022 (UTC) [Blocked sock; strikeout applied 05:49, 26 October 2022 (UTC)] Do you understand how indents work? I see; can you please list some actual confirmed incidents here? Thanks Martinevans123 (talk) 13:15, 7 July 2022 (UTC) Examples can be found under the living condition section of the article. Look under https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Uganda#Violence_and_harassment, not sure why you want me to repost it, it's easily accessible. Lmharding (talk) 08:37, 7 September 2022 (UTC) [Blocked sock; strikeout applied 05:49, 26 October 2022 (UTC)] I cannot tell if you're being genuine or not. I will assume you are. Martinevans123's not asking you to repost anything, but to supply any quote or extract from the sources that you believe demonstrates: a) vigilante torture b) beatings c) executions , so that it can be seen that 1) they occur and they 2) "are common". I have read the sources. They do not come close to showing these things on my reading—so, y'know, point out to others where you see the evidence. Doing so is common practice in discussions on talk pages ... Major point of contention in earlier discussion, as yet unresolved: There is no consensus for such criminal actions to go under "penalties" in the infobox, either. If you want 'em there, please seek consensus. I have previously made efforts in trying to accommodate your concerns into the article. AukusRuckus (talk) 02:52, 8 September 2022 (UTC) 2nd: Adding more examples, as here and here, is hardly the point, @Lmharding. It is a group decision whether such actions as "vigilante" crimes are listed in the infobox and table as "penalties". On the face of it, this seems a highly contradictory use of these parameters. I am asking you directly to seek community consensus. As it is you who wishes to introduce the material, and there is opposition, please start a community discussion on it. (I did rectify the citing and formatting errors again and reinstated text additions but left the "vigilante" actions in infobox and table.) As a WP:BOLD edit you've been previously challenged on, here and in other pages, it is acceptable for me to remove, which I will do in a few days unless you start some process for community consensus. If you start the discussion, of course it stays, as is, until conclusion is reached. AukusRuckus (talk) 05:08, 9 September 2022 (UTC) 3rd: Hi @Lmharding: As mentioned above, I will restore the pre-dispute version unless I hear that you have sought comment from other editors regarding inclusion of the non-legal penalties in the infobox here. This will be in line with previous community discussion or opinion. Hope to hear from you. Thanks, AukusRuckus (talk) 02:21, 14 September 2022 (UTC) We need to take a vote Should these very common sometime even extrajudicial punishments (sometimes not always authorities participate as well be included or should they be left out of the summary table? See the differences in the versions here My argument is that it's common, done by government officials sometimes, and it's so common that it's a daily danger and should be reflected.Lmharding (talk) 04:47, 14 September 2022 (UTC) [Blocked sock; strikeout applied AukusRuckus (talk) 05:49, 26 October 2022 (UTC)] @Lmharding: Regarding changing the "reason" parameter on "dubious" tag from "These crimes are not 'penalties' " to "These are extrajudicial penalties and consequences": You've been on WP for a while, now. I would have thought it would be evident that changing the reason on my "discuss" tag is inappropriate. The placer of the tag gets to say why they're disputing a claim. You and anyone then puts their arguments within any discussion. I am returning the tag to the way it was. AukusRuckus (talk) 05:44, 14 September 2022 (UTC) In addition, @Lmharding, it appears you actually deleted the tag entirely, in fact changing it to asserting the opposite of what the tag was trying to communicate. Also, you will need to ask for a central, or at least wider, discussion, RfC, or something, as I did at Talk:LGBT rights in Sri Lanka#Vigilante executions. I will be happy and grateful to be steered by whatever consensus or opinions emerge. If you do not wish to take that on and arrange and therefore no discussion emerges, I will be justified in returning the page to its pre-existing form. Thanks AukusRuckus (talk) 06:16, 14 September 2022 (UTC) It seems you also deleted my reply while I was making an extra post. If you wish to reserve a section for the actual discussion, that is fine, but let's resolve the completely out-of-order removal of a maintenance tag and the deletion of talk page posts first. If and when discussion launches, there is nothing to stop a new subsection being made, for neatness/clarity. Any editor may do that at the time. That does NOT give you licence to delete others' posts. When I or other editors direct a comment to you that is not at the bottom of a talk page, you have stated before that it is too confusing to reply that way, or posts get "lost". This is why my reply is in response to your latest post. AukusRuckus (talk) 06:25, 14 September 2022 (UTC) References

LGBT Rights Activism

SMUG was ordered to shut down by the government in August 2022. Can someone update that on this page please? I do not know the best way to word it or how to cite source. Kittyclassified (talk) 18:10, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Article ignores a major part of the story

Although there was anti-LGBT sentiment as in other places in Africa, there was no extreme anti-gay or anti-LGBT legislation in Uganda before the arrival of conservative American right-wing Christian groups in 2009, who went all around the country lecturing, and who as a result were eventually invited to speak to Uganda's parliament, labeling homosexuality as a Western-imported "disease" that could be spread to the children of Uganda, and recasting homosexuality as similar to pedophilia, justifying harsh crackdowns in the law. Some sources: NY Times, 2012, Christian Science Monitor, 2014, WaPo, 24 March 2023, Foreign Policy, 23 March, and references at article Scott Lively. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 03:00, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

There's a short paragraph in the beginning of the "Laws and Policies" section: LGBT rights in Uganda#Laws and policies that has a sentence about this, the sources here could add information to that section. I'll get right on that. Aaronlearns (talk) 21:13, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Removal of sources

I have removed the following two sources from the article, which were used to support the claim that "Homosexual relations were accepted and commonplace in precolonial Ugandan society":

• The idea that African homosexuality was a colonial import is a myth: this is an opinion piece by a novelist which mentions Uganda twice, in reference to Museveni and the Anti-Homosexuality Act. It does not even mention homosexuality in precolonial Uganda, except indirectly in the very general statement, "Throughout history people everywhere have explored and experimented with their sexuality. The desire to do so has never been confined to particular geographical locations." The piece discusses homosexual practices in other parts of Africa, but not Uganda. The author concludes by plugging her latest novel. This opinion piece was cited as a source multiple times in the article, despite containing no information at all on the history of homosexuality in Uganda.
• Ugandan Documentary on Gay Love in Pre-Colonial Africa: this is an article about a documentary on the Ugandan Martyrs. On the face of it, it seems inappropriate at best, and offensive at worst, to use a king raping his subordinates as evidence of "homosexual relations [being] accepted and commonplace".

I have also removed the claim itself. There's no doubt of course that homosexuality existed in precolonial Uganda, but we need much better sources for the sweeping claim that it was "accepted and commonplace". Adda'r Yw (talk) 21:24, 15 October 2023 (UTC)