Talk:LGBTQ rights in Zambia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the LGBTQ rights in Zambia article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

A fact from LGBTQ rights in Zambia appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 12 August 2008, and was viewed approximately 3,701 times (disclaimer) (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that Zambian laws concerning homosexuality have largely remained unchanged since the country gained independence from the British Empire in 1964?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2008/August.

Wikipedia

LGBTQ+ studies

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies articles

Zambia Mid‑importance

	Zambia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Zambia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Zambia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ZambiaWikipedia:WikiProject ZambiaTemplate:WikiProject ZambiaZambia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Africa High‑importance

	Africa portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Human rights Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics Mid‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 January 2021 and 14 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ndongh10. Peer reviewers: Macgoodwin13. Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 January 2020 and 2 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kjackson1456. Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First Lady's Comments

The first lady of Zambia, Dr. Kaseba-Sata, recently said "no one should be discriminated against on the basis of their sexual orientation.” http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/first-lady-of-zambia-stuns-the-continent-by-calling-for-an-end-to-homophobia/news/2013/11/08/78342 I know we'll be needing additional sources but I wanted to initiate the page update discussion. Timeraner (talk) 18:10, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article 155

See article 155 of the Penal Code of Zambia on "carnal knowledge against the order of nature" - page 90. This is as far as I know the unmodified text as adopted on 1 November 1931 [1], based on the Section 377 colonial code. Carnal knowledge was defined in Section 63 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. So it's not a "vague description" as currently stated in the article, but "deemed complete upon Proof of Penetration only" [2]. Also there's conflicting information on the exact content of the article – up to 14 years or up to life? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I guess we should adapt the article. Wakari07 (talk) 17:19, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Non-legal "penalties" in infobox

@Lmharding: I came here to explain my change from Life imprisonment to 14 years, and to let you know that the "life" term seems to have been an error that crept in some time ago. Otherwise, I would have agreed with your move to only list the longer term. However, I see that you have run with the usual additions of "anal exams", (not legal penalties, so confusing to be placed here in this spot, and recently outlawed by the courts in Zambia, anyway), etc., making every – single – Asian – and – African – article – the – same – as if all these countries are just one "type". As you will not be interested in any discussion I have to offer, I'm gonna let it go ftm.

I need you to replace the refs you deleted or broke the format on, that I had just put in—which are relevant—such as the 2020 IGLA report, and the Dignity Debased - by HRW. (I see the Zambian Penal Code survived; hooray). There is no reason to remove them and the article is now emitting a citation error (in red; and other errors). Please do so as soon as you possibly can. I will do so in a few days if you are unable to take care of it. Thanks. AukusRuckus (talk) 08:55, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for finding the source for the prison term as 15 years; very useful to have that put in.

Agree that sources confirm forced anal exams and violence and other hate crimes. I believe these things are very important and need to be included in detail and prominently. That is why they were moved into a specific section of their own and expanded. I explained in edit summary when I did it.

LMH, you prefer these LGBT articles structured a different way, as is your right: I get it, but I see no consensus that your layout is superior or preferred; quite the opposite, in fact.

I did not remove any information in my edit; it was actually expanded upon. The article could really use updating and expanding throughout (rather than putting things in the infobox. That's my take, anyway.) AukusRuckus (talk) 08:48, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here the deal, the information is real but just like other locations where you disagree with the terms, I will specify that they are etrajudicial and leave sources but you can note if you wish that you disaree with this. There is no consensus against this either, you and one other user does not speak for all of Wikipedia as a final judge and executor. Reverting,— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lmharding (talk • contribs) 07:53, 4 August 2022 (UTC). [No, "here" the deal: Striking UC-blocked WP:SOCK] 12:50, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Lmharding: I agree that just me and one other user do not speak for all of Wikipedia. I would never imply such a thing. The point of talk page discussion is to see if we can reach consensus, which is what I am still hoping to do. And it's more about the set of editors over all the pages who have tried to remove or modify the non-legal penalties, over lots of different LGBT pages. I have been taking my cue from that. Added together, it's many more than just two editors who are less than comfortable with those infobox changes with non legal penalties.

It's also been a very longstanding discussion on, for example, Talk: LGBT rights in United Arab Emirates and Talk:Criminalization of homosexuality, where the same topic has been discussed for years. Mostly the decision is not to include. Consensus can change, of course, but I would like to gauge whether editors still think much the same or not.

I happen to think the info you put in is very important. It's just that I believe it is not being presented in the best, clearest way. Of course, it's quite possible I am in the minority, but aren't you interested in discussing? And some (not all) of the things are not in the sources you have supporting them. But we can't seem to talk about it. Instead the response is along the lines of "Here the deal". As there is no consensus, and other editors try to remove or modify your changes, what's the rationale for including it? AukusRuckus (talk) 10:46, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Child abuse, sex crime laws irrelevant

@Lmharding: Please do not add the penal code provisions that relate to sexual abuse of children or other sex crimes. These are 100% irrelevant for this article. At best, such material will confuse the topic discussed; at worst, conflating the two quite separate things will be considered grossly offensive. This is not something we should ever do, and it is unnecessary for the scope and purpose of this article. I have removed and explained why those sections are not included under 'Notes'. Thanks. AukusRuckus (talk) 13:35, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]