This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Russian anti-LGBT law article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Russian anti-LGBT law was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
![]() | A
fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
November 6, 2016. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the
Russian gay propaganda law was blamed for an alleged increase in
homophobic attacks? | ||||||||||||
Current status: Delisted good article |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
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) |
---|
|
Overall: |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
This article does not pass at present.
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)
@ 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)
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not) |
---|
|
Overall: |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
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)
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)
In that case...
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not) |
---|
|
Overall: |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
... Congratulations ViperSnake151, this passes! Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{ re}} talk | contribs) 20:37, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
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,
[1] 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.
@ ViperSnake151: Thank you. KING ( talk) 07:46, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Russian anti-LGBT law article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Russian anti-LGBT law was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
![]() | A
fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
November 6, 2016. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the
Russian gay propaganda law was blamed for an alleged increase in
homophobic attacks? | ||||||||||||
Current status: Delisted good article |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
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) |
---|
|
Overall: |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
This article does not pass at present.
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)
@ 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)
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not) |
---|
|
Overall: |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
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)
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)
In that case...
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not) |
---|
|
Overall: |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
... Congratulations ViperSnake151, this passes! Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{ re}} talk | contribs) 20:37, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
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,
[1] 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.
@ ViperSnake151: Thank you. KING ( talk) 07:46, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)