Talk:Homosexuality in India

message: I'm baffled by the statement Homosexual behavior itself is not against the law, while the act technically is. What "homosexual behavior" is not against the law, if homosexual sex is? Hand-holding? Kissing? Shopping? Or does the sentence mean to say "A homosexual orientation itself is not against the law"? --Angr (t·c) 09:03, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably it alludes to eunuchs, who have had a long history running across centuries and transvestites?? and btw, would a discussion about eunuchs be par for this article?? --Gurubrahma 10:27, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

text: It probably alludes to the fact, that homosexuality is not specifically mentioned in any Indian statue. So technically, a person cannot be prosecuted for being gay. The law that criminalises homosexuality actually mentions unnatural sex and sodomy and actually equates homosexuality with sodomy (an age-old misconception). See http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/Organizations/healthnet/SAsia/suchana/0909/rh374.html
--Pamri • Talk 12:14, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Hopefully the citations are relevant.
I hope someone can purchase/borrow the book mentioned in the section, and add some more. It's still very meagre.
I hope this much was still up to good standards. --Sshankar 08:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added History stub 

message: :Image:SamesexIndia.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 04:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:SamesexIndia.jpg

message: I just deleted some of the external links and edits out other parts to organization that read like an ad as well cite to their webpage in the article itself. Talk about issues on an encyclopedia. This is not for those seeking some sort of guidance or what have you. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that documents issues. Furthermore, the info on naz reads like an advert for the group, perhaps copy+pasted. That needs to go through. It looks someone with a vested interest on this issue added it. Where's the criticism of homsexuality in india and support for 377?? God knows there is opposition to those getting it repealed. Ive seen quotes in the newspapers. Lihaas (talk) 15:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The article starts Homosexuality in India is generally considered a taboo subject by both Indian civil society and the government.  Is there a bigger critcism than it being a taboo. DockuHi 22:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There are whole section of advocacy. One line in the lead suffices for criticism? The legal status mentions demands for change but nothing on those opposing in india? Lihaas (talk) 23:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Third paragraph: Sexual acts 'against the order of nature' remain illegal in India, though the government no longer seeks to prosecute adults engaging in private consensual homosexual acts. Well, I do understand your concern. Are you having any particular criticism from political parties, social and religious organisation or notable individuals in mind? DockuHi 00:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  issues with the page 

message: An anon user posted on  that the ruling does not apply to Jammu and Kashmir (citing Times of India). The Jammu and Kashmir issue was alluded to above on this talk page but not with a definitive answer. I already uploaded Delhi-only versions a couple of days ago (news reports at time led me to believe it was the case) only to be reverted, so wanted to check before repeating that mistake with Jammu and Kashmir. Currently, the maps are showing all of India legalized. thanks, Wikignome0529 (talk) 07:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The Delhi High Court struck down a section of the Indian Penal Code.  This law does not apply to Jammu and Kashmir - J&K has its own penal code (the Ranbir Penal Code) - so obviously the ruling striking that section down also does not apply.  If the RPC has a provision criminalising homosexuality, its validity will have to be separately considered.  That having been said, I have no idea whether the Ranbir Penal Code even criminalises homosexuality - you'll have to start by figuring that out. -- Arvind (talk) 09:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  India on homosexuality laws maps 

message: I don't understand what purpose the "Legal Aspect" section under "Legal Status" serves. In any case, it only gives one view of many viewpoints by the ASG and none at all of the petitioners. This section needs to be removed. Thoughts anyone?
Bhagwad (talk) 14:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It has been moved to a sub-article. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 17:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Irrelevant subsection "Legal Aspect

message: A paragraph at the end of this section reads (boldface and italics added by me):
: In its judgment the Supreme court stated
:"We declare that Section 377 IPC, insofar it criminalises consensual sexual acts of adults in private, is violative of Articles 21, 14 and 15 of the Constitution. The provisions of Section 377 IPC will continue to govern non-consensual penile non-vaginal sex and penile nonvaginal sex involving minors... Secondly, we clarify that our judgment will not result in the re-opening of criminal cases involving Section 377 IPC that have already attained finality."
I'm having trouble reading the link with the full text of the decision, but it seems to me that the italicized section is NOT a statement by the Supreme Court, but is actually a quotation from the 2009 decision by the Higher Court. Could someone please verify this and make the necessary changes? Throbert McGee (talk) 21:21, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Apparent Error in "Court Proceedings" Section

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Homosexuality in India. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081009042809/http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com:80/India/Gay_rights_should_be_respected_prostitution_legalised_NHRC_chief/articleshow/3565933.cms to http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/Gay_rights_should_be_respected_prostitution_legalised_NHRC_chief/articleshow/3565933.cms
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:15, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Substituted at 18:12, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Homosexuality in India. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://archive.is/20120630065247/http://www.nazindia.org/advocacy.htm to http://www.nazindia.org/advocacy.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:36, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Russianvodka, at this article, you have been reverted by Greyjoy, Rivertorch, Bonadea and now me. That is seen here, here, here and here. I see that you were also recently reverted at the LGBT rights in Namibia article by Ron 1987. And before that, you were reverted at the LGBT rights in India article by Sro23, Moxy, DeniedClub, Jedi Friend and D4iNa4. That is seen here, here, here, here and here. Your edits are clearly problematic to a number of editors. You are also believed to be a WP:Sock, judging by Sro23 and D4iNa4's reverts. You need to listen to experienced editors on why you are being reverted, stop WP:Edit warring and stop referring to good-faith editors as vandals. Otherwise, you might find yourself WP:Blocked. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:26, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Why are you removing sourced material that says vigilante executions of LGBT occur? It is a reliable source and it says just what I said. If you leave that in I will be done revertingRussianvodka (talk) 02:50, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, no. You're already at WP:3RR so any more near-term reverts will result in a block. Your behavior on this article has been abysmal. Blatantly misleading edit summaries, false changes of vandalism, etc. I strongly suggest you read WP:BRD. Open a discussion and wait for consensus to form. --NeilN talk to me 04:10, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: There are NPOV issues with the edits of Russianvodka. Him lowering the positive mindset among Indians regarding homosexuality and giving undue weight to vigilante executions despite they occur about just anything (kidnapping, murder, loot, divorce), they have to be backed with reliable source that would claim that such vigilante executions are very common still I don't see how it would be due on lead. D4iNa4 (talk) 16:24, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at his recent contributions, he is certainly still engaging in problematic editing. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:51, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I had. Given he registered last month, I would assume good faith and think that whatever he is doing is not shocking from a newbie. D4iNa4 (talk) 17:15, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: By "Yes I had," do you mean you looked at his recent contributions too? To clarify, I was stating that I looked at his recent contributions and I see that he is still being problematic. He's had enough warnings to stop that and reevaluate his behavior. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:22, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes that's how I reached to:, and I agree that he had enough warnings. D4iNa4 (talk) 18:49, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent reverts 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Homosexuality in India. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140407080611/http://archive.tehelka.com/story_main40.asp?filename=Ne181008indian_traditions.asp to http://archive.tehelka.com/story_main40.asp?filename=Ne181008indian_traditions.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140407073329/http://ilga.org/ilga/en/article/64 to http://ilga.org/ilga/en/article/64
*Added  tag to http://www.hindustantimes.com/redir.aspx?ID=219b4cdd-e168-4e97-8bf0-4707d19d5129
*Added  tag to http://www.hindustantimes.com/redir.aspx?ID=219b4cdd-e168-4e97-8bf0-4707d19d5129
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:39, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Vikriti Evam Prakriti (Sanskrit: विकृतिः एवम्‌ प्रकृति, meaning what seems unnatural is also natural)This phrase is ascribed to Rigveda.
Fact: The expression "vikruti evam prakriti" DOES NOT OCCUR anywhere in the Vedas.
It is not even correct Sanskrit
This false claim has been made by
• Devdutt Pattanaik 
• Wikipedia
• Nathan McDermott in Washington Post
• Vidula Chopra Rastogi in The Hindu
Word ‘vikṛti’ DOES NOT OCCUR EVEN ONCE in the Vedic texts as per Vedic Concordance.
Word ‘prakṛti’ occurs only thrice in Vedic texts as per Vedic Concordance (TA 10.10.3, AS 8.13.31, MG 2.13.6).
Whoever has added that,either give verse no & chap no of Rigveda or delete it.
https://twitter.com/MisraNityanand/status/1252858187235000325 check this...
::Whoever wrote the above is correct — the phrase literally does not occur in the text of the Rigveda. The definitive academic translation of the Rigveda (Jamison & Brereton) also nowhere contains anything akin to this text, not does the associated commentary anywhere mention it. Unless someone can actually cite the number of the verse and/or an academic source written by a Sanskritist, this isn’t staying in. Hölderlin2019 (talk) 09:49, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a classic example of WP:OR - we rely on statements provided by reliable sources, not your personal research which is completely irrelevant. Siddsg (talk) 10:26, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: None of these sources are reliable *in relation to the Rig Veda*. None of them are authored by specialists in Sanskrit or Vedic literature, and none of the actual sources published by Sanskritists document this claim. The citations are entirely from authors who are not experts on the topic at hand, but are instead writers on queer theory or LGBT issues. Jamison & Brereton, Monier-Williams, and the revised Vedic concordance (Bloomfield & Sastri), all of which are definitive sources, all attest that the language in question does not occur in the Rig Veda. Hölderlin2019 (talk) 11:06, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: They are all reliable sources whether you like it or not. Your personal research is not supported by your source. WP:CANVASSING editors to legitimize your WP:OR and WP:RGW is not going to help your cause. Siddsg (talk) 12:00, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: They’re not reliable sources on this topic, especially given that the reliable sources on the topic contradict them. I’m perfectly happy to take this to RSN; there’s no OR on my part, as I’m merely faithfully reflecting the output of the authoritative academic sources on the matter. You, having established that you neither understand how to evaluate sources, not what canvassing is, nor that reflecting the academic consensus on a matter cannot in principle be RGW, should occupy your time rereading CIR. Now forgive me while I laugh; you are not the arbiter of ‘my case’, which speaks for itself. Hölderlin2019 (talk) 12:45, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure if your argument holds any relevance but you must stop adding sources that have no relation with this subject. Shashank5988 (talk) 14:27, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The subject in question is a phrase that is claimed to be in the Rigveda. How is it that the authoritative sources on the Rigveda have no relation to content which is alleged to be in the Rig Veda? Hölderlin2019 (talk) 14:31, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Your Sanskrit vocalbury links which you added here are completely unrelated with the subject. Shashank5988 (talk) 14:36, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  The subject is whether the text “vikriti evam prakriti” occurs in the Rig Veda. The links to Monier-Williams establish that the text which is alleged to be in the Rig Veda is not actually attested in the Rig Veda. How is that irrelevant? Hölderlin2019 (talk) 14:39, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vikriti Evam Prakriti (Sanskrit: विकृतिः एवम्‌ प्रकृति) 

message: @Timovinga is removing large sections of texts across numerous articles concerning LGBTQ and India and/or Hinduism citing vague reasons such as "unreliable sources" even when numerous sources have been provided including both primary and secondary sources. I suggest that if he continues to remove text then he needs to be banned from editing topics related to LGBTQ and India. Arind7 (talk) 08:02, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  @Timovinga is removing large amounts of text