Talk:LGBT rights in Indonesia/Archive 1

Archive 1

Aceh

Material relating to Aceh is out of date - homosexual acts even by non-Muslims is punishable by up to 100 lashes: http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2014/09/muslim-indonesian-province-to-punish-gay-sex-with-100-lashes-with-cane/ 125.168.185.45 (talk) 13:18, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Latest entry (May, 2017)

@Rivertorch: I do appreciate your message [1], thanks ever so much. However: sources ARE given. So I reckon that's not per se up for discussion. You do, however, seem to mind my entry a lot. So maybe you can point out what it is that is troubling you. If you feel this entry should be pointed out in another section; be my guest. Let me know, and maybe we can find a solution. 217.120.219.67 (talk) 16:27, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing. We have a mutual goal of improving the article, and I see no reason why we can't find agreement here. I asked you to read the guideline on lead sections. As I said on your talk page, a lead section is supposed to summarize the main points of an article. It is not a place to catalog recent events that are in the news unless they are covered in sufficient depth later in the article to qualify as main points. Your edit consisted of two parts. Let's take them in turn.

First, you added a broad claim that Indonesian authorities are taking a "harder stance against homosexuality". That claim appears to be an generalization based on two recent incidents that have been in the news. It may well be true—and, if so, it may well be lede-worthy content—but it isn't supported either by content in the body of article or by either of the sources you cited.

Second, you noted two recent incidents, the sentencing of two men to caning and the arrest of many more at a party. One of those incidents was already mentioned in the body of the article but did not constitute a main point, so it really shouldn't be echoed in the lead section. The other wasn't already mentioned, so I moved its mention to an appropriate place.

On a procedural note, it isn't a good idea to keep adding disputed content. (See the guideline on edit warring and the essay on the bold-revert-discuss cycle.) The burden is on the editor adding the content to explain why it's appropriate. If consensus is reached that the content is appropriate, then it can go back in. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 17:03, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I've asked for outside opinion at the talk page of a relevant WikiProject. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 17:47, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you mean know. Concerning the first thing you pointed out ("harder stance against homosexuality"): I totally agree, it is not as objective as it should be. I shall change that immediately. About that second point: I couldn't find any information about either of the incidents I added. Could you tell where I can find it, please? If it is already there, then of course I agree with you - no need to put the same stuff twice.

Feel free to put the information given by me in the appropriate section of this article, and thank you very much for taking the time to explain what you meant. :) 217.120.219.67 (talk) 13:41, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for replying again. I'm not in a frame of mind (or body) to deal with it right now, but I'll try to take a look early tomorrow. I did see at least one news article today that might support the "harder stance" wording but I need to study it more carefully. (I think it was at the BBC News site, if you'd like to take a look.) Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 19:56, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Contradictions

Speaking from 20 years of experience living in Indonesia: Just wanted to say that its true LGBT are discriminated in laws, but Homosexuals and Cross-Dressers are extremely present in the Indonesia medias. They can also show themselves truly in public areas without disturbance from anyone (obviously following the same rules as heterosexuals of not overexposing themselves), but I'd agree that they must be forced to hide their sexuality when back in traditional home situations and such. I just felt the need to report the contradictions between facts and acts. --222.124.46.178 (talk) 06:00, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Living Conditions outdated

The section on living conditions seems to be based mostly on a scholarly article from more than a decade ago. Considering the extremely rapid pace of change on issues of homosexual rights and treatment, the entire section may very well be invalid. (Consider that a decade ago, being gay in Russia was relatively safe, but now is quite dangerous). A more recent source, or perhaps information on current trends in behavior rather than a historical set of statements would be nice. Does anybody have any information on reception of LGBT individuals in Indonesia today? 71.237.162.153 (talk) 18:11, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Summary table

Could someone compile a summary table for this article?--Baruch ben Alexander - ✉ 13:50, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Indonesia new laws in 2010

In Indonesia, Homosexuality Equals 100 Lashes [http://gayrights.change.org/blog/view/in_indonesia_homosexuality_equals_100_lashes]; Aceh government rejects Shariah bylaw [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.51.136.157 (talk) 07:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Demand a return to strong anti LGBT Indonesia prior to "softening the tone" by Gunkarta

Gunkarta's highly POV edits have softened and weakened the true position- that Indoenesia is overwhelmingly anti LGBT rights vis-a-vis the West- and has instead chosen to electively and selectivly edit so as the more sensationalist elements of Indoensian (for example minority positions within the MUI) have been instead retained. This creates bias- there is no third party so0urced information as per the original edit to clarify the position that is the actuality- Indonesia is overhwelmingly and cvohesively anti-LGBT, there is pan-religious and pan-scoial opposition to LGBT rights agenda being pushed in Indonesia and this unwanted LGBT rights creep is seen as a subversive momevement.

I do not know who you are, but I suspect you are User:Seperjuangan, it was you that have done massive edits in this article to promote strong homophobic sentiments, and painted as if it is shared among the whole of Indonesian population. Although, today maybe majority of Indonesians unsupportive to LGBT rights, it is important to write it in fair and unbiased perspective. It was you that biased, highly subjective, and done a POV pushing on promoting anti LGBT homophobic sentiments. Just because you hate LGBT person, does not mean the whole Indonesians shares your sentiments. I respect human rights, regardless of their sexual identity and orientation. At least my edits that you called "softening" edits are tried to be neutral, cover both sides (pro and cons), and based on well-referenced sources. Learn more on Wikipedia policies on Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Citing sources before accusing anybody on anything. Gunkarta  talk  15:55, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Gunkarta is correct. Wikipedia is not for pushing homophobic or nationalistic claims based on spurious claims of societal support. Also, talk pages are not the place for bluster and threats. Davidelit (Talk) 04:47, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Except now it would seem like Gunkarta is wrong. Why were two men caned for homosexual sex if there's not a strong anti-LGBT sentiment? Seems like it would be pretty hard to cane somebody of their own free will. And unless they're doing it of their own free will the government either has laws against it, or is overstepping its authority due to hatred. It seems to me the article as written IS trying soften the homophobic impact of the muslim government, or has very recently become outdated. The glaring contradiction being the phrase about it not being illegal juxtaposed with the public admistration of caning for homosexual acts.

Being transgender and being a crossdresser and being gay/lesbian are three completely different things. This article seems to have descended into chaos. Objective statements from both sides should be included or the article should be deleted. We can all live and let live in peace on this planet without violence and oppression -- IF we choose so to do. . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100E:B04E:D325:ECF4:8457:4B1B:D849 (talk) 18:31, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

References