Talk:LGBTQ rights in India

Refs

• https://www.thehindu.com/entertainment/movies/pride-month-truth-about-india-lgbtqia-queer-voices-on-screen-films-ott-platform/article68227628.ece

Bookku (talk) 06:14, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

So called "foreign religions" in the article

I have flagged the discriminatory statement about "foreign religions" in the article here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LGBTQ_rights_in_India&diff=prev&oldid=1278581697

Kindly watch out for WP:POV of Hindu fascism or xenophobia towards certain religions in the article. 2402:8100:25C2:965E:0:0:A4BB:8A7E (talk) 09:03, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SonOfYoutubers talk 05:24, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Kamla Jaan, in 2000, became the first hijra mayor in history of India?
  • ALT1: ... that Kamla Jaan, an Indian hijra politician, was removed from office as mayor of Katni in 2003 because her legal gender did not match the category under which she was elected in 2000?
  • ALT2: ... that Kamla Jaan became India's first eunuch mayor in 2000, but was removed from office in 2003 because her gender registration didn't match the women's quota?

• Sources:

1. Ambreesh Mishra (July 23, 2007). "First Eunuch Mayor of India – Kamala Jaan". India Today. Archived from the original on 2019-11-02. Retrieved 2019-11-02.
2. Haviland, Charles (2002-08-29). "India's first eunuch mayor unseated". BBC. Retrieved 2025-03-14.

• Reviewed:

Moved to mainspace by Toadspike (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

Luke1437 (talk) 18:53, 8 June 2025 (UTC).

I strongly recommend shortening this to:

• ALT3: ... that Kamla Jaan became India's first eunuch mayor in 2000?

"Eunuch" can be swapped for "third gender" or "trans"; sources generally say they are interchangeable. We cannot say that she was elected in 2000. The sources are ambiguous, but from what I can tell she was probably elected in 1999 and took office in January 2000. Finally, I oppose ALT1 for being boring and I have made some grammatical fixed to ALT2, though the "quota" part still doesn't read smoothly. Toadspike [Talk] 18:17, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

In my opinion this "first" hook has strong sourcing to back it up, but if a non-"first" hook is needed, I suggest a condensed version of ALT1:

• ALT4: ... that Kamla Jaan, a hijra and mayor of Katni, was removed from office because the electoral rolls listed her as male?

Source: [1]. ALT1's wording makes it hard to understand and thus not as interesting. Toadspike [Talk] 19:24, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

@Luke1437: The article is new and long enough, but close paraphrasing is a big problem. The BBC article seems to have been practically copied. Other than that, the article has an immense potential to produce a good hook. I would suggest a hook that mentions how she was an illiterate eunuch angle whose candidacy looked like a prank until she actually won. Surtsicna (talk) 18:58, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

@Surtsicna, woah there, CLOP is a serious accusation (which I wish you'd have pinged me about). I disagree that I closely paraphrased the BBC article. Aside for two individual sentences, it is used for a paragraph in the Identity section; this is the only use long enough that I could see CLOP being an issue. But if you look closely, a lot of information comes from the NYT article (also cited for that paragraph) and isn't in the BBC article at all, such as "most hijras identify as feminine", "respected for their role in guarding harems", and the mention that hijras have no heirs, all of which is only in the NYT piece. The rest I believe is paraphrased sufficiently. For example, the clause "voter frustration with the large political parties" paraphrases a full paragraph in the NYT article and "seen by disillusioned voters as a way of snubbing the two biggest parties" in the BBC article. I find it hard to see where content has been "practically copied", but if you disagree I would appreciate a more detailed explanation. Toadspike [Talk] 13:49, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Sorry for not pinging, Toadspike. Here is our text:

Hijras were traditionally regarded as auspicious, respected for their role in guarding harems, but in recent times have often been treated with contempt. At the time of Jaan's entry into politics, hijras were gaining prominence as political candidates due to voter frustration with the large political parties. As hijras live in communes and have no family ties or heirs, they were perceived as independent of special interests and better able to represent the people.

Here is BBC's:

Traditionally regarded as auspicious, eunuchs nowadays are commonly treated with contempt. But recently, increasing numbers across India have found an unlikely niche in politics, popular because they stand as independents and are seen by disillusioned voters as a way of snubbing the two biggest parties. Having no family ties and usually living in communes, they're also able to portray themselves as likely to serve the people rather than their own interests.

For me, this is close paraphrasing. If you disagree and cannot/will not rephrase, perhaps we can summon another reviewer for a third opinion Surtsicna (talk) 15:15, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

That is a full three sentences, which includes at least two facts not present in the BBC article. I am no expert on copyright, but I don't think that's long enough to be a copyright issue even if it were a word-for-word quotation (this brings to mind the most unpleasant RfA in recent memory...and yes, these three sentences are less than 79 words long). A lot of this also falls under WP:LIMITED – how many ways can I say "regarded as auspicious", "treated with contempt", "living/live in communes", and "Having/have no family ties", the four phrases that are identical? The NYT piece, which I have strong reason to believe the BBC article is itself paraphrasing, uses much more colorful language to say the same: "their presence is thought to be lucky", "reviled, sniggered at and feared as obnoxious and even sorcerous", "...live in segregated communes and are unable to father children. They have no heirs." But I find word choice like that to be unencyclopedic and less concise. I am open to rewording this but I am genuinely not convinced that it is necessary. Toadspike [Talk] 15:45, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

I have now added more context from a scholarly source, which breaks up the BBC/NYT background info a bit. I may also have done some rewording (hard to tell from the diff [2]). I hope this helps. Toadspike [Talk] 17:00, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. It does look better now. I'll see if I can find a photo. Surtsicna (talk) 08:18, 10 July 2025 (UTC)