Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Russian gay propaganda law

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:03, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Russian gay propaganda law

[edit]
(
)

Improved to Good Article status by ViperSnake151 (talk) and Jujutsuan (talk). Nominated by Jujutsuan (talk) at 20:54, 19 July 2016 (UTC).

I'll add that variant as alternates:
  • ALT0.1:... that Russia's federal law banning the distribution of homonormative materials among minors was favored by at least 90 percent of Russians surveyed in 2013?
  • Some issues found.
    • ✓ This article was Listed as a Good Article on 20:39, 19 July 2016
    • ✓ This article meets the DYK criteria at 24263 characters
    • ✓ All paragraphs in this article have at least one citation
    • ✗ This article has the following issues:
    • ? A copyright violation is suspected by an automated tool, with 63.9% confidence. (confirm)
      • Note to reviewers: There is low confidence in this automated metric, please manually verify that there is no copyright infringement or close paraphrasing. Note that this number may be inflated due to cited quotes and titles which do not constitute a copyright violation.
  • No overall issues detected
    • ✓ The hook ALT0 is an appropriate length at 168 characters
    • ✓ The hook ALT1 is an appropriate length at 172 characters
    • ✓ The hook ALT2 is an appropriate length at 151 characters
    • ✓ The hook ALT3 is an appropriate length at 155 characters
    • ✓ Jujutsuan has fewer than 5 DYK credits. No QPQ required. Note a QPQ will be required after 1 more DYKs.

Automatically reviewed by DYKReviewBot. This bot is experimental; please report any issues. This is not a substitute for a human review. --DYKReviewBot (report bugs) 20:41, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is out of chronological order. Participation is welcome by anyone wishing to comment. This box is simply for organization.
Dead link fixed. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 20:48, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
And the copyvio warning is a false alarm; the only things the bot suspects are title, attributed quotations, and some practically unavoidable phrases. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 21:00, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Out of chronological order discussion thread ends here.
Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 21:15, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Full human review needed. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:17, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
  • - So looking at the Alt hook I would expect more than one local protest to be listed in the article, but it just covers one minior incident. To say "international and local" is factually correct but is also skewered and misrepresents the "90% in favor" portion, it is not balanced so I don't think that qualifies. Main hook - so factually incorrect, yes the article states "90%" but the source states "88%", cannot have a factually incorrect hook passed.  MPJ-DK  20:42, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
The actions in Kazan and Arkhangelsk were also "local" protests. ViperSnake151  Talk  19:01, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
  • ViperSnake151 I did read that, but "one guy holding a sign" and "two guys picketing" did not register as significant enough to actually get into a hook in my mind. But technically' ALT1 is right. ALT0 still uses the wrong number.  MPJ-DK  19:28, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
  • ViperSnake151 so no response for over a week. I have struck any alt that uses the figure "90%" since that is not supported by the article and no attempt to rectify it has been done.
  • - I approve the ALT1 hook only.  MPJ-DK  02:12, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
I have added to the article to support these suggestions. I think they are more interesting and "hooky" than a hook requiring a non-LGBT reader to be familiar with homonormativity. EdChem (talk) 13:52, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Reviewer needed to consider the newly proposed ALT hooks. (Previous hooks struck per discussion on WT:DYK.) BlueMoonset (talk) 17:42, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
  • (ALT2) (105 characters) and (ALT2a) (151 characters) are both within the DYK length limit. Both are supported by citations, ALT2 citation quoting The Guardian, and ALT2a citation paraphrasing the less reliable blog, Gawker. ALT2 is shorter, perhaps "punchier", but ALT2a has the advantage of using an example that demonstrates how draconian the law is. Either way, interesting, well written article, good to go. Cheers! — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 16:32, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I pulled this from q4 as I couldn't adequately confirm the hook. The Gawker source provides some confirmation but isn't much of a source. I couldn't see anything in the Guardian source confirming it either. Gatoclass (talk) 13:52, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Gatoclass, the Guardian source refers to the law's prohibition "on anyone disseminating information about homosexuality to under 18s". That is a direct quote from the source and is in the article. A parent coming out to a child is "disseminating information about homosexuality", so if the child is under 18, it is illegal under this law, supporting ALT2. What else do you feel is needed? ALT2a is not well supported by Gawker, but I couldn't find a better source online. However, the real basis for the hook is in the documentary itself where the issue was explored. I know you can't take my word, but it is in the documentary. If we can stick a reference to Episode 2 of the documentary, it would be a much stronger source, but I don't have a video file that can played or a time stamp to locate the relevant material. The lesbian couple actually discuss breaking the law every day simply by being out to their son. What do you suggest be done? Thanks. EdChem (talk) 15:51, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
      • I've struck both ALT2 and ALT2a since the less comprehensive one was the one that was pulled from the queue, pending further discussion here. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:01, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
EdChem, your statement that a parent coming out to a child is "disseminating information about homosexuality" is original research unless you have a reliable source to back that up. Gawker is not a solid source, and neither in my opinion is a video where a gay couple claim that it's against the law. I think you would need something like, say, a case where somebody has actually been convicted of coming out to their children, or a legal expert to say as much - and even in the latter case, I think it would have to be attributed as opinion. Gatoclass (talk) 18:09, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Russia's infamous ban on "propaganda of nontraditional sexual relations," which currently imposes fines and censure for any person or agency making pro-LGBT statements in any venue that could be accessible to minors – The Advocate
  • Russia's nationwide ban on so-called gay propaganda, signed into law by President Vladimir Putin last year, criminalizes any positive discussion of LGBT people, identities, or issues in forums that might be accessible to minors. In practice, the law has given police broad license to interpret almost any mention of being LGBT — whether uttered, printed, or signified by waving a rainbow flag — as just cause to arrest LGBT people. It's just one sign in an increasingly harsh crackdown on individual freedoms and basic rights for LGBT Russians. – The Advocate
  • The law effectively limits the rights of free expression and assembly for citizens who wish to publicly advocate for LGBT rights or express the opinion that homosexuality is normal ... On December 2, Roskomnadzor issued a list of clarifying criteria and examples of so-called LGBT propaganda, which includes materials that “directly or indirectly approve of people who are in nontraditional sexual relationships.” – US Department of State Report on Russia 2013 Human Rights Report
  • The "video where a gay couple claim that it's against the law", as you put it, might better be described as a documentary produced by the BBC. We aren't talking about YouTube here!
  • The US Department of State travel advisory for Russia states that "The law is vague as to what Russia considers propaganda of nontraditional sexual relations."
Does any of this help you to see my "original research" as supported? EdChem (talk) 23:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm afraid not EdChem - if anything the opposite. The advocate appears to be a gay advocacy site and thus hardly a neutral commentator. The HR report talks about public advocacy, which is not the same thing. The fact that the documentary where the gay couple claims they can't legally come out to their own children was made by the BBC doesn't make the source - the couple - any more reliable. And the travel advisory states that the law is "vague", meaning that it isn't clear about exactly what is covered by it, which only suggests that it may or may not be illegal to come out to one's own children. The bottom line is that it hasn't been tested in a court of law yet. But I do note that a recent case involving a website attempting to help young people coming to terms with their sexuality resulted in a conviction, which was overturned on appeal, followed by another conviction which is apparently now on appeal. So it hasn't even been clearly established yet that it's illegal to run a public website dealing with the issue, let alone a private discussion between family members. So I still think the hook statement has not been established as factual. Gatoclass (talk) 08:14, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
I think I see the problem, Gatoclass. I've been concerned about establishing that it is the couple's view, and I see you are concerned about whether a prosecution would be upheld in a court of law. I saw the hook I proposed as going to the view of the couple, which I think is both reasonably and reliably established by the documentary, and a reasonable interpretation of the law. Looking at it as an assertion of unarguable fact, it is flawed. Perhaps an alternate version like:
I have been re-watching the second part of the documentary on youtube here - it is the section from 25 to 26 minutes. I plan to add this to the article in a cite AV template with a time stamp and the relevant quotations to support the Gawker reference. I don't think I can link to the youtube video in a reference as I suspect it is a copyvio. I think we can definitely state as a fact in a hook that this is theit opinion / belief / fears as discussed in the documentary without asserting that a court would find them guilty. I wrote "belief / fear" in ALT2b as you might see one as more appropriate and either are reasonable, I think. I changed son to daughter as the other refs have an error: each of the couple has a child, a son (Daniel) aged 20 and a daughter (Christina) aged 16 and it is Christina being a minor (along with her minor friends) that is the issue. Refs put the son as 16 and I followed them because I had forgotten this detail until I re-watched the documentary. Thoughts? EdChem (talk) 13:39, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
PS: Gatoclass, I'm sorry that I did not consider your perspective and concerns sufficiently to recognise that we have been talking at different issues - mine whether the views / fears of the law are reasonable and reliably sourced, yours whether the sources establish the legal position as a matter of fact. That's why I consider the documentary being from the BBC (reputable, etc) and the concerns that the vague law is open to this interpretation is a reasonable basis for fear. You are quite right that none of what I posted establishes a legal certainty about what a case might conclude - hence my suggesting re-casting the hook on the beliefs / fears of those as expressed in the documentary. I would like to note, though, FYI, that The Advocate is reliable and reputable bimonthly news magazine with proper editorial standards and processes, though focused on LGBT issues. Some of its content is Op-Ed and needs to be treated as such, but this magazine is regularly used on WP as a reliable source. Regards, EdChem (talk) 13:58, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
@Gatoclass: I have added to the sourcing and content of the article, which I believe supports ALT2b (above) and I think and hope addresses your concerns. Any thoughts? Also, have I done enough with this DYK to be added for author credit? Thanks. EdChem (talk) 03:29, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm still not comfortable with this. The new quote has Stephen Fry stating that the law makes it illegal for parents to out to their minor children when that isn't actually established yet. It's basically Fry's opinion but being presented as if it were an established fact. I'm not even sure the quote supports the hook, because it isn't actually the parents expressing that concern, it's Stephen Fry expressing it for them. Gatoclass (talk) 09:47, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Ok, what change to the hook would you suggest to make it clear that there is a fear it could be taken as illegal, rather than that it is definitively established as fact that it is illegal? The parents agree to Fry's suggestion and go to express fears that they don't know what could happen or whether they could be suddenly arrested. I think the article is fair and accurate and referenced - do you agree? If so, what do you see as a way forward for the hook. If not, what do you see as the problem in the article? Or, would a wider discussion at WT:DYK be appropriate? Please advise. Thanks. EdChem (talk) 14:01, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
What about a hook based on the issue of the website trying to provide advice to young people? The facts are much better established in that case and would still provide the basis for a strong hook, assuming that a suitable wording could be found. Gatoclass (talk) 18:07, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll look at that. In the meantime, another alternative I wondered about is something like:
  • (ALT3): ... that the Russian gay propaganda law prohibits all materials which "directly or indirectly approve of people who are in nontraditional sexual relationships"?
  • (ALT3a): ... that the Russian gay propaganda law prohibits all materials which "directly or indirectly approve of people who are in nontraditional sexual relationships" according to Roskomnadzor?
The quotation is taken directly from the US State Department report on human rights in Russia, and attributes the source of the quote to Roskomnadzor (which WP reports is the Russian Federal Service for Supervision in the Sphere of Telecom, Information Technologies and Mass Communications, a federal executive body), for which sourcing seems unproblematic to me. ALT3a has more direct attribution but the Russian term is likely to distract from the target article. Thoughts? EdChem (talk) 18:30, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
    • I apologise for this, but, er, is there any chance we could take a slihtly more negative tack in the hook? I worry that not mentioning the controversy can be seem as dismissing the controversy. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:21, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
  • (ALT4): ... that the Russian gay propaganda law was blamed for an increase in homophobic attacks?

Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:33, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Given that all the sources alleging an upsurge in violence are from 2013-14, I'm thinking "was blamed" might be more appropriate. Gatoclass (talk) 15:13, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Tweaked. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:39, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
@Adam Cuerden: Please don't apologise, I welcome all input and comments, and I agree with you that the ALT3s are weak. I prefer ALT2b but that seems unacceptable. So, I am going to combine our ideas into ALT4a and also offer new versions of ALT2:
This is not my DYK nomination, incidentally, but I am interested in views on whether my article additions and hook work here justifies my getting a DYKmake credit?
@Gatoclass: Any views on these ALTs? EdChem (talk) 22:40, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
I for one think 4a is pretty good; 2d and 2c might be misleading as it doesn't say how they promoted it, e.g. by admitting their homosexuality to her. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:19, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
I don't think 2c and 2d are sufficiently accurate as IIRC the penalty for breaches of this law is fines rather than incarceration. They are also IMO a little wordy. 4a is more succinct, but again I'm not sure it could be described as 100% accurate as the source talks about "criteria and examples" with the latter word muddying the waters somewhat, but perhaps I am being overly pedantic there. In any case, I have removed the word "all" from 4a because it isn't in the source. Gatoclass (talk) 13:14, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
@Gatoclass:, would 2c/d be any better as "discusses their fears of punishment under"? I agree with removing "all" from 4a, that's fine. Not sure how to changing the 4a hook to address examples, though - I've been looking at alternatives but they are so wordy. Maybe post 4a at WT:DYK for input? Also, I have suggested that I get a DYKmake and not had any response, so I'll add it and if anyone objects they can revert. EdChem (talk) 04:09, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
EdChem, I think your work on the article definitely merits a DYKmake (I think you've done more work on the article than Jujutsuan, who is so credited). However, ALT hook proposals or modifications do not count toward a DYKmake; it's just for article edits. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:23, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: How about these: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] According to the revision history tool, I have added the second most text to the article (7 249 bytes, 9.7% of the total text), behind ViperSnake151. Jujustsuan has made more edits than I have (17 v. 9) but has only added 2 144 bytes, and last edited this nomination on 21 July. I would not suggest a DYKmake for myself for nomintation-page-only contributions. Do you think I qualify based on article edits, however? EdChem (talk) 04:55, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
EdChem, yes, that's what I said last time. The only reason I mentioned the ALT hooks was because your original post about DYKmakes said whether my article additions and hook work here qualified you; assuming "hook work" meant work on ALT hooks on this page only, I said yes to the article additions/edits but no to the ALT hooks. Sorry for any confusion. I also didn't mean to hijack the review from its discussion of the hooks, since they're still unapproved, so if there's anything more, please take it to my talk page so the DYK review can proceed here. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:20, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, BlueMoonset, and sorry, I think I misunderstood you. EdChem (talk) 05:34, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Ok, striking 2c and 2d, and trying again, adjusting to address Adam Cuerden's point. Also taking note of Gatoclass' concerns and assuming my "fear of punishment" idea was not acceptable, so looking to focus on fears of accusations of promoting homosexuality:

Also striking 4a and trying to address Gatoclass' point about examples:

  • (ALT4b): ... that examples of prohibitions under the Russian gay propaganda law include materials which "directly or indirectly approve of" LGBT people, and the law has been blamed for increases homophobia?

It'd be great to get this promoted, obviously.  :) EdChem (talk) 08:26, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Reviewer needed for new ALT hooks. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:28, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
@Gatoclass: do these address your concerns? EdChem (talk) 02:09, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  • You guys better hurry 'cause once President Trump's in office hooks criticizing Russia will be outlawed. EEng 16:41, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Less likely since his latest debate performance I would think :) But with regard to the question - I'd forgotten about this nom, but I think I would lean toward 4a rather than the two latest alts. Gatoclass (talk) 17:16, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Trump will be the legitimate President, but may be defrauded of the job by nasty people who don't vote for him, like women, people of colour, LGBTQI people, Democrats, the educated, and Americans with IQs - I know, I heard him say so - but I digress...

@Gatoclass: I have unstruck ALT4a. If you are willing to accept it, great. If not, what do I need to address, since my attempt at ALT4b did not meet what you sought? Thanks, EdChem (talk) 00:50, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

In retaliation for Putin's hacking, the US should have the Russian LGBTQIs form a chapter of SPEBSQSA. The moment that's transliterated into Cyrillic the entire Russian internet will collapse. EEng 03:07, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm thinking we could go with 4a if the word "alleged" was added before "increase in homophobic violence" as the sources for this look a bit anecdotal to me. EdChem, would that be acceptable to you? Gatoclass (talk) 09:56, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Fine with me, Gatoclass, it would be great to get this nomination resolved.  :) EdChem (talk) 13:11, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Came here because this has been sitting on the nomination list for way too long. I concur with the latest suggestions, which as I understand it would use:
That hook is cited inline, and supported by the relevant sources. Other aspects of the nomination check out. Let's get this done! Vanamonde (talk) 11:14, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93 and Gatoclass: I think Gatoclass meant to include the quote as well, ie:
But his intent may also have been:
depending on whether the "alleged" is meant to modify the increase in violence or that the violence is homophobic. I will accept either version, obviously, but incline towards the allegation being that the violence is motivated by homophobia (ALT4a2) rather than the allegation being that there has been an increase in violence (ALT4a1). Vanamonde, sorry to be commenting after the longer-sought-after tick but cutting away the quote about what the law prohibits weakens the hook, which I would prefer to avoid. Having said that, if Vanamonde's (unstruck) ALT4a is the only one that is tickable, so be it. Striking everything else, for clarity. Thanks. EdChem (talk) 11:48, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Hmm. I will tentatively say that there are no major issues with either ALT4a1 or ALT4a2. However, I have long had personal issues with taking quotations from primary sources. If this is not something that bothers the promoter, then go for it, but I still think ALT4a is punchier, and neater. Vanamonde (talk) 11:54, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93: Is this a primary source, in that I have quoted the US State Department report which itself quotes the Russian governmental source? In any case, I'll take whichever of the three I can get at this point!  :) But my personal choice would be ALT4a2. Thanks. EdChem (talk) 12:01, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Oops, I meant to wrap this one up today but forgot about it. I am verifying ALT4a and ALT4a1. I think we can leave it to the promoter which of the two to promote. 4a2 is not supported by the sources IMO - I don't think there is any doubt the violence described was homophobic, the problem as I said is that the examples are anecdotal and don't actually demonstrate an overall increase - so I have struck it. Gatoclass (talk) 12:41, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Gatoclass, understanding your concern I see why your intent was 4a1 not 4a2. Also comfortable leaving it to the promoter to choose between 4a and 4a1. My preference, for whatever weight that might have, is 4a1. Vanamonde93's preference is 4a, I think. Thanks to everyone who has supported this getting resolved, including the promoter (in anticipation).  :) EdChem (talk) 12:51, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Russian_gay_propaganda_law&oldid=1018910340"