Talk:LGBT rights in Sri Lanka

message: :::b) Where in the ,  are you getting "vigilante executions"? Please be specific. It is not in any of the  anywhere that can be seen. (Did  mean "where in the WP article".)  AukusRuckus (talk) 10:41, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: c) I contributed  the specific wording of that par you're quoting to back up your "execution" claim: Its sources say nothing about "vigilante executions". AukusRuckus (talk) 11:12, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Still no sources for "vigilante executions"

message: @: I have asked here several times for an exact quote where the sources say "vigilante executions", and you have been repeatedly notified by other users—as well as me—on different articles that the sources you use do not speak of vigilante executions. 
When I asked you above, you replied with a paragraph from this Wikipedia article (one that I had written into the page), saying "". Please . 
Please provide a quote from the source that you believe allows WP to claim "vigilante executions". No other argument will do. As I cannot see, in good faith, sufficient evidence for this claim, if there are no quotes provided here (which we can then discuss), I will be justified in removing the claim. 
Following that, I will be asking for community input on the appropriateness of putting the same formulation of "" into the infoboxes and summary tables of so many LGBT articles, as for example (not a full list): 
* LGBT rights in Uganda adding to info box ""
* LGBT rights in Tanzania  Vigilante executions and attacks are also tolerated.
* LGBT rights in Zambia fines, vigilante executions, torture, beatings, vigilante attacks and forced anal examinations
* LGBT rights in Saudi Arabia with ES "some of these are common sense and don't need a content tag can be implied as true based on basic knowledge of Saudi laws/attitudes, others removed of edits done by banned editor... and multiple reverts and removing tags/requests for sourcing
Even  sourcing, my view is these claims do not belong in the infoboxes―they are not legal penalties; they are illegal penalties, even if police do them—and possibly not in the tables either, as mostly these statements are not discussed in the body of the articles.  (There has been an earlier discussion on this point over here in 2020―not that we have to abide by it, but just to note what was discussed there as a starting point might be helpful). AukusRuckus (talk) 08:25, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Take 3: Sources for "vigilante executions"

message: In the infobox and Summary table, one editor wishes to list "vigilante executions" as a "penalty".
My take has been that this is undue for several reasons:
# None of the sources provided say "vigilante executions" (see #Contents of sources for VE), although some do mention community violence 
# The violence described is illegal; they are , so should not be listed as "penalties"
# Describing the kind of killings that are actually hate crimes as "vigilante executions" would suggest that—probably—nearly every country in the world should list vigilante executions as possible "penalites". Unfortunately, hate crime murders are committed in many places.
# Specifically, listing it in the infobox has no community consensus. An old discussion at  took the view that such extra-judicial violence should not be in the infobox; I am unable to find any more recent attempts to change that earlier view
I will ask the other editor to make a short summary here, too. Our discussions are above in #Vigilante executions and its subsections. AukusRuckus (talk) 12:49, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Summary for WP:30

message: ::: Despite this edit summary: "(the compromise involved the gender identity area)", the last post you made on the subject was this:
:::""
::::Before that, you listed quotes from the 5 fingers report above, in response to my queries anout vigilante executions. There is no agreed version, as there has been little discussion on the matter. Quoting the source is great, but does not equate to "but anti-gay attitudes, unqualified medical staff, and low tech facilities rarely allow it" as you want to change it to.
::::My objections are:
:::# The source does not say "rarely allowed". That is WP:SYNTH
:::# It is unencyclopaedic in its expression, e.g. "low-tech"
:::# Its descriptors are vague: "anti-gay", "unqualified", etc. 
:::# The detailed description in the final par of  conforms far better to the source; it gives specifics. This means readers are advised of what sources say and can draw their own conclusions about whether this is "anti-gay", or whether doctors are "unqualified", rather than being  so. That is how WP is supposed to present material
:::# Medical vetting, only, not surgery, is required under Sri Lankan law, per source so part of your edit is factually incorrect
:::# It does not belong in the infobox per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE
::: I am more than happy to discuss further and attempt consensus, but for now seeing as it was an established edit, I am restoring that along with deletion of "vigilante execution" while it's ongoing.  Hope to hear from you. AukusRuckus (talk) 04:06, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: "Compromise" involving gender identity area