Talk:2013 Tbilisi anti-homophobia rally protests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Georgia (country) (Rated Stub-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Georgia (country), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Georgia and Georgians on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject LGBT studies (Rated Stub-class)
WikiProject icon This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 

Title[edit]

I moved it because these were really anti-anti-homophobic protests; the title suggested that there were just anti-homophobic protests, not both an anti-homophobic rally as well as people protesting against that. The new title seems a bit awkward though. I guess it could just be "2013 Tbilisi anti-homophobic rally", but it seems like the anti-rally protests were what gained significant notability, thus including both. Or maybe "rally and protests" to be a bit less clunky, but that's even longer... – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 22:47, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Maybe we can rename it to "2013 Tbilisi International Day Against Homophobia rally"? The protests were a reaction to the rally. --Երևանցի talk 22:57, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
That sounds reasonable, although it leaves the protests out of the title, though I guess it's part of the overall event. (And including the proper name as proposed follows WP:UCN, which is good.) And yeah, noting that the protests were a reaction was what I was trying to accomplish, but I'm not sure it fits without being awkward. So your suggestion seems fine; the information on the counter-protest is in the article. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 23:07, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

The current title is not neutral and does not meet the criteria of WP:NPOV. Who disagree with the extension of rights LMBT people, he or she will not be automatically homophobic. --Norden1990 (talk) 13:27, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The title also seems awkward and ambiguous. A "homophobic" would be an anti-homosexual, but what is an "anti-homophobic?" This suggests to me someone who is against those who are anti-homosexual, and this is not supported by the context of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SL1358 (talkcontribs) 14:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The rally is called "anti-homophobia rally", and protests against rally are "anti-homophobia rally protests". Do you have better suggestion?--В и к и T 16:42, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Simply "2013 Tbilisi rally protests" or "2013 Tbilisi LGBT rally protests". --Norden1990 (talk) 22:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
The first example is too broad. With the second example, "LGBT rally" suggests that it was a rally in support of LGBT rights; but that's not the case, it was specifically a rally against homophobia. A name including "International Day Against Homophobia" might make sense, but that's just going to be even longer, and per my previous comment leaves out the "protests" part. I think the current title, despite being a bit clunky, does address the situation well. (The event was people protesting against people who were demonstrating against people who are against LGBT people. So that gets kinda convoluted no matter what. :) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 23:17, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

"Clashes"[edit]

Currently, the article only states "clashes broke out", but does not states who attacked whom. That must be clearly emphasized. Who is responsible for clashes? --В и к и T 14:23, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I've copyedited it to clarify this. It would probably be helpful if someone who speaks Georgian can take a look at local sources for further information. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 15:34, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
"20,000 priests" is obviously inaccurate. According to Georgian_Orthodox_Church#Present-day_status, there are only 730 priests in the whole Georgia.--В и к и T 21:04, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Should've read the sources better instead of going by the existing material; that number applies to the supporters. You can always fix it, though I did so since that kind of incorrect reference could be a BLP issue. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 21:59, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

LGBT[edit]

Yet again I demonstrate my ignorance. What is "LGBT?" It is thrown into the article with no definition, no defining context, and no reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SL1358 (talkcontribs) 14:36, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The term has been wikilinked now; thanks for calling our attention to this lack. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:20, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I can't read Georgian[edit]

Could somebody expand the tiny stub I created on Identoba, using sources from this article and provided at their websites? --Orange Mike | Talk 15:14, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Bias in article[edit]

I personally think that the article is biased for those in favor of homosexual marraige and other benefits. I am personally against them, but I just want an NPOV article, and I think that the way it's currently written breaks that. --XndrK 17:41, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

"Homosexual marriage" is not mentioned anywhere in the article. Please explain which part of the article is biased. --В и к и T 18:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
XndrK: if you think people advocating a different position from yourself on these issues should be beaten by mobs of thugs, and consider it biased for us to report when others object, then perhaps you would be more comfortable at Conservapedia. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Where did XndrK say any such thing? Your uncivil response, Orangemike, only proves his point about biased editing. μηδείς (talk) 19:57, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
The article reports that people peacefully and legally advocating a different position than XndrK were brutally attacked and beaten; and that the world condemned it. XndrK calls this reporting "biased for those in favor of homosexual marraige and other benefits". Seriously, μηδείς my polyglot friend, how else can I read this criticism, than as an advocacy of such beatings? --Orange Mike | Talk 20:12, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The only Bias is "In the news" item, currently on the Main Page, which describes the event as "clashes between activists and members of the Georgian Orthodox Church", implying that both sides used violence.--В и к и T 21:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

XndrK, if he still sees bias here, does need to clarify exactly what it is. But whether he disagrees on what the facts are, or just the wording chosen, that does not in itself amount to a call for violence. The proper solution for XndrK would be to quote good reliable sources that describe things the way he believes is the case. The focus should be on the exact concrete claims of the article, not each other's motives. μηδείς (talk) 02:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)