Jump to content

Talk:LGBT rights in Russia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 24.90.57.129 (talk) at 06:46, 8 February 2014 (→‎NPOV: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Article introduction (lede) — issues, arguments on what should and should not be there

To avoid unnecessary editing wars, it's better do discuss these issues here. I think, introduction to the article is a very important part of it (because many people do not like to waste their time on reading the whole article, when they only need to know the basics in their current status), so only the most important information should be there, no unnecessary phrases and specifications (only as notes, maybe, that you choose to read or not). So, we need to avoid this kind of unnecessary words, especially when you can read the same almost in every similar article about LGBT rights in different countries (now, thanks to Wikignome0529, the same phrase can be found almost in every similar article). Is it good or bad? Should we make every similar article look similar? I don't think so.
Well, at least now this new sentence looks better because of second part about last 2 decades advances. OK, let it be that way. But I still think it's not necessary to explain LGBT term when we have a link LGBT — if you don't know what it is, just check it out.
Moving on. I could really use some ideas or propositions on what should be added to introduction, and maybe something is redundant? The introduction is important (I repeat myself), so it should be perfect.
I intend to rewrite the whole article (and this time I'm serious — unlike those guys who claimed to do it but did absolutely nothing): remove some excessive information from the history (let's face it, there's too much of it — it's an encyclopedia, not a history book; we have links for those who want to know more, so here we gotta concentrate on major points); add more information about last 2 decades (that's what counts most); reorganize everything; concentrate more attention on important changes (like decriminalizing), rather than history. So, if anyone can help with reliable sources (even sources with English versions of Russian legislation), we could really use them (I had a real problem with citation of Russian legislation, it's really hard to find good, updated or even any sources at all)!
--K!r!lleXXI2¢ 20:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, K!r!lleXXI -- just wanted to touch on some of your comments.
I did not add the sentence in question to this article--though I did revert the removal of it due to the reason given. The US and Russian articles are both in the LGBT rights in country series, and sharing a similar intro sentence style isn't that big of a deal in itself. In no way are they required to share the same style though. As long as LGBT and Russia appear in the lede sentence, I don't object to any wording.
The phrasing (in its 2-sentence form) does appear in many (but not all) LGBT rights articles, ...many of which didn't even have a lede before it was added :-). It is just a basic intro which briefly describes the rights situation (varies slightly depending on the country's LGBT rights level). I do not care if any editor modifies them or replaces them with better alternatives.
Finally, most (but not all) people outside of the LGBT community have no idea whatsoever what LGBT means. Standard practice is to explain initialisms on first mention.
I like what you have done so far & good luck on further work. As far as deleting the older history goes though, maybe a possible alternative would be to split the Soviet content to its own article? (maybe something like Homosexuality in the Soviet Union, following the naming style of Homosexuality in China, India) Some former Soviet countries' LGBT rights articles refer to Soviet-era policies, and link to LGBT rights in Russia for more info (so having a centralized place for this rather than deleting it would make sense). Wikignome0529 (talk) 13:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Wikignome! Comments on your comments and more about recent edits.
I totally forgot that LGBT abbreviation is a part of the article header, so, you're right, it needs to be explained as standard practice requires, at least because it's a part of the header.
About older history. I've read it all a couple of weeks ago and I saw how much of it was completely unnecessary. I think I'll try to get all the necessary info and post it here, on the talk page, to see how much is that and if we need to expand it back. And if we don't need it, it would be safe to leave it here, it LGBT rights in Russia article (after all, there's not so much to say about LGBT history in Russia — not enough sources, not enougt important improvements, not enough evidence to prove some controversial points).
Now, about recent edits. Why do you think it's not good to have those wikilinks to LGBT and Russia in the first sentence of the lede, in bold? Is it some regulation again?
There is one more issue: female homosexuality was NEVER a crime in Russia throughout the history, only male homosexuality (muzhelozhstvo literally means men lying together in bed, but not literally it means anal sex between men). Females were never punished for same-sex sexual activities, but, of course, they were never approved by society. So, I think maybe it should be properly stated in your sentence starting with "Both male and female...".
--K!r!lleXXI2¢ 08:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I modified the lede per your coments (feel feel to edit my edit tho). Removed sentence 2 & 3 (these sentences are mainly needed on articles where the lede doesn't summarize things as well as this article's lede does -- basically it just means that sex is legal, but the legal benefits of opposite-sex married couples aren't available). The new sentence 2 (moved up) addresses male decriminalization -- and recognition of relationships is covered a few sentences down in the lede. (fwiw, I didn't add that sentence either.. a third user came along and added it since this discussion started (to this and other articles), probably unaware of the recent controversy :-D). Wikilinks in bolded title text is allowed on an as-few-as-possible if needed at all basis (MOS:BOLDTITLE) -- I guess it comes down to editor preference? (whether you like/dislike the bold blue links for cosmetic reasons). I won't be much help to your article imprrovements as I will be away from wikipedia for a few months (IRL reasons), but if you have any questions feel free to leave a message at WT:LGBT (WikiProject LGBT studies' talk page, which is very active). :-) Wikignome0529 (talk) 18:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I saw all the edits with first sentences, it's OK, no objections from me.
Sorry, that I said that you added those sentences everywhere (I just assumed it obviously, and for wrong reasons).
About wikilinks in bold. Here's an example from MOS:BOLDTITLE:
«Sodium hydroxide (NaOH), also known as lye, caustic soda and (incorrectly, according to IUPAC nomenclature) sodium hydrate, is ...»
which is exactly the same as:
«Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) persons in Russia may face legal challenges ...»
Both words LGBT and Russia are part of the article title, both are important — that's why I wanted to have those two words in the first sentence on their first appearance to be links and in bold (these words should stand out to make a reader understand that one is reading not just about some rights, but about LGBT rights, and not just somewhere, but in Russia).
Thanks for the link to WikiProject (and for other useful links, too) — I would probably post something there when in need!
--K!r!lleXXI2¢ 18:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
New History section for this article in progress — leave your feedback on talk page if necessary

Military service issue

On one hand, there is no official prohibition for gay people to serve in the military (I also added a citation by Valery Kulikov, the Major-General of the Medical Service, who confirmed it). On the other hand, military authorities recomment gay people to hide their sexual orientation:

So, some questions arise:

  • Can it be called a non-official policy like US's "Don't ask, don't tell"?
  • Does it mean that gay people can't serve in the military openly (that's the question in Summary table section)?

These are important questions, because the answers also can and should be used to edit other articles (with tables and lists, like LGBT rights and LGBT rights in Europe — both currently state that gays are allowed to serve openly in Russian military).

--K!r!lleXXI (talk) 16:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you summarized it pretty good here... (officially allowed to serve, but with the issues you mentioned). It doesn't sound like Don't ask, don't tell -- as under DADT, you are just discharged from the military, instead of being beaten up. Wikignome0529 (talk) 18:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Homosexuality itself is not banned.

It seems that someone tried to put content about homosexuality (and same-sex intercourse) being illegal onto this page. Perhaps it should be restricted, so that vandalism is more difficult? Nuke (talk) 17:45, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Federal ban on homosexual propaganda is adopted on 11 June 2013

Do we still need the list of regions, maps, etc of the regions bunning it locally? Alex Bakharev (talk) 03:50, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

controversy bit needs better wording

It previously said: "Russian laws have sparked a major controversy around the world, leading to an argument over the word propaganda, since homosexuality cannot be taught."

I removed everything after the first comma. It's basically true but not worded in the way it should be. Any talk or materials in favor of any political issue is propaganda, by definition, but that's really a neutral thing, and not what needs to be said here. Someone more skilled than I needs to tackle this if more detail is warranted. 108.16.222.138 (talk) 00:15, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Misinformation?

I think this article contains misinformation:

1. There is no ban on homosexual propaganda in the Russian Federation.

2. There is a law banning promotion to minors of homosexual relations.

3. This law was signed by the President on 30 June 2013, not 11 June 2013.

Source: http://eng.kremlin.ru/by-keyword/85

--Hors-la-loi 07:54, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

International reactions and boycott

There is a push by numerous IPs for a sentence in the section lead to look like: The laws were at the same time heavily support and heavily criticized and the gay community commenced a boycott of Russian goods.... Firstly, it is a bad grammar but more importantly it is not supported by the section text that shows numerous examples of international criticism but no examples of international support. I guess if the law was "heavily supported" than it would be easy to find examples of international support. Without those examples the lead with "heavily support" does not make sense. Alex Bakharev (talk) 08:01, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Besides, the assertion: "Lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (LGBT) persons in the Russian Federation have faced increasing restrictions of their rights in recent years" is not supported by what follows. Gay parading has been banned, yes, - but, as several commentators noted, heterosexual ‘parades’ would have been banned too. And does the ban on "distribution of ‘propaganda of non-traditional sexual relations’ to minors" amounts to the LGBT 'rights restriction'? - no. Most allegations here have to do with non-recognition (of gay marriages, etc), rather than repression/restriction. -- Evermore2 (talk) 11:49, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well try to edit the article using reliable secondary source. The problem IMHO is that there is no definition of what "propaganda to minor" means, and so there is reasonable expectation that the law might be interpreted very broadly: any non completely secret manifestation of homosexuality, any vow to tolerance might be interpreted as a propaganda to minors. Theoretically, in the Soviet times criticism of the government was not forbidden, only libel and treason was. But on practice... I will be interesting to see the first precedents of applications of the new law. Madonna was acquitted, if the memory serves me well, who else? Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:16, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

splitting?

What is everyone else's thought about splitting out recent events into a new article - the 2013 ban on "homosexual propaganda" and the consequent protests, international comments, etc.? Similar to eg. Uganda Anti-Homosexuality Bill as a separate article from LGBT rights in Uganda. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:31, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exaggerations in the introduction

Paragraph three of the introduction has some problems. I tried to fix these but they were reverted back.

  1. The phrase “developed democracies around the world” in the first sentence is misleading. The only countries in the citations are Denmark, Germany and Australia.
  2. Most of the second sentence is wrong. Before the propaganda bill passed the Office said the law might be discriminatory. After it passed they criticized similar Eastern European laws but did not criticize the Russian law directly.
  3. The European Court of Human Rights fine happened in 2010. So not recent enough to be in the introduction.

Roy X. Bland (talk) 21:13, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign leaders not attending Sochi Winter Olympics

Article should mention that leaders of several foreign governments have taken the unusual step of announcing they will not be attending the Winter Olympics games in Russia, and that commentators say a major reason for this is the leaders's opposition to the Russian government's treatment of LGBT people and other human rights issues. 95.141.27.43 (talk) 20:34, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discrimination against LGBT parents, and in adoption

Article should discuss efforts proposed by some Russian leaders to take children of same-sex parents away from their parents. Also, the law banning adoption of Russian children by citizens of countries that allow same-sex marriage (even if the foreigners who want to adopt Russian children are not LGBT). 95.141.27.43 (talk) 20:40, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ban on homosexual relations propaganda TO MINORS

I see this all over mass media and, surprisingly, here too. The law (primary source) LITERALLY says the following:

Law On Amendments to Article 5 of the Federal Law On Protecting Children from Information Harmful to their Health and Development and to Certain Legislative Acts of the Russian Federation with the Aim of Protecting Children from Information that Promotes Negation of Traditional Family Values. ( http://eng.kremlin.ru/by-keyword/85 )

Therefore I changed the title Bans on "homosexual propaganda" to Bans on "homosexual propaganda to minors"

However, Sportfan5000 reverted it claiming it is vague.

I re-applied my "to minors" addition again, because it's a FACT (proven by primary source), since the law LITERALLY has the word "children" twice in its name.

Kornerr (talk) 06:32, 2 February 2014 (UTC) Michael[reply]

We follow what the reliable sources call it - and that is a ban on gay propaganda no matter what Putin is trying to sell. Sportfan5000 (talk) 01:52, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me. Primary source IS THE MOST reliable source. No matter what your media is trying to tell you. I revert you back, dude. Learn to study, ok? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.196.60.235 (talk) 03:23, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And the primary source is the law cited by me. You CAN'T declare you secondary sources being MORE RELIABLE.Kornerr (talk) 03:26, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:Primary, on Wikipedia we stress using reliable independent sources, instead of primary sources. It may not seem to make sense but that is part of WP:NPOV. Sportfan5000 (talk) 03:52, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please, provide your "more reliable" sources then.Kornerr (talk) 03:56, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's just a few from the first pages of searching. Sportfan5000 (talk) 04:14, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So far I've read the first article. It only contains personal opinions. According to WP:NEWSORG "News sources often contain both factual content and opinion content", "When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability", "If the statement is not authoritative, attribute the opinion to the author in the text of the article and do not represent it as fact". I conclude the first article is NOT a RELIABLE source. I ask for more time to read the rest articles and present my findings.Kornerr (talk) 14:23, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The second article is a list of opinions, too. Therefore it's also NOT a RELIABLE source.Kornerr (talk) 14:35, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The third article is just a reprint of the previous The Guardian article.Kornerr (talk) 14:42, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The fourth article is really interesting. I need to take more time to investigate it.Kornerr (talk) 17:28, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I leave the fourth article for later talk as it requires further discussion. For now, the fifth article is op-ed. According to WP:NEWSORG "outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact". Therefore it's NOT a RELIABLE source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kornerr (talk • contribs) 04:15, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
These are all reliable sources for the fact they use the more general phrase "Gay Propaganda" to refer to the laws in Russia. That is the point, that news organizations use the phrase in the title of their articles. Here's a few more:
These all use the phrase gay propaganda, in the title of the articles no less. Sportfan5000 (talk) 05:23, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Gimme time to search for titles with minors then.Kornerr (talk) 08:17, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I never objected what mass media calls it. This Wikipedia article is NOT about what mass media calls it, right? It's about the law and its application. Not how anybody calls it.Kornerr (talk) 08:21, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a couple of links where titles contain children:
Nevertheless, we are NOT discussing the titles of mass media articles. We're discussing the LAW. And your "reliable sources" don't provide information on exceeding what LAW says. Therefore one cannot make a biased section name simply following titles of news organziations.Kornerr (talk) 08:55, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually we follow what the majority of sources state and the consensus among the media has been matched by what the critics state, that although Putin insists this is to protect children, it is both an underhanded way to suggest that LGBT are out to harm children, but also is so vague that any expression of sexuality that isn't heterosexual violates the ban. As well any LGBT rights, networking, socializing, or culture activities, of any kind, can also be seen as violating the ban. That is why it is generally termed anti-gay propaganda ban rather than anything just pertaining to protecting children. Sportfan5000 (talk) 09:02, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The majority of sources, as I've already showed, simply reprint the same list of opinions. These make all that "majority" of sources "unreliable".Kornerr (talk) 09:07, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The vast majority refer generally to the ban on gay propaganda, and the vast majority don't even mention that the anti-gay laws are about protecting children, likely that they see right through smoke screen. Sportfan5000 (talk) 09:35, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's biased mass media, nothing more. I can't see any reason why Wikipedia should have that same bias.Kornerr (talk) 12:45, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is duly noted as your opinion, and neither my opinion or yours determines what is reported in the article, only reliable sources do, and independent ones are valued more than primary ones. In this particular case, even though the official law cites protecting minors as integral, the vast majority of sources see it only as being against any gay propaganda, and that is so vague as to shut down all LGBT culture, loosely defined. Sportfan5000 (talk) 22:36, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do support this change per WP:NPOV, as "anti-gay" falls the requirement in which "A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone. Do not editorialize." ViperSnake151  Talk  01:29, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As has already been explained to you, we do not go by our opinions of the subject but by what reliable sources state. The vast majority call the laws anti-gay, the ban is against "gay propaganda", and the fact that the law was technically citing minors as the focus, has fooled no media outlets. The ban is so vague and so generalized as to prohibit any form of support for LGBT people or culture. Sportfan5000 (talk) 01:41, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Those sources are not reliable by Wikipedia standards.Kornerr (talk) 03:00, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They most certainly are, they are the very definition of reliable sources. Sportfan5000 (talk) 03:33, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The way I see it is what WP:NEWSORG says: "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." Which means those articles you linked are only reliable sources for corresponding authors' opinions, but NOT on the subject of the law and its application.Kornerr (talk) 04:19, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Only some of the many articles are opinion pieces, and for our purposes here even the opinion pieces make the same point, that the media report this as anti-gay legislation, prohibiting all gay propaganda, loosely defined so as to shut down all LGBT culture. Sportfan5000 (talk) 12:18, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some articles about the law in Russian, all mentioning children in the titles:
As you see, there are LOTS of "reliable sources" having "children" in the title.Kornerr (talk) 13:03, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, it is completely unsurprising that Russian media would parrot what their president says, even word for word, what is surprising, and notable, is when they don't. And if this were the Russian Wikipedia you would have a more valid point in that the Russian Wikipedia would express a Russian-centric POV. This is the English language Wikipedia which is essentially global so we look for what the world has said on this issue. Be that as it is let me go through each of these sources the best I can:
1. This source uses gay propaganda in it's title, so you're actually bolstering my point. It's also from just after the law was enacted so it's not terribly critical at all, just reporting what the law says.
2. This source uses gay propaganda in it's title, so you're actually bolstering my point. It's also from just after the law was enacted so it's not terribly critical at all, just reporting what the law says.
3. This source is rehashing a The Washington Post article but substituting all references of gay with homosexual.
4. This source uses gay propaganda in it's title, so you're actually bolstering my point. It's also from just after the law was enacted so it's not terribly critical at all, just reporting what the law says.
5. This source uses gay propaganda in it's title, so you're actually bolstering my point. It's also from just after the law was enacted so it's not terribly critical at all, just reporting what the law says.
6. I like this one, it matter of factly does report on the law, a recent development for that area, but then reports the one-sided treatment against the law's protesters, and how outside media see it as vague - "The newspaper notes that in southern Russia in the public debate, for example, has already sounded the view that stage outfits British singer Elton John, on the basis of these definitions, can also be considered "homosexual propaganda." Voluminous wording and definitions of law, the publication can be attributed to this kind of crime counseling gay teens, as well as advice on safe sex with homosexual contacts."
7. This source uses gay propaganda in it's title, so you're actually bolstering my point. It's also from just after the law was enacted so it's not terribly critical at all, just reporting what the law says.
8. This source is rehashing someone else's article credited only to a 'foreign source', let me look …

Original version: "27 Nobel laureates join Sir Ian McKellen to protest over Russia's gay ‘propaganda’ ban"
Russian version: "27 Nobel Prize winners in various fields have asked Russian President Vladimir Putin to repeal the law banning promotion of homosexuality among minors"

I'll keep thinking what more NPOV wording could be used while still being accurate to the sources, I appreciate you looking for some and taking the time to post them here. Sportfan5000 (talk) 13:39, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how I bolstered your point. I presented articles with "to minors" reducing your "vast majority" of sources to "majority", at least. And if we take article contents, even some links you provided mention "to minority". My point is you can't cut words out of the law title, because then you can end up with "ban on gay" or "ban on propaganda" which make no sense, just as omitting "to minors". And removing "to minors" you're making it biased to a view shared by majority of English papers, but not all and everywhere.Kornerr (talk) 14:12, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It bolsters my point in that the section is not just about the very narrow concern of "homosexual propaganda to minors", homosexual by the way, considered pejorative to use when talking about gay and lesbian people, but about what the vast majority of sources call a ban on gay propaganda. The section speaks of the broader issue, this is not just an article about the law itself but the international backlash and outcry over it, even if most Russians say they support it. The section can certainly talk about what the actual law states, that it is vague, and that it uses children to justify the sweeping ban. But the title should be expressing a NPOV and in this case, it is that the majority of sources call it a ban on gay propaganda. Sportfan5000 (talk) 14:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've reread most of the section and no, it does not talk about broader issue, it only talks about 1) local laws predating the national law and 2) the national law and its reaction. So the whole section is just about the law. The article itself IS about a broader issue.Kornerr (talk) 14:52, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you're not seeing the sub-section further down that is also contained in the same section - LGBT rights in Russia#International reactions and boycott. Sportfan5000 (talk) 15:04, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just as the subsection title says - it's about reactions to the LAW, except for the end of the paragraph starting with "The European Court of Human Rights had previously fined Russia for other infringements of LGBT rights". That one is definitely not reaction to the law, but everything else IS. So it seems to me the section should be renamed to "Law banning homosexual relations propaganda to minors". The broader "The European Court of Human Rights had previously fined Russia for other infringements of LGBT rights" should probably be moved somewhere else.Kornerr (talk) 15:17, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, the reliable sources do not support that reading. And using homosexual is wildly offensive and unnecessary. I'm afraid we should not be quoting the law as you suggest it the title for the section, it doesn't improve the article or help the readers to title it that way. It just offends people needlessly and misleads the rest that the blowback is somehow tied to not being concerned about children which is exactly the opposite of the truth. Homophobic legislation like this has been proven to cause harm to LGBT people, family members, and LGBT families. If everything focussed on the concern over protecting minors the worldwide press would be quite clear on that, they aren't. Instead it's majority been about the ban on gay propaganda, and the damage such legislation brings, along with the predictable but lamentable violence against LGBT people. Sportfan5000 (talk) 15:58, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the section does NOT talk about broader issue (except for 4 lines), only about the local laws and the national LAW and reactions to the latter. And some "reliable sources" take care of correctly quoting "to minors" from the law title. So "reliable sources" very well support 2 views: with and without minors.Kornerr (talk) 16:15, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I must disagree with you on that as well. At least half of the entire section is about the broader issue that it is not just about minors. And the parts that are about minors could be cleaned up greatly as well. Think of the children seems to be going on in the country, but the rest of the world just isn't buying it, and Sochi has heightened the world's attention on the issues. Every day new stories are coming out and they are about the gay propaganda ban, and almost nothing about protecting children. Sportfan5000 (talk) 16:35, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That half (reaction) is just a list of personal opinions by celebrities bearing no meaning to the law itself. And I'm yet to see a single story where people have been punished by the law NOT according to the law. I'm willing to share my investigations on that fourth article I haven't had chance to discuss, about Ermoshkin's interview. That was the single story to date about the FIRST law application. 1) The paper was marked 16+, but minors are up to 18+, and 2) the specialist (Kalugina) in the field made clear the information contained was harmful to minors. But the fourth link you brought up said NOTHING about that. So, I'm sorry, I don't buy your buying as I see clear bias of English newspapers. And NPOV doesn't buy it either. I think we need higher authority to resolve the dispute.Kornerr (talk) 16:57, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how to bring higher authority in for the final decision, so I kindly ask you to do it or explain how I can do it.Kornerr (talk) 17:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm tempted to start an RFC. Sportfan5000 has been systematically forcing all the articles mentioning this ordeal to conform to their opinion on it, and there seems to be no definite consensus. I think "anti-gay" is still inaccurate because homosexuality is only part of LGBT (in fact, AT&T's statement in support of the protest said "anti-LGBT"), and the law says "promotion of non-traditional sexual relations to minors". ViperSnake151  Talk  04:11, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think this article needs some clean-up work which might address both sides of the dispute. Regardless homosexual remains a pejorative way to refer to LGBT people so that has to be used only when quoting the law itself, and only in the article, not a section title. And although anti-LGBT is used, by far the most common phrasing is anti-gay, gay propaganda ban. No one has suggested the laws wording can't be used in the article, just that it is not appropriate for a section title, and is misleading as well. Everyone pretty much knows what gay propaganda ban, whereas the purposefully deceptive "non-traditional sexual relations to minors" has been called out already by international media. It was the same argument to cite "traditional marriage" or "Biblical marriage," which has meant many marriage arrangements that were not one man, one woman. Sportfan5000 (talk) 04:26, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please do it? I'm newbie here, so I don't know exactly what to do.Kornerr (talk) 15:50, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RFC on how to refer to the laws

The term "anti-gay law" and "gay propaganda" has been used in multiple articles to refer to the Russian ban on the promotion of "non-traditional sexual relations" to minors, only because it has been commonly used by sources. It has been pointed out that the term may be inaccurate or loaded, as it is inferred that the law covers LGBT relations and not just homosexuality, and our choice of wording may also infer a complete ban on homosexuality or similar, mis-representing the actual "intent" of the law. It has been suggested that different and more neutral terms be used (such as those using the term "LGBT" or "non-traditional" sexual relations) in the articles, with exact wording depending on how it is referenced. ViperSnake151  Talk  19:24, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a bit convoluted, IMO. No one disputes how to refer to the law as the obvious answer everyone agrees has been - both ways. Both directly quoting the language in the law, and how the majority of sources view it. As far as I can tell the only sticking point is what is the best title for the section. Do you agree? If so we should simplify this so the discussion remains more focussed and constructive. Sportfan5000 (talk) 20:54, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the wording should be as close to the primary source as possible since 99% of section is about the law and its reaction. Also, I think we need to expand it with its first application: the newspaper's fine due to Ermoshkin's interview. Kornerr (talk) 02:28, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Could you address my question directly before we discuss? As far as I can tell the only (or main) sticking point is what is the best title for the section. Do you agree? Sportfan5000 (talk) 02:43, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not. We're deciding on how we actually refer to it on the articles. i.e. "the gay propaganda law". And where's your proof about how the word "homosexual" is offensive? ViperSnake151  Talk  03:18, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, let's start there. Here is an overview on why the term is considered offensive, at least to arguably the majority of English speaking countries. I think this RfC is malformed then from your response as it's a non-issue is we should avoid using what the majority of reliable sources state and stick only with what he lawmakers voted on. That's just not how it works. We go by the best reliable sources and the only ones presented have vastly used "gay propaganda" referring to these issues. Sportfan5000 (talk) 04:19, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is one used more than another in the sources we're using? Thargor Orlando (talk) 04:59, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, of the sources we are able to use the vast majority refer to the law as being about "gay propaganda" and generally don't focus on the issue of if this really is about protecting children. Sportfan5000 (talk) 05:17, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then the logical result would be to use "gay propaganda," perhaps in quotes to better serve the sources and the real-world-implications? Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:34, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree. Sportfan5000 (talk) 13:42, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All that "majority of sources" just list opinions. So why not call the section "Mass media opinions on gay propaganda law"?Kornerr (talk) 06:09, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A summary of sources that have been provided so far and discussion about what they support for language to be used
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
These all use the phrase gay propaganda, in the title of the articles no less. Sportfan5000 (talk) 05:23, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a couple of links where titles contain children:
Nevertheless, we are NOT discussing the titles of mass media articles. We're discussing the LAW. And your "reliable sources" don't provide information on exceeding what LAW says. Therefore one cannot make a biased section name simply following titles of news organziations.Kornerr (talk) 08:55, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually we follow what the majority of sources state and the consensus among the media has been matched by what the critics state, that although Putin insists this is to protect children, it is both an underhanded way to suggest that LGBT are out to harm children, but also is so vague that any expression of sexuality that isn't heterosexual violates the ban. As well any LGBT rights, networking, socializing, or culture activities, of any kind, can also be seen as violating the ban. That is why it is generally termed anti-gay propaganda ban rather than anything just pertaining to protecting children. Sportfan5000 (talk) 09:02, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some articles about the law in Russian, all mentioning children in the titles:
As you see, there are LOTS of "reliable sources" having "children" in the title.Kornerr (talk) 13:03, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, it is completely unsurprising that Russian media would parrot what their president says, even word for word, what is surprising, and notable, is when they don't. And if this were the Russian Wikipedia you would have a more valid point in that the Russian Wikipedia would express a Russian-centric POV. This is the English language Wikipedia which is essentially global so we look for what the world has said on this issue. Be that as it is let me go through each of these sources the best I can:
1. This source uses gay propaganda in it's title, so you're actually bolstering my point. It's also from just after the law was enacted so it's not terribly critical at all, just reporting what the law says.
2. This source uses gay propaganda in it's title, so you're actually bolstering my point. It's also from just after the law was enacted so it's not terribly critical at all, just reporting what the law says.
3. This source is rehashing a The Washington Post article but substituting all references of gay with homosexual.
4. This source uses gay propaganda in it's title, so you're actually bolstering my point. It's also from just after the law was enacted so it's not terribly critical at all, just reporting what the law says.
5. This source uses gay propaganda in it's title, so you're actually bolstering my point. It's also from just after the law was enacted so it's not terribly critical at all, just reporting what the law says.
6. I like this one, it matter of factly does report on the law, a recent development for that area, but then reports the one-sided treatment against the law's protesters, and how outside media see it as vague - "The newspaper notes that in southern Russia in the public debate, for example, has already sounded the view that stage outfits British singer Elton John, on the basis of these definitions, can also be considered "homosexual propaganda." Voluminous wording and definitions of law, the publication can be attributed to this kind of crime counseling gay teens, as well as advice on safe sex with homosexual contacts."
7. This source uses gay propaganda in it's title, so you're actually bolstering my point. It's also from just after the law was enacted so it's not terribly critical at all, just reporting what the law says.
8. This source is rehashing someone else's article credited only to a 'foreign source', let me look …

Original version: "27 Nobel laureates join Sir Ian McKellen to protest over Russia's gay ‘propaganda’ ban"
Russian version: "27 Nobel Prize winners in various fields have asked Russian President Vladimir Putin to repeal the law banning promotion of homosexuality among minors"

I'll keep thinking what more NPOV wording could be used while still being accurate to the sources, I appreciate you looking for some and taking the time to post them here. Sportfan5000 (talk) 13:39, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Oppose

Discussion

NPOV

This article is ridicolously one sides.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:LGBT_rights_in_Russia&oldid=594479631"