Talk:Russian anti-LGBT law

Systematic Western Bias

Certain phrases such as:

The passing of the law was met with major international backlash, as critics considered it an attempt to effectively ban the promotion LGBT rights and culture in the country.

Fail to mention that this criticism, regardless of one's opinion on the issue, and mostly emanates from the west: In fact, with the exception of the Russian opinions on the law, there are no non-Western perspectives offered in this whole text.

I think that corrections should be made to better reflect the reality that there is a world outside of the US, Canada and EU and we don't need a whole article on a Russian law interpreted entirely by Westerners and Russian expats, of whom upon reviewal of the sources (where they even exist!)say such erroneous things as "fired for being gay", which has yet to happen in Russia for what I can tell, seeing as homosexuality is not a crime within the country (and as a native speaker of Russian, I regularily check the news for this). Often times, people who are gay are fired for their actions which pertain to the law (such as the case of Dmitry Isakov, who was for better or worse arrested for holding a sign with a pro-LGBT message on it), however, this is not the same some of the statements that I have since corrected, such as Alexander Yermoshkin being fired for his sexuality, which simply isn't true.

This sort of thing repeats over and over again in the article: Purely Western media perspectives, false claims about people arrested for "being gay", etc.

This is a contentious issue I know, so I ask kindly that you please assume good faith.

Solntsa90 (talk) 22:47, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Have you checked http://www.gayrussia.eu/? Maybe you will find the information you are missing on the Russian mass media.

About Alexander Yermoshkin, you can read the story from him http://www.petertatchellfoundation.org/russia/russian-lgbt-teachers-sacked-because-their-sexuality

--Ecelan (talk) 22:50, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Another point I'd like to raise: Okkupay Pedofilay has consistently denied targeting anyone but pedophiles, and in fact, in the Russian media it has been suggested that this is a strategy to create the impression that the West supports pedophilia and their rights every time they labeled someone Okkupay snared on the internet through a chat with an underage decoy, and in fact does more to conflate the issue that

Basically, if we say "Okkupay Pedofilay attacked them for being gay" which 1.) isn't true and 2.) plays directly into their hands, we basically conflate every gay person on earth with the actions of those who were kidnapped by OP, that is, people who were soliciting sex on the internet with minors and showed up at the door, only to be greeted by Okkupay Pedofilay. Solntsa90 (talk) 23:24, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

It is kind of strange that you would believe Okkupay Pedofilay over your own eyes. If you watch the videos, you will notice they target minors and youth. Can minors be pedophiles? Anyway, the strategy of persecuting gays as pedophiles is quite old. --Ecelan (talk) 22:50, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Yepp, comparing gays to paedophiles works well for Putin. It's used like a red herring to distract people from societal, economic and political problems he didn't solve or even touched (we should put that in the article!), not to mention the fact that there are questions whether he actually was elected or not.--86.3.200.81 (talk) 01:34, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Since when treating people with respect is Western bias? Besides, Russia is a Western country linguisticaly, religiously, geographically, historically, culturally and so on. A the fact it is ruled by a autocratic leader, makes no difference. Italy had Mussolini, but it was still Western--86.3.200.81 (talk) 01:34, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Scare quotes

The second paragraph has five pairs of scare quotes. This is in contradiction with the principle of neutrality. I think the paragraph should be rewritten in such a way that scare quotes aren’t needed (e.g. “The officially stated goal of the law [...]”) or the quotes outright removed. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV (talk) 20:54, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Most of them are actually not scare quotes, but referring to them as actual legal terms. ViperSnake151  Talk  22:03, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Either way, thanks for improving it. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV (talk) 03:57, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Russian LGBT propaganda law/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jujutsuan (talk · contribs) 09:46, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

This article does not pass at present.

• It fails WP:LEAD § WP:BEGIN: This is an easy article to make the boldface title reiteration match the title, but this article does not.
• It fails WP:GA? #2: at least one ref link is broken.
• It fails WP:NPOV, referring to a group of "radical Orthodox Christians", repeating in Wikipedia's voice the source's POV, which was given without substantiation. The source itself, published by Autonomous Nonprofit Organization, appears to be Russian state-controlled media outlet (in a state generally hostile to Xianity, no less!) and therefore less than reliable for this sort of statement.
• The claims of "my own work" on the image licenses appear dubious. Someone with more experience, please check those out.
• Otherwise, it's well written, appears to be generally accurate, seems free of OR, is broad in coverage, focused, and stable, and uses images with appropriate captions.

I'd like to see these issues resolved within a 7-day timeframe per common practice. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 09:46, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I disagree that the lead violates WP:BEGIN. "Russian LGBT propaganda law" is a descriptive term, as the actual name of the law is way too long to be a functional article title. ("However, if the article title is merely descriptive—such as Electrical characteristics of dynamic loudspeakers—the title does not need to appear verbatim in the main text."). Also, which links are broken? If there's a way to summon the link archival bot. You've also refused to disclose which images have potential issues. Per Commons policy, the burden of proof is on the uploader. ViperSnake151  Talk  15:08, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

What I meant about the lead is that the title is "Russian LGBT propaganda law", and the lead has "gay propaganda law" as an "also known as" in bold, but for some reason doesn't have "LGBT propaganda law". So either "(Russian) LGBT propaganda law" should be added or the article should be moved to Russian gay propaganda law. The broken ref I noticed is (currently) #47, after "...creating a public disturbance." Someone should go through and make sure that's the only one. I'm not familiar with the link archiver bot—can you summon it? I haven't "refused to disclose" anything. All of them claim a "my own work" license rationale, and I feel that's rather dubious given the photo content (especially the close-ups). I've made a good-faith request for an editor more experienced with image licensing to check those out. I don't have "proof", and I never claimed to have any. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 15:19, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

If you read the descriptions of the images on Commons, you'll notice that some of the "close-ups" are actually crops from larger images. Additionally, on the subject of article titling; I did not want to use "anti-gay law" or "gay propaganda law" as the title proper because the law itself does not use the term "gay", but a euphemism. The terms "anti-gay law" and "gay propaganda law" are associated with the Western reporting on the law, thus making it a violation of the neutral point of view. ViperSnake151  Talk  15:29, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Is the current title the WP:COMMONNAME? Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 15:38, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately no. I hate to have to do this, but I may actually have to change the name of the article to "Russian gay propaganda law" in order to comply. I hate to have to succumb to western bias on such a topic, but it's the only way to comply with titling guidelines. ViperSnake151  Talk  15:43, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

That's unfortunately the messy result of humanity having multiple languages—different languages often name things differently, and it tends to be regionalized. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 15:47, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

While we're dealing with NPOV concerns, the term "anti-gay" is used throughout. I think that saying there are protesters at a gay pride parade gets the point across without using such a loaded, disputed term. I'll work that out. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 15:42, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I did the page move and now Legobot is telling me that it "failed" GA? ViperSnake151  Talk  03:06, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Hmm... I'm fairly new with the GA system, but perhaps it should be un-moved and removed after the review is over? Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 04:06, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

@ViperSnake151: Nope. Don't do that. It "failed" the old title but listed the new one, and moved the GA review page. No worries, just a technicality. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 04:08, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) ViperSnake151, the problem was that when you moved the article and its talk page, you didn't also move this review page. So the bot lost track of the review, since it was still under the old article name, and got confused the next time it ran. I've just now moved the GA1 page to the new article name; while the bot message can't be recalled, the article talk page has "healed" since it can once again find the review page, and the GA nominations page will catch up in another 15 minutes or so. Note: do *not* move anything back at the present time; it will just break more things. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:09, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Also, how is "simply" POV "in context"? I'm meaning "simply" as in, in comparison to the longer terms, some media outlets call it only "the anti-gay law" ViperSnake151  Talk  15:28, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Because it implies, or could appear to imply, that the law does in fact boil down to simply being "anti-gay", an unnecessarily loaded term/concept that should be avoided in the article as much as possible except where absolutely necessary, such as in reporting an alternate name for the law widely used in media. The "simply" doesn't add any meaning here; it's obvious to the reader that it's the shortest/"simplest" name. So since it's not necessary and, "in context", it could inadvertently amplify POV, the "simply" should be omitted. (Does that make sense, or should I try to rephrase my explanation?) Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 17:06, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I do not believe the removal of the quotation marks around "anti-gay law" in lead is appropriate. It is, in fact, non-neutral, as it implies that we are calling it that, when in reality, we are only saying that other sources are calling it that. ViperSnake151  Talk  16:27, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Already covered by the way it was introduced: "also known in English-language media as..." That makes it quite clear that WP is not endorsing the name. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 16:32, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

@ViperSnake151: Before any more time goes by, who's waiting on whom? Are you finished making edits, or should I hold off on re-checking the article against the WP:GA? criteria? Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 17:15, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

You may continue. ViperSnake151  Talk  18:03, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

This article has improved significantly from my first review, but it still does not pass 6a. I'm placing it on hold again. Only 2 of the files indicate that they are crops of other images, but even in those cases there is no attribution to the original. In all cases, as I said before, the claim to being the uploaders' own work seems dubious given the type of photos they are. I'm going to go to the reference desk and see if anyone there with more media experience can help out. Pinging ViperSnake151. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 18:39, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

 Editor note: I shall take a look at the images later.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:51, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Jo-Jo. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 21:28, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Alright, here we go:

1. File:Emblem of the State Duma of the Russian Federation.png: This seems fine to me, license wise.
2. File:Elena Mizulina.jpg: Seems fine as well. The uploader has an upload history consistent with that of a professional photographer in Russia, give or take several camera model changes as evidenced by the EXIF. I don't see any higher resolution versions of the file online and those which are of the same resolution all postdate the upload to Commons.
3. File:Russian Embassy in Helsinki, LGBT pavement.jpg: I wonder if the coloured stripes of the LGBT flag on the pavement could be considered copyrightable artwork, in which case permission would be needed - may ask on commons:COM:VPC. Freedom of panorama checks out. Lack of EXIF data is odd, but not per se proof of copyvio, and no complaints of copyvio either. Otherwise, I don't see any higher resolution versions of the file online and those which are of the same resolution all postdate the upload to Commons.
4. File:Emma Green Daegu 2011 crop.jpg is derived from File:Emma Green Daegu 2011.jpg, as stated in the information. No EXIF data, OTRS permission is there which I generally am inclined to trust - editor who added it is a verified OTRS member. The license of the crop is improper - cropping an image does not create a new copyright that could be licensed as CC-BY-SA 3.0 or claimed as own work, the copyright of the prior version (OTRS verified GFDL attributed to Erik van Leeuwen) applies instead. Needs fixing thus, and the files should be tagged as commons:Template:Derived from and commons:Template:Derivative versions. Otherwise, I don't see any higher resolution versions of the file online and those which are of the same resolution all postdate the upload to Commons.
5. File:Moa hjelmer (cropped).JPG is derived from File:Moa hjelmer.JPG, as stated in the information. No EXIF data, no complaints of copyvio. Only upload by the uploader. Otherwise, I don't see any higher resolution versions of the file online and those which are of the same resolution all postdate the upload to Commons. Probably on the safe side.

This all for copyright status, authenticity or pertinence are not part of my review.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:10, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Jo-Jo Eumerus Regarding each image:

1. Good.
2. Good.
3. The response I got at commons:COM:VPC was that it's most likely fine.
4. Is it fixed now? I'm not at all familiar with Commons and copyright issues; I think I did what you said needed to be done, but I'm not sure if I got it right. EDIT: Good (see below).
5. Good.

• Seems mended now, the file #4.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:16, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

In that case...

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

... Congratulations ViperSnake151, this passes! Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 20:37, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

References for this article.

I have looked at a sample of this article and note that there are a large number of un-referenced statements. For example, in the following from the third paragraph of the intro section there are a number of statements, with the only provided reference being for a statement on homophobic violence. Please address the issue of referencing in this article as a whole. Thank you. KING (talk) 04:59, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

The Kremlin's backing of the law appealed to the Russian nationalist far right, but gained broad support among the Russian populace. The law was condemned by the Venice Commission of the Council of Europe (of which Russia is a member), by the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child and by human rights groups, such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. The statute was criticized for its broad and ambiguous wording (including the aforementioned "raises interest in" and "among minors"), which many critics characterized as being an effective ban on publicly promoting the rights and culture of the LGBT community. The law was also criticized for leading to an increase and justification of homophobic violence, while the implications of the laws in relation to the then-upcoming Winter Olympics being hosted by Sochi were also cause for concern, as the Olympic Charter contains language explicitly barring various forms of discrimination.

@NOD32user: Incorrect, WP:LEAD states that excluding statements about a living person and cited facts for WP:DYK, the lead of an article does not necessarily need to have footnotes as long as the corresponding statements are cited in the article body. This is a style-related practice, and all of these details are already cited in the article proper.. ViperSnake151  Talk  01:15, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

@ViperSnake151: Thank you. KING (talk) 07:46, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

GA status

I've tried to improve the article but I think it has some systematic issues that prevent it from being the quality expected of a GA article.

Prose: clarity is lacking in some places, for example:

"In 2010, Russia was fined by the European Court of Human Rights under allegations by Alexeyev that cities were discriminating against gays by refusing to approve pride parades. Although claiming a risk of violence, the court interpreted the decisions as being in support of groups which oppose such demonstrations" This wording is not clear and does not do a good job of explaining what the verdict Alekseyev v. Russia was all about.

Organization is not ideal. For example, protests are discussed in the "criticism" section rather than the separate "protests" section. Violence against LGBT people is placed in the "criticism" section. But this has been studied empirically, it is not a "criticism" as much as an observed effect of the law. Perhaps alongside other research into the public health implications.

Sometimes the article does not follow the cited sources.

Article states, "Moscow upheld a ruling blocking Nikolay Alexeyev's requests for 100 years' worth of permission to hold Moscow Pride annually, citing the possibility of public disorder." Source states: "Moscow's top court has upheld a ban on gay pride marches in the Russian capital for the next 100 years." One of these is wrong. If the source is wrong, why is it being cited? (This is the only ref I checked. So the issue of failed verification could be much bigger).

Reliable sources: Gawker, the Mirror and International Business Times are not reliable sources. There are other sketchy-looking sources cited as well.

On the other hand, the article has notable gaps in its coverage. Freedom of speech and expression is hardly mentioned at all. Yet, this is the main reason for criticism of the law. Even some people who do not necessarily support LGBT rights oppose restrictions on freedom of expression. The article doesn't cite any academic literature at all (which does exist!), except a few that I just added. I think this is a major deficit because the media don't always report correctly on legal issues. The dependence on media reports also means that a lot of information on the law's long term effects is not discussed at all. Prior to my additions today, the article made no mention that the ECtHR has ruled that anti-LGBT propaganda laws violate the European Convention on Human Rights. There is still no mention of the Fedotova v. Russia case [1] in which the UN Human Rights Committee found a violation of the ICCPR.

Ping the original GA nominator @ViperSnake151:. (t · c) buidhe 12:29, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Russian gay propaganda law

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delist A very comprehensive list of issue can be found on the talk page and so far no one seems motivated enough to fix them. Plenty to work on for any interested editor Aircorn (talk) 09:17, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

I've listed my concerns on the article talk page, but in short there are serious issues related to the clarity, balance, and organization of this article. I have tried to fix some problems but I was not able to get it up to GA standard easily. (t · c) buidhe 10:05, 3 October 2021 (UTC)