Talk:Anti-gay purges in Chechnya/Archive 1

Background
User:Djflem: Could you please add in-line references to the "Background" section you added? It is currently a nomination for In The News, and it's not helpful to add unreferenced content.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:04, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

In the news nomination
In the news/Candidates Djflem (talk) 12:07, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 15 April 2017

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: No Consensus. Relist contested Yashovardhan (talk) 04:10, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Gay concentration camps in Chechnya → 2017 purges of gay men in Chechnya – Amnesty recommends not calling them 'concentration camps' but 'secret detention sites' and anyway, focus of article is broader Smurrayinchester 05:40, 15 April 2017 (UTC) Smurrayinchester 05:40, 15 April 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. Yashovardhan (talk) 13:24, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Internment camps is a phrase being used as well. Purge is not used in article. Djflem (talk) 06:02, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Keep current title. It's a shocking title, but it is used in reliable sources. No link to or quote of the Amnesty bit, which is surprising to me, Smurrayinchester. El_C 07:33, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Apologies. Link is here (and is, or was, cited as a ref in the article). "When we asked Amnesty International if they could confirm the existence of the concentration camps they responded that it’s preferable, based on what we know, to refer to them as secret detention sites." Smurrayinchester 14:24, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * In the absence of further information, oppose move. The year would be problematic. Do we know for certain these events began in 2017? Was groundwork being laid for them earlier? Do we have a crystal ball telling us what will happen in 2018? The current title seems reasonable and appropriate. Rivertorch   FIRE WATER   12:24, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Keep, since the situation is fluid at this point, the issue of renaming can come later. The term "concentration camps" is currently being used by news sources although Amnesty International is recommending the use of the term "secret detention sites." Gmcbjames (talk) 18:18, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Lots of RS.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:25, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Keep--Rævhuld (talk) 23:56, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Change The story is about a abductions and attempt to purge the country, not about the place where the people were held. The military and local police, sometimes with family (who are cooperating or have been coerced), have compiled lists of men who have sought or had homosexual contact. The information has been gained through use of entrapment. Sometime in February 2016 the authorities began making mass arrests, abducting men and detaining them at a least two existing jails. Many were humiliated, tortured and forced to provide names of their contacts. A number died as a result of the torture; other may have been murdered. Some people were released, some to family members if they promised to murder them. Some escaped. It is a an attempt to purge the country of gays. many of who have gone into hiding or left. A survey of cited sources indicates that only some sources use the term. Others that do do so with qualifying quotation marks. The current name may have Neutral point of view and Reliable sources and undue weight issues.

Do not use the term:
 * The Guardian informal detention centers
 * The Independent special prison camps
 * The New York Times, sweep/mass arrests
 * Human Rights Watch campaign
 * Radio Svaboda secret detention center jails
 * ABC News:prophylactic purge

Use the term with or without quotation marks
 * Star Observer gay concentration camps
 * PinkNews; purge, concntration camps
 * Elle (magazine) : "gay concentration camps"
 * The Huffington Post, 'concentration camps"
 * London Evening Standard "gay concentration camps", concentration-style campsDjflem (talk) 06:17, 16 April 2017 (UTC)


 * "Purge" has its own potential NPOV issues, and so might any other term we might choose at this time. You seem very sure of the exact nature of what has happened and the motivations of the people who are behind it, but I assume you're merely speculating.
 * In any event, at least one of the entries on your bulleted list is wrong. The Independent has used the term (in quotes). So have the Toronto Sun (not in quotes), New Zealand Herald (not in quotes), The Advocate (not in quotes), and the Washington Blade (in quotes). This is how it stands now. As more information emerges, various reliable sources may collectively settle on different terminology. For now the situation is fluid, and there are a sufficient number of RSes that do use the term to justify our using it in the title. Rivertorch   FIRE WATER   17:42, 16 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Other than a fleeting mention of the camps (which I myself added with sources), there is no discussion about the camps: Where are they? when were they built? what are thy generally used for? How many dlls do they have? It wold seem an article titled Gay concentration camps in Chechnya" would have information about Gay concentration camps in Chechnya". This one does not. What it does have is a confirmed reports of harasments, humiliation, arrests, torture, death as in characterised in a purge or a Mass arrest.Djflem (talk) 18:42, 16 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I hear you. I guess what I was trying to say is that there really is no especially apt term that we can apply yet, so it's premature to consider a different title. I agree that "concentration camps" is problematic, but no more so than "purge" or anything else I can think of. (Well, actually, the word that came to mind when I first read about it was pogrom, but journalism's big guns either haven't thought of it or thus far have decided against using it.) I dislike "purge" because it has multiple meanings, some of them comparatively trivial ("The committee voted to purge the association of non-paying members") and others downright positive ("Psychotherapy purged her of the crippling shame she'd long felt"). Even in the sense you're using it, "purge" doesn't necessarily connote systematic violence, let alone mass murder. "Mass arrest" won't cut it because that's only part of what's been going on. Rivertorch   FIRE WATER   03:43, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Keeping a bad title because there is no PERFECT one, is misconstrued. As we know, Wikipiedia is work in progress, and this article is also a work in progress and regularly undergoing changes. Changing the title to more appropriate one as the article develops is part of the editing process and can change again if need be. In the meantime a better title, more appropriate title that reflects the content of what is written is a good move. As the article now stands, it is clear that the clandestine jails (called concentration camps, by some sources) are a [[means to an end, which is a purge, which Wikipedia describes as "removal of people who are considered undesirable by those in power from a government, another organization, their team owners, or from society as a whole. That is clearly the case here. Djflem (talk) 08:27, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Except that the camps can be seen as an end in itself—and the most notable thing about this purge. El_C 08:39, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Why?Djflem (talk) 09:07, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Because locking people up in camps is. And when they are concentration camps, we call them that. El_C 23:11, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Please provide information about the camps to the article (of which there is none), why you consider them the "most notable thing about this purge" and explain why the title should be kept . Seems like a clear case a the tail wagging the dog. Thanks.Djflem (talk) 05:39, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Djflem, I appreciate how much time and effort you've put into expanding the article, but I have to say I think this discussion is fast moving towards dead horse territory. Those of us who have commented on your proposed page move have been reasonably thorough and clear in what we've said, and asking for further explanations is unlikely to be productive. I continue to believe that a logical new title will reveal itself in due time as more information comes to light and the sources' terminology converges. Please try to be patient. On a side note, your indentations are a little confusing; in your most recent post, it almost looks as if you're making a request of yourself. Rivertorch  FIRE WATER   06:05, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it's appropriate to ask for an explanation of the claim that the camps are "the most notable thing about this purge" and for content about them. Nor do I think it's incorrect to ask for an explanation why one aspect of the broader topic, which could possibly be a sub header, should be taken as a title. Unfortunately, the comments have not addressed the points.
 * Why is the proposed title inappropriate since it more broadly addresses the entire situation?
 * Wikipedia article purge and its definition.
 * How can an article titled Gay concentration camps in Chechnya not have any information about Gay concentration camps in Chechnya?
 * Why is wrong to change a title to something more appropriate at this point since it can be changed again if necessary?
 * I think it's important to acknowledge that the original newspaper report (Novaya Gazeta, April 1, 2017) says: "Our sources in the Chechen special services categorically linked the wave of detentions, which they called a "preventive sweep" and that the term concentration camps was originally used by groups protesting the action and picked up by some other media.Djflem (talk) 06:45, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * All right, I'll take a stab at answering, but I'm not going to be drawn into a protracted discussion.
 * First question: I've already explained at some length why I believe the proposed title is inappropriate. Whether it's more or less inappropriate than the current title is a matter of opinion. Thus far, there is no sign of consensus in favor of your proposal. Per policy, "if it has never been stable, or it has been unstable for a long time, and no consensus can be reached on what the title should be, default to the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub".
 * Second question (not phrased as a question): While consistency of terminology between articles is theoretically to be encouraged, the content of one article (e.g., Purge) isn't particularly relevant to the selection of a title for another article. As I said before, the word "purge" means many things, and even in the sense that that article uses it, I think it fails to convey the nature and scope of what has been happening in Chechnya.
 * Third question: This one seems rhetorical. Obviously, the article lacks details about the camps themselves because the details haven't been reported by our sources. We do have information on some of the things that have been happening at the camps, and much of that is in the article. I assume you're aware that concentration camps aren't merely physical spaces; they also exist in psychological and political space, as instruments of violence, terror, and oppression.
 * Fourth (final) question: This one is based on a faulty premise—that your proposed title is "more appropriate". You've offered little more than proof by assertion that it's more appropriate, but repeating over and over that it is, in different contexts, isn't a persuasive argument. Rivertorch   FIRE WATER   07:35, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

While "concentration camps aren't merely physical spaces; they also exist in psychological and political space, as instruments of violence, terror, and oppression", the title should not be based on a conceptual metaphor, thus making the content a coatrack article. My assertions are based on the the fact that the original newspaper report which precipitated this Wikipedia article states the expressed intention of the Chechnya authorities: Our sources in the Chechen special services categorically linked the wave of detentions, which they called a "prophylactic sweep".'' This speaks directly to the concept of purge, which is the appropriate term, regardless of any other interpretations it may have. It is clear that the use of the pre-existing prisons is is a means to ends (one aspect of a greater plan): to intimidate and "cleanse" Chechnya of those with "unconventional sexual orientation - or suspicion of such." That is why news coverage consistently reflects the purpose of the camps, which is consistent with Verifiability and undue weight. The use of concentration camps is flashy click bait (cheapening Wikipedia) and will remain controversial since just one of at least a dozen other terms used in media coverage and no where used by leading human rights organizationsor or in official international government response (or first tier journalism other than in quotation marks).

in the meantime, while Wkipedia technicality is in force, what could be a potential more precise concise title for the witch hunt taking place that describes the oppression, persecution, entrapment, harassment, criminalization, intimidation, arrest, detention, torture, murder, extrajudicial killing, honor killing that in the content of the article? Djflem (talk) 10:24, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * As I demonstrated, when a concentration camp or camps exist, Wikipedia doesn't shy from calling them that. El_C 17:08, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you demonstrated, but any time you wish to present a convincing argument why this is the appropriate title for this article, you're welcome.Djflem (talk) 07:01, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Whatever. El_C 16:33, 19 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Another point: the term "Gay concentration camp" jars in my mind, because concentration camps are NOT gay by the old non-sexual use of the word: see gay. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:58, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Support any move removing "concentration camp" Boer war ancient history aside unless they are gassing the gay men this is not the description a broadsheet newspaper would use. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * So, the prisoners at Dachau who happened to be tortured and gunned down, instead of being gassed like their peers, were not in a concentration camp? Rivertorch   FIRE WATER   15:29, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No, broadsheet newspapers and history books would also use the term "concentration camp" for other camps in the Nazi apparatus. But here The Guardian informal detention centers, The Independent special prison camps, The New York Times, sweep/mass arrests. WP:RS. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:46, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * from your comments here you seem most likely to propose a RS/NPOV title, do you have a suggestion? In ictu oculi (talk) 10:50, 21 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep per a fair part of the sources and since the term is technically correct: a camp to concentrate people in. The fact that nobody is being gassed there doesn't change the correctness of the term. Debresser (talk) 11:10, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * We call a camp used predominately for mass murder an Extermination camp. El_C 11:48, 20 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Support moving the article to a neutral descriptive title in accordance with WP:NDESC. Based on both my own reading and the arguments presented here, there doesn't appear to be a single "non-neutral but common name". Furthermore, only a small portion of both the crisis and this article relate to concentration camps (by whatever term one wishes to call them). Consequently, I believe the current name is inadequate and fails NPOV, and the proposed title—while it may satisfy NPOV—fails to describe the problem by a significant measure. (Was the Holocaust the "purges of Jews from Nazi-held territory"? I suppose that's one way of down-playing describing it.) — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:09, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you're putting the cart before the horse. First, figure out what to rename the article into. El_C 10:53, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * There is absolutely no intent to downplay here. "Purge" is, to me, a very strong and very appropriate word, and we use it in article titles like 1968 purge of Polish Jews (a section redirect), the Great Purge and the 2016–17 Turkish purges, plus the category Category:Political and cultural purges. What alternatives are there? "Mass arrest" seems weaker than "purge" to me, "cleansing" is weird outside the set phrase "ethnic cleansing", "persecution" seems again weaker. Smurrayinchester 15:01, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

- RELISTED (contested) -
 * Oppose- Purge suggests that gays are being purged from the territory. Unless there is evidence of that, this name change is incorrect. I think the concentration camps title is awful as well, as that harkens to Nazi times, with long term incarceration or extermination (is there evidence of that today?). Maybe another more reasonable title will be nominated...Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:10, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment to support moveThe witch hunt is an attempt to purge Chechnya of men who have sex with men: The methods to suppress or cleanse society of those with so-caleed "unorthodox sexual orientation or practices" have included. surveillance, detention, interrogation, torture, and threat of honor killing. (The barracks where the men have been held-and from reports later released-have been called any of a number of the things by any pf a number of parties/sources.) This has precipitated an exodus through escape or evacuation using official and unofficial channels. Thus the stated intention to "purify" the region  by the Chechnya authorities is succeeding.  Purge remans the best term to describe the systematic:purification through voluntary or involuntary expulsion, evacuation, immigration, relocation. Djflem (talk) 15:21, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You can only !vote once, Djflem. El_C 18:58, 22 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Suggest -- Detention of gay men in Chechnya, 2017. I would suggest this is a NPOV name.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:17, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * And that title encompasses the topics of torture and killing exactly how? Rivertorch   FIRE WATER   03:30, 23 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Support move. From my read of the article, it sounds like less than 200 men are being detained in more than one location? It does not sound like anything I would call a "concentration camp" (not in Weyler's sense, not in the Nazi sense, not in the North Korean sense). The only source that I can see for the camp-like nature of the detention is The Advocate. Again, multiple camps for dozens of prisoners? As it stands, the title is too big for its britches. Srnec (talk) 22:42, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Relisting
*Relisting comment A close now would have resulted in no consensus so Relisting would generate more discussion. Also, if any alternate name is being discussed, please state so and cast a !vote for it. Yashovardhan (talk) 13:24, 22 April 2017 (UTC) Closing discussion as no consensus
 * That is not a valid reason to relist. I suggest we close this as no consensus. El_C 18:49, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Relist discusion is not over.Djflem (talk) 21:24, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * There was no reason to relist—discussion and time were ample. El_C 03:54, 23 April 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Aftermath
I found the article calling a journalist going into hiding (already mentioned in the lead) aftermath to have been somewhat misleading—because atrocities in the camps are still ongoing. After the camps are disbanded, we can talk about aftermath. El_C 10:38, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Sorry for my mistake <3 --Rævhuld (talk) 21:50, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

ENGVAR
Just for the record, I've tried to standardize the article to British spelling and date formats. It was a bit of a toss-up, with lots of DDMMYY dates (many of them down to me), but there appeared to be a preponderance of British spellings in key parts of the article that have been stable for a while, as well as in the earliest versions of the article. I don't think it's terribly important and am disinclined to argue the point if anyone disagrees, but I wanted to explain my rationale. Rivertorch  FIRE <sub style="color:#0066FF;">WATER   08:08, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. It was me who created the article back in the days and I wrote it in British English. Which is why the article should be written in British English. The first one decides which English should be used, according to Wikipedia rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rævhuld (talk • contribs) 14:24, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's generally true unless there's a compelling reason to change it. And thank you for creating the article. Rivertorch   <sup style="color:#FF0066;">FIRE <sub style="color:#0066FF;">WATER   18:52, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Chechnya are ‘charging gay men with terrorism claiming they are members of ISIS’
Chechnya are ‘charging gay men with terrorism claiming they are members of ISIS’ --08:37, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Origins of the claims
I think we need to mention that Amnesty International is headquartered in London and the "celebrities" listed are Americans. Given that these groups are casting dubious aspersions, based on unconfirmed reports within the sovereign territory of a state they are hostile to (the Russian Federation) then it is only fair to mention this. We also need to clarify who these mysterious "French human rights organisations" are by name. As it stands we have no definitive proof these "concentration camps" exist, lots of screeching from the usual suspects (the Brits especially) but no confirmation. Claíomh Solais (talk) 10:25, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * How can you be sure these are "dubious assertions"? I think pushing a narrative that this is all a western plot to malign Russia is not appropriate here without supporting material. Amnesty International is a well-respected internationally-based organisation. It is not controlled by the British government. There is likewise nothing mysterious about the French human rights organisations. I'm tired of this personal agenda you seem to be pushing from article to article reflected in your comment about "screeching from the usual suspects". It is highly partisan and one-dimensional. And very very disruptive. Administrators please take note. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:31, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Rename 2
archive top|Discussion showed that people were against a name change. It is known as gay concentration camps in public and in media. See Talk:Gay concentration camps in Chechnya

Gentlemen. For gays there are no specialized concentration camps. There are illegal prisons. There are mass murders. Gays are killed not only by the police, but also by the relatives of the victims. Терпр (talk) 11:40, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * They kill not only gays, but also bisexual and transgender people --Терпр (talk) 11:41, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Survey

 * Denied It is known as gay concentration camps in the public and in mass media.

archive bottom

This discussion was improperly/unilaterally closed by one editor who did not sign off: User:Rævhuld on June 11, 2017 Reversing change.00:21, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Verification of Novaya Gazeta quote
This quote, attributed to Novaya Gazeta in the article, is not found anywhere in the reference:
 * one eyewitness described to Novaya Gazetaas a "closed prison, the existence of which no one officially knows".--eh bien mon prince (talk) 12:52, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It was actually in the source cited at the end of the following sentence. But you're clearly a stickler for detail. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:01, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

19 December edit and revert
The problem with this, Contaldo80, is that it is the fourth instance in the article that Novaya is mentioned. It is reasonable, if perhaps not necessary, to say twice that it's a Russian paper—in the lede and once again in the body of the article—but not once again after it already has been mentioned two more times in the interim. I don't disagree with you that it's worthwhile to note that the coverage has been in non-Western media, but the lede makes it crystal-clear the reports originated in the Russian media. We might repeat that once more, but it should be upon the next mention of Novaya, not way down the page. IMHO. And I guess that may require a bit of rearrangement. What do you think? <b style="color: #393;">Rivertorch</b> FIREWATER  15:33, 20 December 2017 (UTC)