Talk: Gross indecency

Encyclopedia source

Singapore LGBT Encyclopaedia was removed as a source recently.

I have added it back because it an important source of this aspect of queer history.

So Singapore LGBT Encyclopaedia as a source is important.

It is one of the main places people go to learn queer singaporean history.

There are one or two books out there that covers certain areas of Singapore Queer History in great detail. (mobilizing gay singapore and Queer Singapore for two of em)

but Singapore LGBT Encyclopaedia is the main archive. There is no place where you find a collation of all the challenges to 377a in Singapore except on that wiki. I've certainly done my best with my attempt at creating resources for my community with the Queer Timeline, but even then I heavily rely on the SG LGBT Encyclopaedia.

I hope folks will understand that parts of queer history are not usually recorded in newspapers owned by a country. Especially in regions that have discriminatory laws in the books. Especially in a country with a government that doesn't support our "lifestyle" and where we aren't allowed to be represented in the media in a positive light.

If you want to have references to the queer histories of non-western countries then you have to rely on resources made the communities of those countries. That won't necessarily pass the wiki's muster for accrediation. Oliviaparamour 19:25, February 12, 2022 (UTC)

All well and good, but per the sourcing policy, another wiki is not appropriate. Where did they get their information? If there's a book, use that. There should be at least news articles discussing the part that requires a source. You say the Singapore LGBT wiki is an archive: to be an archive means you have information from other places. When sourcing in this wiki, use those other places. I looked at that page on the other wiki, and it is a bit of a mess tbh. I also googled news about 377a and found no recent articles about the third challenge. I also reverted the change from the 'heckin' unicorn' site. It's not the best but it's better than another wiki (which itself has unsourced information). Fruipit 22:06, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

It is a bit of a mess but it is what we have here. I don't know where you're from but

Understand that we're talking the queer history of my country here, in a country where there are few people recording our history. we don't have the luxury of a well funded queer org that can devote an entire team to recording and preserving our history academically. We have the person who mains SG LGBT Encyclopaedia.

To recognize it as the third round of challenges you have first view how we got here, with the initial Tan Eng Hong verdict that led to the the ability for any person not directly affected by the law to challenge it. This first constitutional challenge was in 2010.

the second round of challenges 377a involved people who wanted to challenge it now that the doors were open to this, it involved two different plaintiffs (one them being tan Eng Hong, the other a gay couple) which was merged into one challenge. This started in 2013

the third round of challenges started in 2018 with three different plaintiffs. it one we're still waiting on a verdict on today.

It through the understanding of this grouping based on when these challenges were brought forward that there is a first second and third round of challenges.

Heckin' Unicorn is well sourced. If you've gone through the article it does link out to many different sources inlcuding government sources.

Again I stress, you're not from here and you don't know the local context but these sources are credible to queer people here.

This rigidity needs to have nuances for countries that do not have the same level of equality as you do. Everything we have, our knowledge our history, we built ourselves.

If you can't agree with this, then we should speak an admin. Oliviaparamour 22:25, February 12, 2022 (UTC)

Please sign your posts with ~~~~

Firstly, I am not from Singapore. Which is why I don't know much about LGBT issues in Singapore. Which is why I (and everyone else) needs a reliable source. I bring up heckin' unicorn because originally you removed it and replaced it with the encyclopedia source.The rigidity does not need nuances. You are saying that these things happen. How do you know these things happen? How does the Singapore LGBT wiki know these things happen? Because they aren't just making it up. I want you to include where the Singapore LGBT wiki got their information from. Fruipit 22:28, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

After just a few minutes of googling, I found this article about the high court regecting the latest case and you can read about ong ming johnson v attorney general here. There's an article from 2018 about the renewed push to repeal the law here and after it was ruled on, an article about two men appealing against the decision from 2020.

These are credible sources. This is where the information comes from. Fruipit 22:35, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I was having technical issues with the new citation template. took me a bit to get the hang of it but i meant to include both of them in end for the respective areas. If you have looked through the SG LGBT encyclopedia article you would have found a divvy of external links.

it is referenced to newspapers, and websites. it has images and videos. in total there are 94 references on that page alone. I don't know how you missed that but they are there.

if you ask me what a reliable source for queer singaporean history, I'd say one of them amongst several others is the SG LGBT Encyclopaedia. thank you for teaching me how to sign my posts.

Again while those articles are good, the reason why I linked to that page is because it covers all the challenges. remember the context of the sentence was that it was third round of challenges. Oliviaparamour (talk) 22:41, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

You're welcome. Yes that section covers the challenges, but that section itself wasn't sourced properly. The reason I went to the wiki was to pull the references they used. When I couldn't easily find them (see my note above about that page being a mess), I slapped the source template on there. Reference the direct place it came from, not the library where you can wander around and hope to find the place it came from.

A wiki is only as reliable as the places it gets its information. It's why you can't reference social media or the LGBT wiki here. Fruipit 22:44, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Which section are you talking about? I didn't refer to the libary, I referred to a specific page. https://the-singapore-lgbt-encyclopaedia.fandom.com/wiki/Challenge_to_the_constitutionality_of_Section_377A this one in particular. I admit there are better pages like this one which I would use instead now: https://the-singapore-lgbt-encyclopaedia.fandom.com/wiki/Section_377A_of_the_Penal_Code_(Singapore) but it is where the chapter where this information comes from. not the libary.

"A wiki is only as reliable as the places it gets its information" continues to suggest that SG LGBT encyclopaedia isn't a reliable place. again, as someone who is not singaporean, I think it would be best if you listened to folks who live there that have said that this is a reliable source. It is not a mere wiki. It is an archive. It is an article about 377a and the constitutional challenges in its entirety.

I understand that it says "that wiki-based articles and categories cannot be used as sources." but I think there needs to exceptions to this when it comes to aspects of queer history. No newspaper article will describe this as the third set of challenges, because all news articles view each challenge in a vacuum. It is only recognized as the third round of challenges as I've said in an article that includes the history of constitutional challenges to it. which that article does. and more importantly for you, is sourced. I think an exception needs to be made because of the nature of queer history, and that the SG LGBT Encyclopedia should not be seen as wiki as much as a treasured archive. Oliviaparamour (talk) 22:53, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

This is why people in the community, both Heckin Unicorn, and Women's Unbounded article both do reference SG Encyclopedia in their articles sometimes.

I think the sourcing rules makes sense when we're talking about gender identities and labels and that sort of things where we want to reduce the amount of microlabels. I think those rules were made under that context. But under the context of localised history, which is very personal and real to a lot of us. There needs to be exceptions for understood locally sourced knowledge. Oliviaparamour (talk) 23:03, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I've asked the admins to weigh in on this. I am not willing to compromise the integrity of the page just because one person says I should. In addition, I literally provided you the sources that you need and you are still arguing that the source should be a wiki (to a section that is not sourced, that anyone can edit, and that has not been verified to be accurate). There does not need to be exceptions, and it sort of sounds like you're trying to prevent non-locals from contributing that that section.

An easy fix for the "all articles view each challenge in a vacuum" is literally to just... have three different references for each challenge? I'm really not sure what the problem is with following the policy and setting up the page properly. If the wiki allows for one exception because someone asked nicely, eventually everyone will be asking for exceptions and the policy will be completely pointless. Fruipit 23:07, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

You simply won't get the same point from three different newspaper articles referring to three different challegnes as something that consolidates it and presents it.

There are simply going to be exceptions to some of these things in various places if you're dealing with things sourced from different groups other then western groups. I think it's not too much to ask given the context of local history. there must be understood nuance for that. and when someone adds indigeous gender identities, you might find that some of the knoweldge and points have only been passed down through oral history. even APA has a format on how to reference oral traditions. Exceptions are going to exist in specific areas for a lot of reasons but I don't think it makes it weaker to have exceptions. Oliviaparamour (talk) 23:36, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

We're not telling people to go and read those entire articles. We aren't typig them out here. You can literally have one sentence with three sources - that is also consolidation. And these aren't oral traditions. This isn't "local history" it is literally a legal case in a court of law. Fruipit 23:40, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm not saying they are oral traditions. i'm saying that there will be many exceptions and its not a bad thing. "We're not telling people to go and read those entire articles." but you do...

One of the sources on that page is this: https://www.hrw.org/report/2008/12/17/alien-legacy/origins-sodomy-laws-british-colonialism it's a long arse article. Longer than the one I sourced. You do tell people to go read these entire articles. and you should know, no where in the sourcing policy does it say that the source has to be short. Oliviaparamour (talk) 00:19, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

This will be my last response because this is going nowhere and you have failed to convince me, and I have failed to convince you. Yes, that is a long article. It is our job in this wiki (an encyclopaedia) to summarise and consolidate, just like the Singapore LGBT wiki, the information on that page. That page is an entire timeline of the case since 2008. So if there is, on that page, a sentence that says "many former British colonies have gross indecency laws", you can reference that page because it literally talks about the history of those laws. If people are then curious about finding out more information, they can then go to that page and get more information. We are not supposed to have all the information here. Fruipit 00:31, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

"If people are then curious about finding out more information, they can then go to that page and get more information. We are not supposed to have all the information here. " That's what I'm doing with be sourcing the sg encyclopedia's page on the constitutional challenges. I don't explain what it means in the sentence that the third round of constitutional challenges have occured. I did summarize it and if they want to find out more, they can go to that wiki, and read it understand the context of that. They are not going to get the context from three disparate newspaper articles. unless it's explained how they interrelate. That's what that page does.

I'm doing the same thing that you're saying. It's just that the source listed is hosted on fandom. If it's worries that the page is not static then it should be possible to link to a specific version of that page. and that will ensure it never changes. I guess this will be my last response too. Oliviaparamour (talk) 00:51, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Gonna pop in and say that despite my usual views of not using a wiki as a source... I do think we'd be doing a massive disservice to our LGBTQIA+ friends who live in Singapore. My understanding is that it's still fairly illegal and not good to be gay in Singapore (I remember reading that people have been jailed and fined for this? Not sure if true, wouldn't be surprised if it is.) I think we can look at this as a special circumstance, and possibly add some kind of disclaimer and explain the situation. Having access to the internet is much easier than getting a book published or having an "official" source. We should be taking this as an opportunity to share the LGBTQIA+ history of Singapore, even if it could be considered a typically unorthodox method. Note, I am speaking for myself and don't consider this an "official" statement from the administration. —Jayce (01:44, 2/12/2022)

There is nothing stopping us from linking to the Singapore LGBT wiki. But one of the very core tenets of this wiki is our sourcing policy and the fact that wikis are not reliable sources. I disagree wholeheartedly with bending the rule here. If the information on the Singapore wiki is reliable, then we need to be using those same sources. Fruipit 01:49, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I feel like it's not that easy, given how the country is when it comes to the LGBTQIA+ community. It is much easier and much safer to document these things on a wiki that anyone can edit, and taking things on a case-by-case basis considering the circumstances is not a bad thing to do here. We should source what we can to whatever they use as a source, but having the wiki link somewhere would not be bad. Sharing what they have gone through and documenting things is good. I'm not saying you need to agree, we're all allowed our own opinions, but I think this needs to be looked at with a careful eye. This isn't just "wikis shouldn't be used as a source". this seems to be one of the few safe ways they have of sharing history. —Jayce (01:53, 2/12/2022)

Okay but in this specific case, I found sources. Why would we continue to using a wiki when there are reliable sources? Fruipit 02:02, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

The difference which i've said is that sharing links to three separate newspapers about the verdict of the three constitutional challenges is not the same as an article that showcases all the several challenges together. A person would not come to the conclusion that i've summarized here (and above) unless you explain it to them. That's what the wiki article does.

If there existed an article that explained what that wiki article does, you would not have any problem with that. Your main issue isn't with the content of the article, your main issue is that it's a wiki article.

And that's what I am hoping can be granted an exception for here. Until such a time that someone does write that article that is not a wiki article that explains the history of the constitutional challenges.

To clarify to Jayce, thank you btw, People have been prosecuted in the past between the years of 1987 to 1992 and then 2010 (probably prior to 1987 but during this period it was a period of police entrapment). I'm not sure about the jailing i have to look at each case. There's someone who does that very well. What's more important about 377a in terms of media representation is that we can't be represented in a positive light on local tv, radio, magazines, etc. It would either be given an M18 or R21 rating, which means it can't be aired publicly. So any article in mainstream newspapers is not usually one that includes us. In some recent cases that's improved with what is known as the trans student saga (if you say this, queer people who were around will know what it refers to). But even then, it doesn't always contain the full narrative of what occurred.

As an aside i linked to a few heckin unicorn articles because this person has done good work in the community in writing articles like this, that collates and explains things like this. Oliviaparamour (talk) 11:34, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Is it verifiable? No? Okay well our policy, which our admins made, is very clear. If I knew that I could just use wikipedia as a source, I wouldn't have spent hours trekking through google to find a single thread from 1996. I certainly wouldn't have spent as long as i did finding and referencing all 32 sources in the australian-specific legislation article i made. given that the bit on this page under debate is a singaporean-specific legislation section, i am seeing a huge double-standard and am, frankly, a little peeved. what is actually the point in having a sourcing policy if we are not going to use it? there's not a lot of information on a lot of aspects of queer culture and history: are we gonna start letting people reference the nonbinary wiki? or taimi? or, heaven forbid, the lgbta wiki on miraheze? Of course not, because it is not a reliable source. I dont even know why this is an issue! Fruipit 11:56, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Another thing: that source is currently used on a sentence that basically says... nothing. "the third round is still waiting on results". What third round? There is literally no information in that section that actually helps people to understand what that section is even there for. So here's a suggestion: rewrite the entire thing.

The introduction of S377 to Singapore's Penal Code was not due to homophobia, but instead racism; at this time, it was disgraceful to the British to learn that European men were consorting with "Asian male prostitutes". Following a penal code review in 2007, the original Section 377 was repealed, with a new Section 377 taking its place. The new section was used to criminalize necrophilia, while Section 377a would be used for homosexual relations. Section 377a as it currently reads states:

"Any male person who, in public or private, commits, or abets the commission of, or procures or attempts to procure the commission by any male person of, any act of gross indecency with another male person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years."

While it is said that it is enforced, S377 is used as a foundation to justify several government policies that discriminate against LGBTQIA+ people in Singapore. There have been three court cases raised regarding the constitutionality of S377; the first was in 2010, the second occurred in 2012, and the third in 2018. The need for the legislation had been questioned in August 2018 after India repealed S377 in its own penal code.

In early 2020, the High Court dismissed all three challenges, with two of the plaintiffs appealing immediately.

"377A Was Introduced Because Of Racism, Not Homophobia" by Rice on <ricemedia.co>. Published 2021-01-21 by Rice Media. (no backup information provided)

"Penal Code 1871, 2020 Revised Edition" on <sso.agc.gov.sg>. Published 2022-02-11 by Singapore Statues Online. (no backup information provided)

"Lawyer challenges gay sex law" by Wee Keat, Leong on <web.archive.org>. Published 2010-09-24 by Today. (no backup information provided)

"New constitutional challenge to Section 377A filed" by Yawning Bread on <yawningbread.wordpress.com>. Published 2012-12-02 by Wordpress. (no backup information provided)

"Singapore couple sue to end sodomy law" by Potts, Andrew on <web.archive.org>. Published 2012-12-01 by Sand Diego Gay and Lesbian News. (no backup information provided)

"Repeal of section 377A will end 'online vitriol and abuse' against LGBTQ community, says DJ who filed legal challenge" by Chua, Alfred on <todayonline.com>. Published 2018-09-16 by Today. (no backup information provided)

"Businessman Ho Kwon Ping opens up on his ISA detention at packed ST Book Club event" by Ho, Olivia on <straitstimes.com>. Published 2018-08-29 by Straits Times. (no backup information provided)

"India's top court lifts ban on gay sex in landmark ruling" by Reuters on <straitstimes.com>. Published 2018-09-06 by Straits Times. (no backup information provided)

"High Court dismisses challenges against law that criminalises sex between men" by Kurohi, Rei on <straitstimes.com>. Published 2020-03-21 by Straits Times. (no backup information provided)

"Two men file appeals against High Court decision to dismiss Section 377A challenge" by Kurohi, Rei on <straitstimes.com>. Published 2020-03-29 by Straits Times. (no backup information provided)

And after doing all that, I did find a single source that consolidated the outcomes. Huh. If y'all are happy with the inclusion of these sources, I'll add this section as soon as the page is unlocked. It's literally gone from 1 proper source and 1 wiki source to 8 proper sources. Fruipit 23:40, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

(Subheading just to break up wall of text)

All right, weighing in myself as an admin but not speaking for all the admins. Our sourcing policy indicates that our wiki article wouldn't cite the Singapore LGBT wiki article that has 94 references, but would instead review however many of those 94 references contain the information being put on our wiki, and then cite the same sources that the SG LGBT wiki did. The fact that they're able to provide 94 references shows that someone besides SG LGBT wiki is writing about these topics.

Fruipit has a point about what our policies state and citing the original sources rather than the SG LGBT wiki article itself. Oliviaparamour has a point about queer communities compiling and distributing knowledge in a restrictive country where it's illegal to be queer. The process is different from in the U.S., western Europe, and other places where there aren't the same criminal laws, state censorship, publishing resources, etc. When a community is dealing with that combination of restrictions, they're going to do what they can to document and distribute info with whatever they can actually access. Getting access to the means to print, possess, and distribute physical documents is different from getting online (although there are still challenges there like blocking and monitoring). International hosting can be used rather than hosting in the country itself if someone can afford it, but using a wiki just requires a safe internet connection. That isn't a topic the admins discussed when we created the policies, and it's a much bigger conversation than what to do with this one article.

It seems clear that the Singaporean queer community is finding ways to publish their own perspectives in places besides social media and wikis, and third parties are publishing from an outside perspective. The SG LGBT wiki doesn't seem to be the only possible source of information. Is it accurate to say that SG LGBT wiki cites sources that may or may not have been created by members of the Singaporean queer community, and then performs its own analysis or synthesis of those sources that might have been overlooked or otherwise not performed by those not part of the Singaporean queer community? (Like the point about the third round of challenges?) Our policies don't currently address the possibility of allowing citations to other wikis for their analysis/synthesis/conclusions/consolidation of what's published by other sources. We do currently have links to other Fandom wikis within Resources sections to show there's other stuff on Fandom addressing a particular topic, but we don't cite them in the main text of our articles. Immi Thrax (she/her) (message me) 00:19, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

To Fruitpit: I would change some of the wording but it looks good. I would add back the Heckin unicorn post that I accidentally removed from "...that discriminate against LGBTQIA+ people in Singapore." Can you point me to the source that you've said consolidates the three rounds of constitutional challenges?

While we now do have something acceptable to both of us, I do feel i need to point out that in your point, "the third round is still waiting on results", is a misquote. Specifically it says "... third round of constitutional challenges..." with regards to your question on "what third round?" It explains what third round is when properly actually quoted. and I would disagree that it is not verifiable. (for this particular article.)

To Immi Thrax: thank you for understanding. It is certainly a bigger conversation. It is accurate to say that there do exist its own analysis and synthesis of these sources though it depends on the specific article. for example, Singapore gay bars are that way even if it's a bit messy.

other pages are digital copies of the original text so that those text are still accessible even if the original is taken out of circulation. The person who maintains and updates the sg lgbt encyclopedia, is an industrious man who takes the time to go into the national library to read and copy out microfilm of old newspapers. Information that is just not made accessible and requires that one makes it known that one has accessed this information. If you do this, it would be known that you have accessed this information. This is not something I would dare do. and thus the only copy of some of these older articles can only be found on the wiki, because it's more likely to be up than on it than from the originating archive. There is also lost information hosted there. He holds a vast archive of conversations on a defunt early internet queer group hosted on yahoo groups in the late 1990s that was shuttered by yahoo in 2019 (leading to an immense loss of knowledge from that era) There are queer groups that no longer exist that are listed on the this listing that one would not know exist except through word of mouth with older queer folk or if one happens to find old artefacts like pamphlets and whatnot that mention them.

I do agree The SG LGBT wiki is not the only possible source for information. I can tell you off the top my head which books (2, maybe 3) and which specific articles or web portals talk about our history. and there do exist international news when it gains international attention and local news when it is a matter of national interest. (such as with constitutional challenges). But in some cases for some bits of information, it is.

Inclusive to that SG LGBT Encyclopaedia as what I would describe as a nexus point is a place where a lot of queer people will learn about the wealth of history for the first time. Our history is something that very few young queer singaporeans know. It's a fixer upper for sure, but it existence does matter in the local context. I wouldn't have been able to begin building my own resource to try and distill what it contains and help teach our history to other queer people here The SG LGBTQIA+ Timeline (it's still being worked on, a lot of copywriting and linking is needed) without the existence SG LGBT Encyclopedia. For me it is such as important source and piece work that taught me my history. (along with whatever i could find online)

This conversation has had many back and forths, more than I'd have liked to have gone into, so let me just say that I am willing to accept whatever the admins think is right here.

I definitely would like to move past this. And do agree that there is a bigger conversation about synthesized articles and understand it wasn't something that was in mind when building the wiki's policy, than I have capacity for.

I'm happy to accept the changes that fruitpit suggested with some changes to wording.

Sorry for the text wallOliviaparamour (talk) 11:19, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

My name is Fruipit, not Fruitpit.

I've added the rewrite from above to the page. I have not changed it from what I wrote because I don't have the time. If you want, you can change it. The source that consolidates it is the one that says "High Court dismisses challenges against law that criminalises sex between men. Fruipit 22:22, 13 February 2022 (UTC)