Jump to content

Talk:LGBTQ rights in Belarus

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:LGBT rights in Belarus)

Untitled

[edit]

Due to the sensitive nature of the topic, and the possibility of its growth in importance as homosexual rights deteriorate in Belarus, I have made every effort to reference sources where possible. The formatting for references may not be correct and may require fixing from someone experienced with that. Mr Curly 05:57, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Things needing fact checking

[edit]

Lukashenko's speech

[edit]

This speech was not about homosexuality. Lukashenko was talking of people trafficking when taking of prostitution. Mail order bride websites for example. THe sexual perversion in question was implied to be pornography and a exploitation of Eastern European women by rich Western pornographers. Don't forget that it was Lukashenko who decriminalised homosexuality in the first place. I think that this speech is not applicable to this subject and, the implication of state homophobia is incorrect. This speech is certainly not credible as evidence.

[edit]

Needs to be some fact checking regarding the age of consent. The ILGA states "Sexual contacts for women in Belarus are conditionally considered legal in the age from 14 to 18. This is defined by court experts in sexual crime cases depending on the level of a girl’s sexual maturity. Sexual contacts for men are considered legal upon attaining majority only, or since 18." gaytimes.co.uk states something similar.

Whereas, http://www.avert.org/aofconsent.htm states 16 years for all m-f, m-m and f-f in their table.

Disco closure

[edit]

ILGA states "In 1996 a gay discotheque named "Randez-vous" emerged in Minsk. Over the last years, the discotheque changed its premises four times, under the threat of persecution. The club was established by gays and lesbians aiming at AIDS prevention. The founders never approached the government claiming any official recognition. Club activists limited their activities to a free give-away of condoms in a narrow homosexual circle." is from

While this states "The country's only gay club, Oscar, was closed by the government in February 2000 because police said it "gathers abnormal people". However some mainstream clubs reportedly hold specific gay nights." is from

Are we to assume that Oscar (apparently being the "country's only gay club") and Randez-vous are the same thing?

Gay pride festival

[edit]

It went ahead in 1999. In 2000 it encountered great difficulty as reflected in the article. 2004 it was banned. What of 2001, 02 and 03?

Mr Curly 05:57, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pride.by

[edit]

The page pride.by is used as a reference several times within this article. This page states that it was not possible to organise a LGBT conference in Minsk in 2006 due to the arrest of the organisators of this conference. This information can nowhere be counterchecked. Nevertheless, the groups gayrussia and gaybelarus were able to organise a conference in Minsk on September 26, 2009. It was also possible for EU citizens to participate in this conference as guests or delegates. - I was there myself. The conference itself was without incidents, also the banquest afterwards organised with the great support of the Swedish Embassy in Belarus. Rownosci (talk) 15:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Distinction between same-sex marriage being unrecognised or banned

[edit]

@Sdino: @Tangotopaz: @119.236.106.101: @Jonathankwanhc:

There has been a series of reverts over whether same-sex marriage is banned or not. I agree with this change, in that for same-sex marriage to be described as "banned" in this article, there must be sources that state this explicitly. The description of a woman and a man shall have the right to enter into marriage is not a ban against same-sex marriage.

The distinction is that the current law could in the future be supplemented by recognizing same-sex couples have similar rights to heterosexual couples, without having to overturn current legislation. If anyone disagrees, I suggest they discuss their case and provide sources rather than attempting further reverts which may lead to the article being protected. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:11, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Fæ: Would this be enough to prove that there is a constitutional ban there? Sdino (talk) 12:28, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately this is not a neutral source, nor an international one, but a USA lobbyist group (and to clarify, this is a worthwhile thing to do in my personal view). All there is on that site is a tiny summary, that for all we know may have been harvested from Wikipedia. If there is a "constitutional ban" rather than a failure to recognize same-sex couples for rights, then the constitution would explicitly ban same-sex marriage and it can be directly quoted as a source. Unless someone can provide the quote from the constitution that explicitly bans same sex marriage, saying there is a ban in this article fails the requirement that key assertions in our articles must be supported by reliable sources. --Fæ (talk) 12:50, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a "failure to recognise same-sex couples for rights" because that is how all same-sex marriage bans are worded, because they ban same-sex marriage by limiting it to one between a man and a woman only. Please see all the other bans. Additionally, it is widely regarded that a constitutional definition of marriage is regarded as a same-sex marriage ban ([[File:LGBT rights in the EU.svg]], LGBT rights in Croatia#Summary table, [1], [2], and so on.) Sdino (talk) 15:29, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reading Same-sex union legislation#Constitutional efforts to prohibit same-sex unions the text you have provided so far, does not fit with any of these descriptions. If Belarus has passed a constitutional amendment banning same-sex unions, please provide a link to it. Please note that a Wikipedia article is not a source. If you wish to ensure that on the English Wikipedia, all constitutions which fail explicitly to allow for same-sex marriage rights should be described as they "ban same-sex marriage", then I suggest a global RfC is the best process to follow. Legally and technically, this wording remains incorrect if not supported by reliable sources.
It would seem more logical to stick to the technically correct wording used on the map in the article, File:Same sex marriage map Europe detailed.svg. The map represents a considerable consensus of multiple authors and their chosen wording is "Constitution limits marriage to opposite-sex couples" for Belarus.
You have reverted this text 3 times within a week. This puts you against WP:3RR (the rule of thumb of 24 hours being flexible for contentious articles) and you may be reported for administrator action should you choose to continue to revert changes by others, rather than reaching a consensus through discussion.
I have flagged this page for more views at LGBT studies. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 16:16, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Sdino:It is heteronormative in its wording, but only in that it assumes heterosexual marriage in Article 32, which is clearly not about gay or straight marriage, but about equality of sexes and the right of both partners not to marry against their will. There are similar wordings in the Japanese Constitution or in the Constitution of the Falkland Islands, but nobody agree that these two regions constitutionally ban same-sex marriage. I will revert your edit. Jonathankwanhc (talk)
@Jonathankwanhc:But, the Constitutions of many other countries has a similar wording and it is regared as a same-sex marriage ban:
  • Poland: Article 18: "Marriage, being a union of a man and a woman, as well as the family, motherhood and parenthood, shall be placed under the protection and care of the Republic of Poland."
  • Bulgaria: Article 46: "Matrimony shall be a free union between a man and a woman."
  • Latvia: 110. "The State shall protect and support marriage – a union between a man and a woman," ([3] Seen as a same-sex marriage ban - 6th paragraph down)
  • Hungary: Article K: "Hungary shall protect the institution of marriage, understood to be the conjugal union of a man and a woman" ([4] Seen as a same-sex marriage ban - introduction)
This reliable source also proves that Belarus has a same-sex marriage ban (pg.3 point 6 - "But ten nations have adopted constitutional bans on same-sex marriage.6 [...] 6. These countries are Belarus, Bulgaria, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Montenegro, Poland, Serbia, and Ukraine")
@Fæ:There is no need to use the other wording, as the source above proves that Belarus has a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage (pg.3 point 6). However, I will agree that, at least until we come to an agreement, the wording on the map should be used as a middleground between both sides to the discussion. Sdino (talk) 11:36, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Happy with the compromise. To avoid doubt with respect to sources, I have checked the paper at scholarship.law.berkeley.edu "Religiosity and Same-Sex Marriage in the United States and Europe" (2014) and the sources that it quotes for using the term "ban" are not credible, being the same source previously examined above ("MARRIAGE EQUALITY USA"), so is based on an extremely brief sentence used on a lobbyist USA organization website (itself unsourced and may have been harvested from Wikipedia), a campaign document by ILGA, another lobbyist organization, and Pink News, which is neither an academic nor unbiased source.
I will avoid naming the author here, however for a professor in a university law department, I am taken aback that he has given this paper his name without ensuring legally appropriate sources are used to support a dismissive description of a country's constitution. --Fæ (talk) 12:08, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
However, it is a reliable source (scholarship.law.berkeley.edu) and it proves my point of a ban on same-sex marriage in Belarus, therefore, it can be used in the article. Unless you can provide a reliable source that the Belarussian constitution just does not recognise same-sex marriage (rather than banning it or limiting marriage to that between a man and a woman), then I think that will be enough to add the wording into the article. Sdino (talk) 12:13, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A source that relies on unreliable sources is not a reliable source, regardless of who the publisher is. I suggest sticking to the consensus statement or going the full hog and creating a wider RfC which can then address the wording for all the other articles you have been highlighting as problematic in their wording. --Fæ (talk) 12:38, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I actually suggest we bring this article in line with the consensus on the other articles where there are constitutional bans, because the wording in them is not problematic.
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Biased or opinionated sources: "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective." – Even though Pink News is biased, it does actually provide the facts in the stories it reports on. A source does not need to be "academic" in order to be reliable.
The lobby groups also provide factual information, even though they might lead you to come to a certain conclusion and opinion. I don't think it is a problem to include that source. However, I do agree that the "MARRIAGE EQUALITY USA" source might be too short and harvested from Wikipedia, but there are other sources on that paper. Sdino (talk) 14:48, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sure lobby groups can be useful, if they are publishing hard reliable facts that can be verified independently. For softer issues, such as the use of the word "ban" for a constitution that nowhere specifies that it has a ban, this is not suitable to include in an article unless explicitly spelt out that this is an opinion of a lobby group, or an example of a biased point of view.
Please take time to read Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. Yes, some other articles have taken this same path of jumping to describing marriage being between a man and a woman as a "ban", however this is not evidence of a consensus. If you wish to create a consensus then please do so, and the best process for that in my experience is to create a request for comment. --Fæ (talk) 15:42, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say that that is all I have. There are no more reliable sources that state that Belarus has a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. Therefore, I propose a compromise:
Same-sex marriages No (Constitution limits marriage to opposite-sex couples since 1994)
But I also propose that the compromise/consensus only applies to this article, as every country has their bans worded differently and/or there are more reliable sources that would prove that there is a ban on same-sex marriage in that country. Sdino (talk) 12:25, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on LGBT rights in Belarus. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:52, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on LGBT rights in Belarus. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:51, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on LGBT rights in Belarus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:42, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on LGBT rights in Belarus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:31, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on LGBT rights in Belarus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:09, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:LGBTQ_rights_in_Belarus&oldid=1248377994"