Talk:LGBT rights under international law

Duplicated text on countries' obligations under international law

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

A large portion of the text on LGBT rights under international law appears verbatim, or with minor adaptations, in the following articles:

• LGBT rights in Ghana
• LGBT rights in Guinea
• LGBT rights in Ivory Coast
• LGBT rights in Kenya
• LGBT rights in Liberia
• LGBT rights in Madagascar
• LGBT rights in Nigeria
• LGBT rights in Rwanda
• LGBT rights in Senegal
• LGBT rights in Sierra Leone
• LGBT rights in São Tomé and Príncipe
• LGBT rights in Tanzania
• LGBT rights in the Gambia

This duplication is the result of a single editor (using one registered account and various unregistered IP accounts). Over the past year various editors (including myself) have objected to some or all of the text, claiming variously that it is original research [1] [2] [3] [4], biased [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18], factually inaccurate [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34], and/or unnecessarily duplicated across too many articles [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48]. However, attempts at removing the text are immediately reverted without discussion. This has occasionally led or contributed to edit warring [49] [50] [51]. Attempts to engage the original author directly about the content, either on user talk pages or via the dispute resolution noticeboard, have been met with silence [52] [53] [54] [55].

Since the editor contributing this text has been unresponsive, this RFC has been launched to solicit community input on the content. (Note that this RFC is not about user behaviour.) Specifically, comments are invited from the community on the following points:

1. Is the text concerning countries' obligations under international law factually incorrect?
2. Does the text concerning countries' obligations under international law adopt a particular point of view?
3. Does the text concerning countries' obligations under international law contain or constitute original research?
4. Is the duplication of this text across a large number of articles problematic?

Should there be a consensus that any of these questions can be answered in the affirmative, discussion on what material to change or remove is invited. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:56, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

That is allot of material you are calling into question. From what I can see, the references are proper, the information accurate, and I see no reason to think otherwise. Quoting a statute is not WP:POR, and as for NPOV, it's about as Neutral as you can get, again, you'd have to be more specific.Greengrounds (talk) 05:53, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

The original source for http://lib.ohchr.org/HRBodies/UPR/Documents/session12/TZ/JS1-JointSubmission1-eng.pdf is http://ilga.org/ilga/en/countries/TANZANIA,%20UNITED%20REPUBLIC%20OF/Law.

The part of http://lib.ohchr.org/HRBodies/UPR/Documents/session12/TZ/JS1-JointSubmission1-eng.pdf that is on the Wiki, “(1) Any person who (a) has carnal knowledge of any person against the order of nature; or (b) has carnal knowledge of an animal; or (c) permits a male person to have carnal knowledge of him or her against the order of nature commits an offence, and is liable to imprisonment for life and in any case to imprisonment for a term of not less than thirty years.

(2) where the offence under subsection (1) of this section is committed to a child under the age of ten years the offender shall be sentenced to life imprisonment.”

Section 155. Attempt to commit unnatural offences

“Any person who attempts to commit any of the offences specified under section 154 commits an offences and shall on conviction be sentenced to imprisonment for a term not less than twenty years.”

Section 138A. Gross indecency

“Any person who, in public or private commits, or is a party to the commission of, or procures or attempts to procure the commission by any person of, any act of gross indecency with another person, is guilty of an offence and liable on conviction imprisonment for a term not less than one year and not exceeding five years or to a fine not less than one hundred thousand and not exceeding three hundred thousand shillings; save that where the offence is committed by a person of eighteen years of age or more in respect of any person under eighteen years of age, a pupil of a primary school or a student of secondary school the offender shall be liable On Conviction to imprisonment for a term not less than ten years, with corporal punishment, and shall also be ordered to pay compensation Of all amount determined by the court to the person in respect of whom the offence was committed or any injuries caused to that person”.

This seems to be widely available online, it's only the statute that's being cited in the Wikipedia source. According to Works produced by civilian and military employees of the United States federal government in the scope of their employment are public domain by statute in the United States (though they may be protected by copyright outside the U.S.). I seems statutes and laws would be public domain. In fact, I can pretty much guarantee that a country's statutes are not "copyrighted"Greengrounds (talk) 06:09, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

Yes, this does appear to me to be original research, unless these various decisions have been specifically discussed with regard to each nation. It does appear to be synthesized material for purposes of advancing an argument. It's particularly problematic that almost all of this cut-and-pasted material is from primary sources (court decisions, etc.) rather than secondary sources explaining and interpreting those decisions. I think this material should be removed. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:24, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Nearly a year on and it's still going on? I quit editing the same articles as this user a long while back because he/she cannot work with others and prefers reverting to discussing. If the user is still doing it, as it appears currently, then we need a solution such as mentoring, adoption, or escalating blocks to show this editor that the community works better together and original research and synthesis are unacceptable. I was able to guess which editor we were discussing just from the first few lines, which is pretty bad. After nearly a year away from this series of articles then the community needs to act. Shoddy opinionated work like this i expect on Conservapedia, not here. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 12:42, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Jenova20, this RFC is for discussing the content itself, not what to do about the user who is (re-)inserting it. If you feel that sanctions against them are required, please take it to the appropriate noticeboard or open a separate RFC on user conduct. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:46, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm trying to stick mainly to editing as stuff like that takes too long and drives away editors. Just wanted to put it back out there since I gave up editing this line of articles because of this a while back. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 16:26, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

It is because of these two editors (Psychonaut and Jenova20) that I have no intention of participating here. Their agenda pushing incivility is why they are not welcome on my talk page. This is just another forum for their continuing misconduct. AfricaTanz (talk) 19:00, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I think those in glass houses should be careful about throwing stones. Especially ones made of "misconduct". (Have you not seen your own talk page?) Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 23:50, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Umpteen paragraphs to point out that a country isn't protecting rights that one or more international agreements it has signed obligates it to protect, and then repeating those paragraphs with minor edits under the articles for ten or twenty countries, is agenda-pushing. AfricaTanz's argument that this information is relevant to each of the article is flawed. Imagine someone editing an article, "Accomplishments of Politician X while in office", to add two thousands words on what Politician X didn't do that one might argue he or she was constitutionally or legally obligated to do, and then listing the entirety of the allegedly contravened laws—and then doing this for every officeholder in the same government, repeating the same text every time. Certainly it isn't wrong to mention that "Country C's actual policies and practices are contrary to Agreement 1 and Agreement 2 to which the country is signatory", but as a concise observation, not at such length that the article is, in effect, not about what the state of LGBT rights is but what the author wants us to know it should be. WP:SOAPBOX, WP:COATRACK. —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:44, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Much of the content is clearly WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. Other parts may be acceptable content for other articles (eg. LGBT rights under international law) but not relevant to the country-specific articles. It might be appropriate to briefly mention in country articles any relevant conventions which the country has ratified (eg. ICCPR); on the other, if there are no secondary sources discussing the application of international law to LGBT rights in that particular country I don't see how it can be written about without engaging in SYNTH. I am particularly bothered by the inclusion of the quote from the South African court in all these articles; it is completely irrelevant to other countries. In some cases there are also WP:NPOV issues where opinions are expressed as facts. Some of this might be keepable if it were reworded to attribute it as a particular source's view; for example, instead of saying "the country's laws about same-sex sexual activity are a continuing violation of its obligations under the Covenant" it would be much more appropriate to say "the UN Human Rights Committe has described the country's laws about same-sex sexual activity as a continuing violation of its obligations under the Covenant". - htonl (talk) 13:47, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

My answers to the four RfC questions are: probably, probably, almost certainly, and definitely. Htonl said it better than I would have, so I'll just add "per Htonl's comment above". Rivertorch (talk) 18:05, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

• I am not an expert regarding these issues in the African context. However, to give my 2 cents on the RFC (which I came to via wikiproject Africa posting). Basis for the comments: The context does not talk about the African Charter or Ban Ki Moon's comments on the subject in Kenya. These are quite puzzling omissions for me. 1. Yes, it is factually inaccurate. It is nice to find some treaties and some committee decisions that deal with LGBT issues in international law, it is accurate however to find relevant and meaningful legal discussions (as determined by international court cases, statements by high ranking individuals or changes in national policy to be in line with international legal norms). Lawrence v. Texas has zero to do with LGBT issues in Senegal. In addition, the interpretation of some of the laws is way too broad (in terms of mainstream international legal opinion) and although the UDHR has in recent years been seen to have LGBT ramifications, this is a new and still embryonic interpretation and its relevance to Africa is being discussed. Focusing on actually relevant international law not just law that one hopes will be applied, is similarly said by Hton1 and Khazar 2. 2. Yes. 3. Yes, 4. Yes. A focus on the African charter for Human and People's rights would at least make it regionally relevant. Unlike some above, I find the reading of "Obligations" with no eye to relevant context (once again defined not in terms of laws which may bear on the situation but obligations which countries have specifically accepted, or have been used in court cases, or changed policy in the countries) to be of little value to the Articles and it probably should be deleted wholesale. I have no objection to a relevant section, but the acontextual nature of the current sections makes it of little use. AbstractIllusions (talk) 19:09, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Addendum- I dealt with the "accuracy" of the content on the Africa-specific pages. Its content on this page is similarly problematic in some respects, but may have valuable content for this page (although a rewrite is appropriate). My suggestion is for a rewrite on this page (hopefully with a more global focus) and the contents deleted on Africa-related pages. AbstractIllusions (talk) 20:39, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I fully agree with AbstractIllusions' suggestion. Ron 1987 (talk) 21:31, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

The material should not have been added and should be removed. TFD (talk) 19:34, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Would someone be so kind as to inform User:AfricaTanz of this RFC? I would do so myself except that, like so many others, he has "banned" me from posting on his user talk page. I asked an administrator to do so yesterday but it appears they're not around. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:25, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I think i'm in the same boat, but i posted recently in good faith and was ignored...Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 12:38, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I have posted a message on his/her talk page. - htonl (talk) 12:54, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

AfricaTanz has just removed the duplicated material from the thirteen articles on African countries. He or she didn't indicate why, though at least this move seems to be in accord with the consensus so far here. I suppose the only matter outstanding is what to do about the text on LGBT rights under international law. I take it from the contributions so far that it still has a number of problems. Should the entire article be nominated for deletion, or can we salvage it into something which doesn't have POV, synthesis, and factual accuracy issues? —Psychonaut (talk) 20:38, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I think this article would rate pretty high up in importance to the LGBT Wikiproject and so i'd prefer a rewrite to a delete. It might be a lot of work though...Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 23:55, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Again, it looks like AfricaTanz is doing this now. AfricaTanz, it would be nice if you would participate here to explain how the changes you are making address the problems others have raised. —Psychonaut (talk) 07:23, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

The user is on a 7 month holiday according to banner on his talk page and may not respond quickly. I would assume since the user's name features "Africa" and since the holiday is 7 months that maybe it's a safari...Anyway, if the work is being rewritten, then that's half the problem sorted. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 08:11, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

The editing is not improving the content of the page as much as it is doubling down on pushing a singular view point. To put two block quotes next to one another with no paragraph in-between to provide context is really problematic editing and not improving the quality of the article (OR remains and seems to be getting worse). AbstractIllusions (talk) 16:32, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

And a lot of the addition appears to be copy-paste plagiarism. I know it is hard for content to be both OR and copy-paste plagiarism--but that's what is happening. AbstractIllusions (talk) 16:32, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, if half the problem is the editing style, then the other half must be the person adding said content right? Maybe mentoring/adoption is the answer? Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 18:10, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

AbstractIllusions, by "plagiarism", are you just referring to excessive (but sourced) quoting, or do you mean the commentary itself has been copied without attribution? If so please indicate what text has been copied, and from where, or tag it yourself with {{copyvio}}. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:03, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I mean the commentary itself is really close to other sources (not cited) in phrasing. This diff from the recent additions has a number of too close paraphrasing for my comfort (which also existed in the original text). For example: "In 1994, the UNHRC in Toonen v. Australia confirmed that laws criminalizing consensual same-sex activity arbitrarily interfere with the right to privacy, contrary to Article 17 of the Covenant" compared to here (dated 2011--before this article was created) "In 1994, the UNHRC confirmed in Toonen v. Australia that laws criminalizing consensual same-sex activity violate both the right to privacy and the right to equality before the law without any discrimination, contrary to Article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (hereafter "The Covenant")." And then from the article: "The UNHRC has subsequently affirmed this position on many occasions by urging countries to repeal laws that criminalize consensual same-sex activity and thereby bring their legislation into conformity with the Covenant" and from the same source above "The UNHRC subsequently affirmed this position on many occasions, either urging countries to repeal laws that criminalize consensual same-sex activity or commending them for bringing their legislation into conformity with the Covenant by repealing such provisions." Now this may be a result of similar reliance on original documents--but the similarities are very close. I have close paraphrase checked very little else in the article because of time constraints. AbstractIllusions (talk) 13:45, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. It looks like that portion of the article, and the blog post you linked to, are both copied from the Submission for Universal Periodic Review of the United Republic of Tanzania to the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights. The website hosting this document indicates copyright is held by the OHCHR. I found a few other passages here copied from the same document. I will send the article to Wikipedia:Copyright problems so that any further copying or close paraphrasing can be identified. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:21, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

• • • • It seems the user who created all of the articles was hoping that people whould come along and work on them to make them more specific. None the less, the subject is a valid one and useful broken out by country. I agree with Jenova20 that they should be rewritten rather than deleted. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 00:44, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.