Talk:LGBT rights in Russia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


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

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)
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)

Military service issue[edit]

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)

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)

Homosexuality itself is not banned.[edit]

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)

Federal ban on homosexual propaganda is adopted on 11 June 2013[edit]

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)

controversy bit needs better wording[edit]

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)

Misinformation?[edit]

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[edit]

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)

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)
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)

splitting?[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 01:31, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Exaggerations in the introduction[edit]

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)

Foreign leaders not attending Sochi Winter Olympics[edit]

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)

Discrimination against LGBT parents, and in adoption[edit]

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)

Ban on homosexual relations propaganda TO MINORS[edit]

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

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)
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)
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)
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)
Please, provide your "more reliable" sources then.Kornerr (talk) 03:56, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
That's just a few from the first pages of searching. Sportfan5000 (talk) 04:14, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
The third article is just a reprint of the previous The Guardian article.Kornerr (talk) 14:42, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
The fourth article is really interesting. I need to take more time to investigate it.Kornerr (talk) 17:28, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
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 (talkcontribs) 04:15, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
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)
OK. Gimme time to search for titles with minors then.Kornerr (talk) 08:17, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Those sources are not reliable by Wikipedia standards.Kornerr (talk) 03:00, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
They most certainly are, they are the very definition of reliable sources. Sportfan5000 (talk) 03:33, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

RFC on how to refer to the laws[edit]

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Is one used more than another in the sources we're using? Thargor Orlando (talk) 04:59, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
I completely agree. Sportfan5000 (talk) 13:42, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
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)

Support[edit]

  • Support use of less POV language than "anti-gay law"; while I personally agree the laws in question are "anti-gay" we should be exceptionally careful, even if used colloquially by otherwise RS, about abbreviating statutes to the point of the "anti-X" or the "pro-X" law ... regardless as to how cut and dry it may or may not be here, this is a slippery slope down which we should not descend BlueSalix (talk) 02:08, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
    WP:NPOV dictates we should follow what the majority of sources state, although we should be NPOV while doing so. I think we have come up with some solutions on other articles that basically state that media outlets have characterized the laws as anti-gay. Sportfan5000 (talk) 22:16, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
    I'm aware that U.S. and western European media outlets have characterized the laws as anti-gay. BlueSalix (talk) 00:16, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
    They are not the only ones, even Russian media outlets have done so. In any case i think we have worked out some solutions, including to emphasize who is characterizing the laws as anti-gay so as to attribute the language. Sportfan5000 (talk) 03:23, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
    Which Russian outlets? BlueSalix (talk) 07:36, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I think the question here is a little vague to give a very useful answer, but in general I think we should use something that sounds more formal than "anti-gay law" or "gay propaganda". The article title Russian LGBT propaganda law has it about right, in my opinion. The fact that many of the newspaper sources listed above put "gay propaganda" in scare quotes should be a giveaway that they don't consider the term strictly neutral. Having said this, I agree with SportsFan that we should note exactly what the law says, and that we should also note the fact that the law has been called "anti-gay". It looks like the section in question already does that, so I don't have any real objections there. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 00:45, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Oppose[edit]

Discussion[edit]

NPOV[edit]

This article is ridicolously one sides. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.57.129 (talk) 06:46, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Can you elaborate what information is missing or what data are undue? If there is no indication of a dispute I would remove the tags Alex Bakharev (talk) 04:25, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
    • 1) The law talks about non-traditional sexual relations propaganda, not gay one. 2) All linked papers list opinions on "how bad it is".Kornerr (talk) 08:10, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
        1. I see the dispute regarding the title of the section about the propaganda law. If the dispute is regarding this particular section (actually section title), I think we should label the particular section with {{POV-section}} rather than the whole article
        2. Have somebody removed any references to the positive opinions about the law? If not, I would recommend to add those opinions (if they are notable). Anyway this is about the same section about the law, right? Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:25, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
          1. It was so at the beginning. But in the end we found out that the section does not (except for 4 lines) cover broader issues (real life examples, etc), only the law and its reception. So I thought it would be best to rename the law section to match the official document as close as possible, and add another section with real life examples.
          2. Not that I know of.Kornerr (talk) 04:15, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
            1. The solution here is to avoid the section title that either side opposes as just use propaganda laws which no one has disputed, additionally the first sentences can explain the exact language and criticism. Sportfan5000 (talk) 22:18, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
    • This looks to be a drive-by shame tagging of sorts, unless the poster is willing to engage and explain their concerns the tag should be removed so we can focus on more specific concerns. Sportfan5000 (talk) 02:12, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
      • I've actually been, in my sandbox, starting an article on the law itself in a more neutral manner. ViperSnake151  Talk  22:25, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
        • Some of the entries here can be moved to the Olympic protests article, eventually the most prominent ones could be summarized here. Sportfan5000 (talk) 22:41, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

"among the most hostile ... in the world"[edit]

In the section "Homophobia in Russia", the sentence "Public opinion in Russia tends to be among the most hostile toward homosexuality in the world—outside predominantly Muslim countries and some parts of Africa and Asia—and the level of intolerance has been rising." appears not to be backed by the source given at all. Additionally, it is highly misleading. Based on the numbers given in the various sources, it seems that hostility toward homosexuality is slightly lower than average in Russia, and pretty much the only countries less hostile are those in the West, along with Israel, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea, and South Africa, and China by a slight margin according to some sources, and the Philippines according to some sources. The rest of Africa, the Muslim countries in Asia (minus Lebanon), India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Albania and Burma (combined population approximately 3.6 billion) are more hostile. --Yair rand (talk) 07:32, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Removal of 'hate' (crime) and thriving[edit]

@92.16.59.242: removed the 'hate' from hate crime and thriving from LGBT community. See diff. The removal of hate was on the grounds of 'hate crime' not being recognized under Russian law. However, this is irrelevant to the description of the crime, which is a Hate crime. Thriving is deemed POV. I disagree on both counts. Jonpatterns (talk) 18:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Some choose to describe some crimes as hate crimes. They are even recognised as such in a few countries. That doesn't mean Wikipedia takes that style guide. 92.16.59.242 (talk) 18:45, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Hate crime is the correct term even if Russia does not formerly approve or like it. This is common when minorities are discriminated against. Sportfan5000 (talk) 19:48, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Agree, I guess Russia hasn't read WP:COMMONNAME. ViperSnake151  Talk  20:07, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Apparently Russia does recognize hate crime against race, ethnicity and religion but not against sexual orientation. The definition is fairly straight forward "prejudice motivated crime that occurs when a perpetrator targets a victim because of his or her perceived membership in a certain social group"Jonpatterns (talk) 10:59, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Anton Krasovsky - fired or resigned?[edit]

English-language press report that Krasovsky was fired from his position as anchor for Kontr TV. Krasovsky said in an interview with CNN that was broadcast 13 August 2013 that he had been fired:

ANDERSON: And tell me exactly what happened.

KRASOVSKY: After that, I was fired. Right then, right that night, I was fired by (inaudible).

ANDERSON: And any evidence of what you did was entirely deleted from the internet, apparently, right? Am I correct in saying that? As if it had never happened.

KRASOVSKY: Sure. Of course. Of course.

ANDERSON: Who did that, do you think? Was that a Kremlin direction?

KRASOVSKY: Yes, perhaps. Maybe.

The snob.ru article from 6 February 2013 that is being cited to support the claim that Krasovsky resigned (English version here) does not actually show Krasovsky saying that he resigned. What it says is:

Krasovsky: Then they immediately blocked all my corporative accounts, my email. Literally immediately, overnight. They deleted not only my face from the website, but also all of my TV shows, as if I’d never really existed. The next day I wrote to Minaev that I was totally shocked. Because it takes them half a day to put up a banner when I ask them to, and here we had such efficiency. One could say they can when they want to. Now they’ve put everything back, but you couldn’t say why, really.

Sokolova: Did Sergey Minaev call you?

Krasovsky: No, he didn’t call me. Nobody called me. It was a romance of one short text from the company’s CEO, Sergey Komarov. I am sure that this was the text message not from Komarov, but from Minaev himself. Its meaning was I could come and pack my things on Monday. After that, on Sunday, when all of us had calmed down, sobered up and understood that someone had to do the work, we started to think how to keep a straight face, as if nothing had happened, an how to preserve a status quo. But I didn’t want to preserve anything. I was offered something that I simply could not accept.


A Russian-language publication (Lenta.ru) in a different February 2013 article said that the TV company CEO, Sergey Komarov, said that Krasovsky had resigned. Komarov said that he had evidence to prove this: he posted a screencap of what he claimed was a tweet or message from Krasovsky that supposedly said Krasovsky could no longer work for such a company.

The tweet and screencap seem to be at [1]

There are issues of WP:BLP and WP:NPOV involved in how Wikipedia discusses this.

Can someone who speaks Russian translate the messages from Komarov's tweet and screencap? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.141.27.46 (talk) 03:23, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

The screencap shows a message from Krasovsky to Komarov saying "So, I can't work any longer for your network where I don't mean anything. Happy Birthday". The tweet by Komarov says "OK. You say you can't work. Request granted." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 0x60 (talkcontribs) 17:23, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
While we're at it, it should be noted that in Russia people are often fired through a fake resignation. There are two factors: firstly, employers here often use recommendation letters from previous employers when hiring, secondly, they are required by law to pay a (large) compensation when they fire someone. Thus, when they want to fire someone, they offer him/her a choice: resign and get a positive recommendation (and we won't have to compensate you) or get fired, get this extra money and a very negative description for your next employer. In situations like this one, the line between resignation and dismissal becomes blurred. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 0x60 (talkcontribs) 17:49, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Related celebrity video[edit]

In the celebrity section, please add:

Stephen K. Amos, Mark Thomas and other comedians support LGBT rights in Russia outside the Russian Consulate in Edinburgh, 2013.

As this is less than 1,000 years old and relates to sexuality, it may infringe an ARBCOM restriction in force against my edits.

Thanks -- (talk) 10:26, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Same-gender marriage legally counted (transgender woman and cisgender woman)[edit]

In Russia, a woman just legally married a woman despite the nation's anti-gay laws. They found a legal loophole in the law (pardon my redundancy). One bride is transitioning from male to female and she is still marked as male on her documents. Both women wore bridal dresses. This is definitely a same-gender wedding, whether the sex is the same or not, and is worthy to include in the article somewhere.

Note that if this is put in the article it may in the future the article may need to be revised again because their marriage may be disregarded by the government because various officials are pretty frustrated about it.

For more info on this, see http://jezebel.com/lesbian-couple-pulls-of-first-gay-marriage-in-russia-1656610125 http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/two-women-marry-russia-despite-countrys-anti-gay-laws 98.253.175.243 (talk) 02:01, 12 November 2014 (UTC) 98.253.175.243 (talk) 02:02, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on LGBT rights in Russia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:14, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Percentage[edit]

"A 2013 survey found that 84% of Russians said homosexuality should not be accepted by society"

The figure should be 74%, no? -- IvanP (talk) 06:27, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

New Poll.[edit]

Actually, Recently 80% of Russians Opposes Same-Sex Marriage. while 8% Percent Supports.

Good News is that Homophobia is Slowly Declining/Dying out in Russia. :)

Women, Younger People, Non-Religious and residents of Moscow and St.Petersburg are more likley to Support Gay Marriage and LGBT Rights.:)

http://www.wciom.com/index.php?id=61&uid=1129

it's no Longer 85% Opposes and 5% Pro. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.114.84.136 (talk) 19:55, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

More sources to consider?[edit]

Homophobia Begins at Home: Lesbian and Bisexual Women's Experiences of the Parental Household in Urban Russia F., Stella. "Homophobia Begins at Home: Lesbian and Bisexual Women's Experiences of the Parental Household in Urban Russia". Kul'tura.

Discrimination Against LGBT People Triggers Health Concerns

Clark, Fiona. "Discrimination Against LGBT People Triggers Health Concerns". The Lancet Journal.

Russia's Anti-Gay Laws: The Politics and Consequences of a Moral Panic Cai, Wilkinson, (2013-06-23). "Russia's anti-gay laws: the politics and consequences of a moral panic". Disorder of things.

Teaching Queer Theory in Russia Kondakov, Alexander (2016-01-01). "Teaching Queer Theory in Russia". QED: A Journal in GLBTQ Worldmaking. 3 (2): 107–118. ISSN 2327-1590

LGBTQ Oppression and Activism in Russia Feyh, Kathleen E.; Iasine, Igor (2015-01-01). "LGBTQ Oppression and Activism in Russia: An Interview with Igor Iasine". QED: A Journal in GLBTQ Worldmaking. 2 (1): 100–108. ISSN 2327-1590 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Briana sexeth (talkcontribs) 17:29, 30 September 2016 (UTC)