Talk:Anti-gay purges in Chechnya/Archive 2

The title
I understand that a discussion has already taken place, but I do feel that the title is unsatisfactory. Most of the text covers purges and persecutions, not concentration camps.Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 13:51, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Having edited the article extensively in the interim, I've had thoughts along the same lines but have been unable to think of a particularly apt alternative. (I can think of alternatives, but they're either too lengthy or inadequate in some way.) If you have a specific title in mind, please propose it. Rivertorch FIREWATER  17:14, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Persecution of gay people in Chechnya? Or shorter: Anti-gay purges in Chechnya?Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 19:01, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Persecution strikes me as too weak. Of seven major dictionaries I consulted, only one (Chambers) mentions death as a possible result of persecution. Purges is probably a better word, although I do find some of its connotations at odds with the gravity of the topic here, as I described a year ago.
 * Aside from the current title not really fitting, some while back I found a fairly compelling source-based reason to change it and have been meaning to resurrect this discussion for a while. I apparently didn't bookmark or make a note of what I found, so let me try to find it again and leave a note here when I do. There's no rush, and I'd really like to get this right. Rivertorch FIREWATER  20:21, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll be hereby pinging a hell of a lot of users who have edited this talkpage, so as to hear their opinions:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , .Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 18:19, 24 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Suggestion: Gay genocide in Chechnya or Chechnyan gay genocide Gmcbjames (talk) 18:51, 24 April 2018 (UTC)


 * 2016–present purges in Chechnya, along the lines of 2016–present purges in Turkey because 1) it is a purge that may include imprisonment, torture and murder 2) it is about MSM (men who have sex with men persons, as there appear to be no women held 3) it is not about gay persons since many of those being persecuted do not self-identify or use the label 4) it is about persons who have been "perceived to have engaged in homosexual sexual encounters or relationships"Djflem (talk) 19:12, 24 April 2018 (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) 21:24, 24 April 2018 (UTC)


 * No to genocide. Persecution on the other hand is way too weak. Purges makes it sound like it is motivated by political factionalism; it is not. Maybe some variant of "anti-gay crackdown in Chechnya"?--Calthinus (talk) 21:31, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Also no to "genocide". It would relativize mass crimes in history. As a non-native speaker of English I have no opinion on whether "crackdown" or "purges" is better. Both seem to be OK. Let native speakers of English decide on that. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 21:48, 24 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I believe the most meaningful and accurate term is Forced disappearance, which applies to human rights situations like this in several countries.--Pharos (talk) 02:21, 25 April 2018 (UTC)


 * No to genocide and no to the use of the word gay, since the affected population does not necessarily self-identify that way. It is pogrom since it is a intention at "cleansing" or purging. Forced disappearance is very appropriate Djflem (talk) 06:05, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Gay is an umbrella term that is sometimes also used to refer to Lesbians and can also be used to refer to bisexuals. LGBT would be too clumsy I think.Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 09:37, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I actually am not sure either "gay" or "LGBT" are appropriate here. Chechnya has not been influenced very much by the LGBT rights movement and although Western news reporting identifies persons in question this way, it is not verifiable to assert that they do themselves. Technically "non-heterosexual" would be correct but I would never put that in an article title. I do like ' proposal though. Here's my modified proposal: Forced disappearances of sexual minorities in Chechnya. --Calthinus (talk) 11:30, 25 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep existing title for now. (New proposal added below) I'm not really here today, but quickly: the title is problematic but the proposed alternatives to date may be equally problematic or more so. We are resurrecting old discussions here, which is tiresome. It's better to take this slowly and get it right—otherwise we're liable to be looking at a second move in short order. I will have something to bring to the table but not today and probably not tomorrow. Rivertorch  FIREWATER  15:34, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * as other users noted, there are verifiability issues with the current title. That is a core policy issue-- not an acceptable situation.--Calthinus (talk) 04:49, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I guess "acceptable" is a little subjective. I certainly agree it's not an ideal situation and have felt so all along. Since you're invoking core policies, however, I'll note that WP:V is silent on the issue of titles. Rivertorch FIREWATER  03:21, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah we do disagree here. You're opinion is valid, but personally I feel that violating WP:V in the title, even though not explicitly forbidden, is very much against the spirit of the core policy.--Calthinus (talk) 17:23, 27 April 2018 (UTC)


 * This article has had an inappropriate title for a year; way too long. This a new discussion to correct a serious error that should dealt with expeditiously.Forced disappearances in Chechnya (2016-present) witnesses have been recorded to have said earliest instance took place end of that year. Djflem (talk) 05:10, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The article has had a less than optimal title for a year. Perhaps it was inappropriate, but so were the alternatives suggested last year. I don't think it's exactly an "error" but I'm glad to revisit the issue. My concern is that expeditiousness doesn't turn into haste. Two moves in short order would be unfortunate. Let's get it right. (Could you please fix your indentation just above? I had to check diffs to see who I was replying to. Rivertorch FIREWATER  03:21, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Indents were function of script.The discussion last year was suggested for re-listing, which was opposed by one editor POV-pushing. Expedience is expedience and haste is haste: I don't think there's a rush. There's room to make your proposal and to respond to points made and suggestions given.Djflem (talk) 19:05, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Since forced disappearances are not new in Chechnya, and to acknowledge the reason for persecution while not assuming the actual identity of the victims, I suggest Anti-gay forced disappearances in Chechnya.--Pharos (talk) 05:39, 26 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I think current title is fine. But one should significantly reduce direct quotations on the page. Not a good style. My very best wishes (talk) 19:23, 27 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Apologies for the wall of text below. I've been turning this over in my mind for months and have finally found the time to recheck some sources and do some new googling. At this point, I am aware of three compelling reasons for a page move:
 * 1) As Djflem noted last year, the current title doesn't reflect the article's content. Whether or not one thinks the sites in question should be described as concentration camps, the article has very little to say about the sites.
 * 2) In an interview, the reporter who broke the story last year was asked very specifically about the use of the term concentration camps. She said, "I do not agree with this qualification, it is a mistake and an exaggeration. There are secret prisons in Chechnya in Kadirov, but they are not concentration camps." While this is her opinion, I believe that it should carry considerable weight because she has been pursuing the story from the beginning and has a familiarity with the topic that few, if any, other journalists can match.
 * 3) While the term concentration camps has been used by reliable sources, it is found only in a small minority of articles. Other terms are far more common.
 * What about the alternatives? Despite its use by at least two highly reputable sources, The New Yorker and The Guardian, purge still won't fly. It's used in various other horrific contexts, sure, but those involve topics on which historians have had some time to weigh in. We shouldn't use it to describe a campaign that has recently affected an unknown quantity of people in various ways, may still be ongoing, and is still unfamiliar to much of the world. If the vast majority of sources have used it, that might be different, but plenty have used other terms instead. Besides, the word carries other connotations, some neutral and some positive, so it's far from ideal. While persecution has no neutral or positive meanings, it is sometimes used to describe relatively trivial matters, so I don't believe it's strong enough to work here. Some reliable sources, including BBC News, have used the word genocide, but to date it seems too uncommon to warrant serious consideration. Crackdown is something the cops do when they get complaints about prostitution and panhandling; no way does it even begin to describe the grim situation in Chechnya. This is a rather complex topic that doesn't lend itself to being summarized in a word or two. Thus far, no especially apt alternative title has been proposed; each of the suggestions is flawed in some major way. Nevertheless, I have come to the conclusion that a couple of the alternatives are less flawed than the status quo. These are forced disappearances and pogroms. The former, suggested by Pharos, is quite apt. It never means anything good, and it seems to convey at least some of the gravity of the situation. My only objection is that it's used by relatively few reliable sources, compared to just about everything else that's been offered. If we decide on it, I'd suggest that the full title be Forced disappearances of Chechen gay men. This would be my second choice. Pogroms, mentioned recently by Djflem, would be my first choice. It occurred to me last year, but I dismissed it because it seemed obscure and only one source appeared to have used it. It still strikes me as a bit obscure, but lo and behold, quite a few major sources ended up using it after all: The New York Times, The Christian Science Monitor, The Washington Post, The Houston Chronicle, The Globe and Mail (Toronto), BBC News, and Straits News (Singapore). None has used it exclusively, but they've all used it, which indicates it's not so obscure after all. It has also been used by The Advocate (US) and GCN (Ireland), two major LGBT sources. (Links to all of the above available on request.) If we go with this option, I suggest as full title Anti-gay pogroms in Chechnya, since Gay pogroms in Chechnya would be ambiguous. Both of my proposals involve bisexual erasure, I know, but the distinction between gay and bi is one that seems utterly irrelevant in present-day Chechnya, and it's one that reliable sources haven't been making either. We do need some qualifier, though, particularly in the latter case because the term "pogrom" has been used extensively in the recent past to refer to the forced disappearance of Chechens in Russia. I'm pinging three contributors to the article—Underlying lk, AHC300, and Rupert loup—who may be unaware of this discussion, as well as three editors who contributed to last year's page move discussion but haven't weighed in yet: Peterkingiron, Srnec, and Jtbobwaysf. Rivertorch FIREWATER  10:47, 29 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I disagree with "pogrom". It has too many historical connotations, see Anti-Jewish pogroms in the Russian Empire, and it mostly refers to ethnic persecution. So my suggestion would be either Anti-gay purges in Chechnya or Anti-gay crackdown in Chechnya. Agree with Rivertorch in that the distinction between gay and bi is irrelevant in Chechnya. "Gay" does cover both.Miacek (talk) 12:03, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

This article is part of the Violence against LGBT people category, so perhaps Violence against LGBT people in Chechnya would work.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 14:33, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * There are many reasons why this is not a good idea (incredibly vague, could be about honor killings, and also 99% of the subjects lack any "LGBT" identity, etc...) --Calthinus (talk) 22:11, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree that 'violence' it's probably too vague. About the lack of LGBT identity, that is true but it applies to most of the articles in the LGBT rights series (like LGBT rights in Afghanistan) and I think we should remain consistent to the current naming conventions. And none of the alternatives suggested so far are really convincing. So perhaps Forced disappearance of LGBT people in Chechnya.--eh bien se


 * The arrests, threats, imprisonment, and murders are perpetrated against Men who have sex with men regardless of their sexual identity. It includes but is not limited to gay (homosexual/bi men) or other LGBT people (for which there appears to be no sources) and would be of disservice to Wikipedia and the victims to present it that way. Djflem (talk) 14:09, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * "Gay" is a suitable umbrella term for both homosexuals and bisexuals. Cf. "Gay rights" - both the rights of homosexuals and bisexuals are meant there (hey, it's a bi male speaking here;)).Miacek (talk) 14:17, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * but what about men who happen to have either had or sought sex but don't identify as gay and likely have no idea what that properly means? This even includes those who sought male/male sex (men using dating apps were also arrested, so they may have never had had sex with men, meaning they are not even men who have sex with men). Chechnya and Estonia have had very different trajectories in the past 30 years; while Estonia became part of the West and saw the growth of Western LGBT identities, Chechnya was more isolated than Russia proper or even Central Asia from Western influence, due to two of the most brutal wars in the modern era followed by one of the most totalitarian (and Islamist) dictatorships in the world. Don't you see an issue with imposing an identity on many people who don't even know what it means?--Calthinus (talk) 15:51, 30 April 2018 (UTC) P.S. I think in a lot of ways this article gets it right -- [] -- ironically while Kadyrov holds up the mantle of "Chechen tradition" which is indeed very patriarchal, a lot of things he does do not fit within it, such as the Arab-version hijab (traditional Chechen headscarf was just what Westerners would call a bandana)
 * We actually have the same thing in Estonia, too, but "gay" is still the best term to use. I also began courting other boys as a teenager but still identified as "straight", then as "heteroflexible" until it was pointed out on one website that this makes no sense. I still know no better umbrella term than "gay" for male/male attraction wherever it is located on Kinsey scale ("queer" is too colloquial).Miacek (talk) 17:47, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Ironically, on a purely factual basis, I agree with you 100%. But when you were "straight", I wonder how you would have reacted to being told you were "gay". And if you being "gay" meant you were not a real man but some sort of hermaphrodite, and that your family had somehow failed and raised someone who was possessed and sick in the head (please don't misunderstand, these are not my own views!), how would you react to say, someone you had just slept with, telling you were gay? Or maybe imagine you are just some 20 something guy who is bored to death sitting in your bedroom, and you like the thrill of doing something pretty clandestine, so you download one of those Western "gay" apps just to see what it's about -- and next thing you know police show up at your house and you spend months of your life getting tortured and raped (yes this happened-- ironic isn't it). Then, 5 years later, after you are released and you marry a cute girl and your family understands it was all a mistake, how do you feel when you read that English Wikipedia has decided to label you as one of the biological perverts you were detained with (once again, not my actual view) despite the fact that you only remember having strong sexual feelings for women? I'm sorry this turned into a bit of a rant, but I do feel it is a bit fucked up for Wiki to be imposing identities on people without either their consent or following our policy of verifiability-- though I understand if I am in the minority view and won't obstruct if that's the case. And I do appreciate people taking the ethical issues I raised here into consideration, even if they don't come to agree. --Calthinus (talk) 18:12, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * My father was indeed very homophobic, in 2004 he was happy with Bush victory just because "at least the sodomites' friend Kerry" (who happened to make some minor concessions to the LGBT movement) lost. But I'm getting personal. Anyway, I have a good gay friend in the States but his parents think all gays should be imprisoned in concentration camps, yet he secretly self-identifies as "gay". So I don't see why it's bad to use that term in the title.Miacek (talk) 19:11, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * My ranting aside -- what do you think of saying "suspected gay" instead. This at least fixes one problem. Some of the detainees indeed may even be straight. --Calthinus (talk) 19:36, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * "Suspected gay" would be problematic. Among other things, we shouldn't be using "gay" as a noun. We really have to go with what reliable sources are saying, and almost without exception they're describing the victims of these actions as gay. Please read the first sentence of WP:V; it has to do with sourcing. Rivertorch FIREWATER  05:32, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * If we want to preserve some ambiguity on the range of individual victims, perhaps we could use the phrase "targeting gay men" in the title, rather than "of gay men".--Pharos (talk) 07:08, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Support this seems like a perfect way to deal with the issue.--Calthinus (talk) 07:13, 1 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Definitions of pogrom is an article which may inform this discussion. Djflem (talk) 14:01, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Imo as it is used pogrom refers to persecution sanctioned by authorities but carried out in a large part by the common people. Although most everyday Chechens are quite homophobic it is not them but the Kadyrovtsy doing this. --Calthinus (talk) 15:51, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Except that "everyday Chechens" have indeed been carrying out honor killings of those released by the authorities. I initially disliked pogroms because it seemed so specifically about something else, but I've found multiple reliable sources that have used it, some multiple times. The reason I prefer (slightly) it to forced disappearances because the latter doesn't really speak to what happens after some of the victims have reappeared and been turned over to their families. Rivertorch FIREWATER  05:37, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * A pogrom is a public riot, almost the opposite of secret detentions and persecutions. The analogy to a pogrom would be the devastation of a gay neighborhood.  I don't see how honor killings after detention resemble a pogrom at all, though that aspect of family violence is alien to both concepts.--Pharos (talk) 05:53, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * (sigh) this is actually a good issue to raise here. It brings us to a question -- what is the scope of this article? Is it the mass detainment using dating apps to entrap people and whatnot followed by torture, rape and will-nilly murdering, or is it the liquidation of those that survived the first bout of misery by their disgusted families? To me those are actually two separate topics and fyi if you guys didn't know, state encouraged honor killings in Chechnya had been around for a decade at least before the recent mass detainment.--Calthinus (talk) 05:58, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I think the scope should include both. They're certainly closely related topics, and various news articles have discussed them both. Maybe they're sort of sub-topics within a larger topic. I think the article could flesh out the honor killings sub-topic a bit, but I doubt that there's enough out there in the way of RS to make a separate article on it that's much more than a stub. <b style="color: #393;">Rivertorch</b> FIREWATER  06:46, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I might be able to dig up some of the old sources I had on the honor killings. But I'm too busy rihgt now.--Calthinus (talk) 06:56, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Cool, thanks. @ Pharos: Yeah, I know. As I said, my immediate reaction to the word was "no way". But if reliable sources are using the word, it would seem that the usage has broadened. Interestingly enough, by the way, the word has been used in another context regarding Chechnya (see 1951 anti-Chechen pogrom in Eastern Kazakhstan and a mention in a book about something that happened in 1958]. <b style="color: #393;">Rivertorch</b> FIREWATER  07:00, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The 1958 Grozny riots have also been called pogroms--Calthinus (talk) 07:04, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, because they were ethnic based, just like anti-Jewish pogroms.Miacek (talk) 10:11, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree pogroms is not the best word. Journalists have not been seen using it afaik. Additionally honor killings are not pogroms because their targets are individuals. Additionally you might not have picked up on this but one reason authors (including Jewish authors like Moshe Gammer) might use "pogrom" in those two contexts is because the perpetrators were Christian Slavs, in both cases specifically Russians. Recall the linguistic origin of the word[]. --Calthinus (talk) 17:14, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

For the record, pogrom has been defined as: Of course, dictionary sources aren't sufficient for our purposes, but at least these three don't say anything that would exclude these recent events. Also: For what it's worth. Other dictionaries tend to limit it to ethnic groups. <b style="color: #393;">Rivertorch</b> FIREWATER  07:11, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * An organized, often officially encouraged massacre or persecution of a minority group, especially one conducted against Jews. (American Heritage Dictionary)
 * an organized persecution or massacre of a particular group of people, originally that of Jews in 19c Russia. (Chambers Dictionary)
 * an organized persecution and massacre, often officially prompted, of a minority group, esp. of Jews (as in czarist Russia) (Webster's New World Dict--Pharos (talk) 15:56, 1 May 2018 (UTC)ionary)
 * A massacre or persecution instigated by the government or by the ruling class against a minority group, particularly Jews. (New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy)
 * Every example I'm ever seen of a pogrom, whether it is anti-Jewish or targeting other groups, is public violence, a hate-driven riot. It doesn't seem to be mentioned in a few of these dictionaries, but it's clearly part of the definition.--Pharos (talk) 15:56, 1 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I think this is my final idea: Forced disappearances in Chechnya targeting gay men. It covers the means of persecution, with a term widely used internationally for secret detentions and killings, as well as the identity of the victims.--Pharos (talk) 16:14, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Support--Calthinus (talk) 17:14, 1 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Still prefer Forced disappearances over pogrom, though purge is still very viable.
 * Forced disappearances in Chechnya (2016-present)
 * Anti-gay forced disappearances in Chechnya
 * The first is inclusive of all victims; the latter describes the movtitation behind the government and/or family actions.Djflem (talk) 20:51, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with your second suggestion, which is equivalent to my own. Your first suggestion is flawed because forced disappearances are not a recent phenomenon in Chechnya - it's the homophobic campaign that is new.--Pharos (talk) 21:02, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * That doesn't address the fact that the date is mentioned, which should be done before calling it flawed. That title does not suggest/imply that the current wave (2016-present) is the first time disappearances have place; to the contrary, if it implies anything, that they are taking place again.  Forced disappearance, which you cite, refers to 2005/2006. If anything, that article should be updated to include these new instances. Djflem (talk) 22:40, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * From my reading, it appears that forced disappearances have been a regular phenomenon in Chechnya, without a break, since 1999. It has mostly targeted political opponents in the past, and the homophobic persecution using forced disappearances is new, but I don't think the other cases ever stopped.--Pharos (talk) 17:19, 3 May 2018 (UTC)


 * We're getting closer. I like Pharos's suggestion except that it seems a little cumbersome. How about Forced disappearances of gay men in Chechnya? Simple, descriptive, and it reads well. <b style="color: #393;">Rivertorch</b> FIREWATER  21:23, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * see the discussion above. I and some others raised issues in the WP:BLP realm about this -- since some ended up detained because others gave their names, or because they (once) signed into a gay dating app, it is not clear that every single man detained was homosexual or bisexual -- indeed it is possible some may have in fact been heterosexual. I am leaving out the issue of personal identities but you get the idea. A good way around this is phrases like "targeting gay mean", "against gay men" etc which do not imply all victims were LGBT. --Calthinus (talk) 22:23, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I think "anti-gay" could cover this as well, as for example non-Jews might be caught up in an anti-semitic campaign. I would suggest "homophobic", but that seems too wordy and general.--Pharos (talk) 22:27, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It doesn't address the fact that the victims of the forced disappearances are not exclusively gay men as that title suggests, whereas Anti-gay forced disappearances in Chechnya does address the motivation. Djflem (talk) 22:40, 1 May 2018 (UTC)


 * (Why are we pinging each other? I'm pretty sure we're both watching this page. I did see the discussion above. In fact, I've been following every word. The intent of the activities in Chechnya—the forced disappearances or pogroms or whatever—has been to target gay men. No distinction has been made between gay and bi men, nor would there be any. In a deeply homophobic culture such as Chechnya's, bisexuality is irrelevant; anything other than "pure" heterosexuality (whatever that may be) is unacceptable. So I really don't think we need to concern ourselves with whether some of the victims may have been bi and not gay. Frankly, I doubt very much whether very many non-straight Chechens concern themselves with such distinctions—they're just trying to stay alive. In fact, since all non-straight Chechen men are necessarily closeted, and many have had relationships with or even married women and may never have had any real opportunity for the level of self-examination that usually precedes the formation of a mature sexual identity, it strikes me as quite a moot point. I'm particularly baffled at why you think there are BLP concerns. <b style="color: #393;">Rivertorch</b>  FIREWATER  04:40, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * @Rivertorch : I think pinging etiquette is a bit ambiguous -- sometimes people will ping once the thread gets long so that you go immediately to the post rather than having to scroll (depending on your device). I've said my shpiel, though to be fair I don't literally think Chechen refugees will immediately concern themselves with the title of a wiki page. However it is tasteless to say the least in my mind to impose a label on people where that label literally gets them killed (while I do not assert that us having the title actually has that effect). On the other hand, what is so bad about saying "anti gay" or "against gay men" or "targeting gay men" or one of those options? As for bi people, really no one has found that issue to be a problem so it's moot- as is whatever "identity" the guys have (to be fair while I doubted their adherence to Western identities that mix behavior and identity, some did use apps that called themselves "gay"). The issue is whether it is described as being about "gay (men)" or instead targeting/anti/against gay men-- for prior stated reasons I prefer the latter. --Calthinus (talk) 05:32, 2 May 2018 (UTC)


 * @ Pharos: If you mean "Anti-gay forced disappearances in Chechnya", I'm a little bothered by the structure of that phrase. I can't quite put my finger on why. Maybe it's because "anti-gay" is a human property, while disappearances are inanimate. It may be that I'm overthinking this. Homophobic somehow doesn't bother me in the same context. I'm curious to know your opinion on Forced disappearances of gay men in Chechnya. Do you think it's a problem to omit the possibility of non-gay victims in the title? <b style="color: #393;">Rivertorch</b> FIREWATER  04:40, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * @ Djflem: In any prolonged campaign of violence, there's bound to be collateral damage: people other than the intended targets who are mistakenly victimized or just are in the wrong place at the wrong time or whatever. There may well have been people terrorized or killed that weren't even suspected of homosexuality but were impeding Kadyrov's thugs in some way, inadvertently or not. That doesn't negate the fact of who the intended targets were (gay men) or who the principal group of victims has been (again, gay men). <b style="color: #393;">Rivertorch</b> FIREWATER  04:40, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Therefore to include the so-called "collateral damage" victims it would be wise to avoid naming the victims since there is no one-word definition encompassing all of them. Choosing a title that the speaks to the intention (to purge the nation of anyone assumed to have engaged in or attempted to have engaged in homosexual sex/same-sex relationships, and perhaps even those who might be sympathatic to LBGT rights) using the term anti-gay is most comprehensible and concise, and even NPOV.Djflem (talk) 11:37, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I have kept an eye on this discussion and found the length off-putting. A summary could be useful if more views are to be encouraged. "Anti-gay" is a term invented in the 1990s, made popular (at least in my mind) through Simpson's book. The use of the term has significantly faded in the last two decades, so that non-academics under 40 never seem to use it, probably because it now reads as applying to discrimination against gay men only. I would support a change to "Concentration camps for alleged homosexuals". Clearly the intention of the camps are to imprison or murder people who may be homosexual, or may be men who have sex with men. More explicitly the discriminatory law being used is for the act of homosexual sodomy, so terms such as "anti-LGBT" does not fit with the camps. The word "gay" in the title does not fit with a murderous bigoted purge targeting sexual minorities. However the change is not essential, this is a question of clarity and accuracy rather than one of being misleading or disrespectful. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:59, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The article is not about "Concentration camps" but a purge/crackdown/persecution/forced disappearances.Miacek (talk) 13:24, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Various reports have said the term concentration camps is misleading. I really hate to say this but it's kind of clickbait.--Calthinus (talk) 16:33, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Clickbait or not, the camps are a detail and not the focus of the article. Also, we have the Chechen journalist who broke the story explicitly disclaiming the term. That's sort of the point of this thread, isn't it?. And also, the phrase "alleged homosexuals" won't fly: the use of homosexual as a noun has been deprecated for many years. @ Fæ: I agree about the length of the discussion, although maybe it's not so much the length as the lack of organization—a common enough problem in Wikipedia talk page discussions. I was thinking about the advisability of starting a new thread listing the options proposed to date and a discussion section that's separate from !votes. This could either be a formal RfC or not. (I think I'd prefer not.) <b style="color: #393;">Rivertorch</b> FIREWATER  18:21, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Huh, when did it become verboten to consider a sodomy law leading to the arrests of men having anal sex with other men as discriminating against "homosexuals", rather than people who identify as gay? I am a homosexual, in fact being in a same sex marriage means I'm legally a card carrying homosexual, but not necessarily identified as being a "gay", as UK law does not have "gay marriage".
 * I agree with avoiding a RFC, but realistically, it might be a valid option to just leave the name as it is. --Fæ (talk) 19:32, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's a valid option, but I don't think it's the best option.
 * Maybe my brain is friend today, but you lost me when you started talking about sodomy law and anal sex. I don't see how that's germane. As for homosexual being verboten, I didn't say that it was and I think that's overstating matters. I did say it's deprecated. Food for thought, when you get a moment:


 * the New York Times article "The Decline and Fall of the H-Word";
 * the GLAAD Media Reference Guide, which quotes the AP, Reuters, and New York Times style manuals;
 * the essay "A challenge to the Guardian: it's time to drop the word 'homosexual' by Gary Nunn in The Guardian;
 * the entry for homosexual in the Safe Schools Coalition Glossary;
 * "Maybe Those Who Say ‘Homosexual’ Should Not Be Given Media Time", published at HuffPost in 2016;
 * "Avoiding Heterosexual Bias in Language", published by the APA in 1991;
 * the usage notes under homosexual at Wiktionary;
 * the advice at WikiProject LGBT studies (which is rudimentary and needs to be updated and fleshed out).


 * Those who prefer to describe themselves as homosexuals are free to do so, of course, but I'm pretty sure we shouldn't follow suit in our article titles. <b style="color: #393;">Rivertorch</b> FIREWATER  05:30, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Why would you think I'm unaware of these issues, I thought you knew who I was?
 * Being prosecuted or being held in prison under a sodomy law, does not mean you identify as gay. The law is about sexual acts, not self identification. Yes, walking around Soho and asking "who is that homosexual?" would be offensive, but "the police rounded up suspected homosexuals" is correct and using "gay people" ignores the men being taken because they are men who have sex with men but are not gay. --Fæ (talk) 06:25, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't suppose you were unaware of these issues, but I posted the links for anyone who's interested, not just you. And I don't think you're being very clear. Are you suggesting that the men being victimized in Chechnya have all had sex with other men or that the authorities even necessarily think they have? Guilt by association is enough. Suspected thought-crime is enough. Suspected inclination or interest is enough.
 * Honestly, I don't think that "the police rounded up suspected homosexuals" is ever the best way to put it in 2018. The word "homosexual", especially the noun form, is being used less and less frequently in most contexts, and I think that's reflected in the sources cited in this article. <b style="color: #393;">Rivertorch</b> FIREWATER  06:38, 3 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Guys, we're talking in circles. Let's have a damn RfC, !vote, and get on with it.--Calthinus (talk) 20:41, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I'll propose a move from Gay concentration camps in Chechnya to Anti-gay purges in Chechnya. Who is in favour of such a vote, please vote.Miacek (talk) 22:15, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I can support this if others go for it. This conversation took up much more time than it was worth.--Calthinus (talk) 22:55, 2 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I recommend instead. I am proposing this, because it came to my attention that bisexual people and other categories too were affected by these purges, with the gay people being just the majority of the cases, but not the only ones.  👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻  (talk ✉️) (contribs 📝) 00:10, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It has been discussed to death above. Bisexuals are included by the umbrella term "gay", cf. Gay rights.Miacek (talk) 00:50, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, and Fæ made a good point about the phrase anti-gay being less than ideal. I hope we can be patient and work through this. It's a convoluted discussion, but it's quite a complex topic. <b style="color: #393;">Rivertorch</b>  FIREWATER  05:35, 3 May 2018 (UTC)


 * An attempt to to distil some of the options circulated. Is it possible to to now say that these are the four choices?
 * Anti-gay forced disappearances in Chechnya
 * Anti-gay purges in Chechnya or Anti-gay purge in Chechnya
 * Anti-LGBT forced disappearances in Chechnya
 * Anti-LGBT purges in Chechnya or Anti-LGBT purge in Chechnya
 * Djflem (talk) 07:49, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Support Anti-LGBT purge in Chechnya, singular ongoing event (2016-2018), which concurs with opening paragraph, which states LGBT purge. The intention of the Chechnyan regime is to quash any acknowledgement of "non-tradtional" sexual relationships and consciousness-raising for LGBT rights in the country. In fact its actions were motivated by an attempt by a rights organization to hold an event. Those persecuted and or threatened with persecution include various individuals (gay men, MSMs, journalists, activists, and possibly family members). Forced disappearances, clandestine prisons, extrajudicial murders, threats/extortion, are all tactics/methods used to either force people to leave/flee, to go underground, or self-censor. It is an attempt to purge Chechnyan society of any persons who would attempt to either live openly as an LBGT person or discuss human/civil rights in LGBT context. Djflem (talk) 08:07, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Oppose the use of "anti-LGBT" and no strong view on the other two proposed choices. "LGBT" is the wrong characterisation of the targeted groups, cases of imprisoning or murdering a man being suspected of having penetrative sex with another man (per article 148) is not the same thing as doing this for all LGBT people. Clearly the disappearances have an effect on all sexual minorities and freedom of expression, but the article title is focused on the disappearances with other effects, such as cases of lesbians leaving the country, necessarily being secondary to the topic. --Fæ (talk) 11:33, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * When and where exactly did you come to the conclusion that the targeted group was "man being suspected of having penetrative sex with another man"? Where in this reading of the article can you point to the place that that is the targeted group? If you can provide references please do, otherwise you are suggesting something that is original research and NOT a neutral point of view. I would suggest that the disappearances are only part of the article (and part of the purge), which more broadly discusses the situation in Chechnya and the lack and/or abuse of LBGTI rights.Djflem (talk) 13:04, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The point of getting to a vote is that these questions should have been addressed. Either this article is going to become something different, or the new title should have the same scope as the old one. The title of the current article is not about a more broad discussion of "the situation in Chechnya" or a general duplication of the existing LGBT rights in Chechnya. As for your question, the detention of alleged homosexuals by police is supposedly justified by them under Article 148, refer to Pinknews 2017-07. --Fæ (talk) 13:42, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The reference proved does not support your claim. It discusses article 148; to conclude that the Chechyn government is using it to "supposedly justify" its "prophylactic sweep" despite but is officially denied is OR. Question about appropriate language have been and are addressed. Your point about sodomy laws and article 148, while not irrelevant to the article is tangental the titles being proposed. The article does extensively discuss CONTEXT, as is seen in it's subsections: Background, Raids and killings, Imprisonment and Torture, and Reactions. It does use the (referenced term) LGBT purge in its opening.
 * Yes, some of the content of the article does appear off-topic if the imprisonment in detention camps and disappearances are supposed to be the subject of the article. Based on the sources, all the cases of detention or death have been of men. None that I have read about has been based on the men being claimed to be transgender or bisexual, and obviously none have been lesbians. If the detentions are not for asserted crimes against article 148, then it would be useful to produce some reliable sources which explain the asserted police actions using other laws.
 * If the article is to change to being more generally about the treatment of LGBT+ people, then the overlap with LGBT rights in Chechnya, should be discussed as it would make sense for some of the details to move to that article and become section links from this one.
 * Why did you write "context" in uppercase, is that some guideline? --Fæ (talk) 16:28, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Support After reading the above discussions, I would support a move from Gay concentration camps in Chechnya to Anti-gay purges in Chechnya. Gmcbjames (talk) 17:26, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Support Gay concentration camps in Chechnya -> Anti-LGBT purges in Chechnya. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 (talk ✉️) (contribs 📝) 01:49, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Proposal: Multiple choice straw vote
I believe one of the reasons this discussion has become long and unwieldy (and as a result is now going in circles) is the large number of options being considered, yet each person is arguing mostly for their own preferred version out of the 20 or so. There is no perfect way out of this situation, but I suggest what I think is the best option: we have a straw vote, with one section being the voting where we have a chart with each option, and then, in the next column, a list of all the users who could support that (perhaps with abbreviated reasoning for each), and then the discussion section below. Multiple voting for users are allowed -- that way we will be able to discern which choices are the most acceptable to the most users (not just those that post the most). That's very hard to discern in the present discussion. Are you guys down for this idea?--Calthinus (talk) 19:54, 3 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Agreed.Miacek (talk) 19:55, 3 May 2018 (UTC)


 * OK Djflem (talk) 03:24, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It's worth a try, I suppose. It might help if we could specify "first choice", "second choice", and so on. And, as I suggested earlier, discussion should go in a separate section—no threaded replies to anyone's abbreviated reasoning. I endorse this with a caveat: some of the proposals to date have been unacceptable for compelling reasons, and I don't want us to wind up in a situation where numbers alone indicate consensus. <b style="color: #393;">Rivertorch</b> FIREWATER  16:56, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes Rivertorch, there shall be a "Discussion" section below hte chart. Regarding compelling reasons-- we could have instead three columsn like this : first is the proposal, second is the support votes, third is the oppose votes (with abbreviated reasoning for both). What gets taken into accoutn by the closer-- who should be an uninvolved admin -- is reasons given in the context of (support - oppose) !votes. --Calthinus (talk) 20:17, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Do we want to ask separate questions for how to express (1) the means of persecution and (2) the target of persecution? Those have been the two main issues that have come up,--Pharos (talk) 17:17, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * (3) the intention of persecution.Djflem (talk) 20:54, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I was thinking just a column of all possibilities, and votes to the rihgt of that. Because we can't exclude the possibility that there is an interaction between means and target in terms of whether an option is acceptable to someone. Also two RfCs is a lot given the length of this already. If that's okay.--Calthinus (talk) 18:18, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, I agree.--Pharos (talk) 20:28, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * @ Calthinus: It sounds very complicated. I'm glad you're setting it up because I'd break the Internet for sure if I tried to code it. Question: if you're going to go to all this trouble and request admin closure, hadn't this better be advertised in some way? I hate the idea of an RfC but at the very least, WT:Wikiproject LGBT studies had better be notified. <b style="color: #393;">Rivertorch</b> FIREWATER  21:48, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * @Rivertorch: Absolutely it should be advertised-- perhaps messages on Wikiprojects would be best? I'll set it up a bit later, maybe in 5 hrs or so in my sandbox, I'll give you all a ping and half a day to raise any concerns you have about the structure of the straw poll, then post tomorrow. Sound good? --Calthinus (talk) 22:20, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Multiple choice straw poll
Presenting all options that recieved some degree of interest in the earlier discussion as well as other ideas that were floated with some interest at points even not in this specific discussion. For length, excluding some that have frankly no chance of winning, like the "genocide" proposal, also per SNOW. --Calthinus (talk) 19:32, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't realize SNOW could fall before polling began. <b style="color: #393;">Rivertorch</b>  FIREWATER  22:10, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Everyone: Let me know if I missed any, or if you'd like to add one to the poll. There was a lot to read through to make this. Thanks for your understanding all, and sorry for the delay in posting this. --Calthinus (talk) 19:32, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Pinging people who have participated -- add anyone I missed --          --Calthinus (talk) 19:36, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Gay vs. LGBT vs. sexual minorities
Virtually every source that has reported on the spate of abduction, detention, torture, and murder to date has referred to the victims as gay men. Might some of those men be bi? Yes, but we go with what reliable sources say, and they don't talk about bi men. Might some identify as straight? Of course they might, but so what? The sources don't talk about straight victims, and besides, we may safely assume that in Chechnya all men publicly identify as straight (especially the gay ones who supposedly don't exist). The sources have made no mention of lesbian or transgender persons, so it would seem that the 'L' and 'T' cohorts in the LGBT initialism, as well as the 'B' cohort, are beside the point here.

Sexual minorities bothers me less than LGBT only because it's vague. I think it's less than optimal because the plural form suggests that more than one minority has been involved. Perhaps more than one has, but the sources don't really support that reading. There's also the question of whether such vagueness serves to erase the victims' identity. By way of a very rough analogy, consider: how many articles about Jews getting hauled off by the Nazis refer to those Jews as "religious minorities"?

While it is literally true that LGBT people and sexual minorities have been targeted, it is one particular sexual minority—one letter in LGBT—that are mentioned in literally hundreds of sources. At Wikipedia, that's supposed to count for something. <b style="color: #393;">Rivertorch</b> FIREWATER  06:43, 7 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Rivertorch, I actually find the Holocaust analogy really misleading and even misinformed. Jews were not targeted in the Shoah for their religion, they were targeted as an ethnic group (or ethnocultural, ethnoreligious whatever, Jews don't agree with each toher on this point but the Nazis even identified Jews as a "race"-- their faith was not the issue). And, in fact, virtually every other distinctive ethnic minority in Germany was also targeted -- including notably Roma and Slavs and the tiny number of those of partial African origins in Rhineland. Minorities that were actually differentiated mainly by religion and not culture or ethnicity, such as the Catholic German community in which Hitler himself was raised (in Austria), were untouched and were often supportive of the regime (well, they were suppressed as institutions at points but their members were never a targeted group).
 * Regarding who was targeted, it's fairly clear that it is homosexual suspected behavior not identity (Chechnya does not even have anything resembling a gay rights movement, "LGBT/queer/gay identity" is very much a foreign concept in Chechnya) that gets one detained -- meaning that those that would be clinically classified as bisexual or even heterosexual but at the wrong place at hte wrong time can get detained. What is clear is that it is mainly men that are targeted while there is no similar effort to target lesbians (who may nevertheless be the victims of honor-killings -- although these are much more likely to occur due to heterosexual behavior for women). Lastly this is kind of moot but regarding "straight" -- they don't. "Straight" is also a new identity that is still not established in Chechnya. If they "identify" as something it will be a "normal guy", but that's not exactly a thing you think about. The T is kind of irrelevant as that's not really a sexual minority -- i.e. there are straight transgender people. On the other hand I do agree "sexual minorities" is vague -- it was a maybe halfbaked attempt to imply the target has clinical and behavioral characteristics of homosexuals, without saying the minefield word "homosexual", but I recognize there is a vagueness issue with it. --Calthinus (talk) 08:18, 7 May 2018 (UTC)


 * It is for this reason that I am abstaining from the vote. None of the proposed titles hits this correctly. The people being detained or murdered do not have to identify as "gay" or "LGBT", but they are being disappeared because they are suspected of homosexual acts. The key aspect is the suspected sexual one, not one of self-identification. --Fæ (talk) 09:38, 7 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Calthinus, please note that I said it was "a very rough analogy" (italics in the original). I implied nothing about the Nazis' classification of minorities or the ideology behind it; I was simply making a very inexact comparison involving the way we describe groups of people targeted in state-sponsored extermination campaigns. When we're writing about the Jewish people who were targeted by the Nazis, we don't call them "religious minorities" or "ethnic minorities"—we specify what minority; we give a name to them. In the case of Chechnya, aside from all the other differences, we don't have the luxury of more than half a century of scholarship and reflection to make clear exactly what has happened and who it has happened to. Based on what reliable sources have reported, the extermination campaign that began a couple of years ago has been targeting gay men. The vast majority of sources agree on that point. Some sources, presumably acting without the benefit of up-to-date style manuals, have used the word homosexual rather than the word gay. I personally don't take issue with that usage as long as it's adjectival. For instance, I would accept Forced disappearances of homosexual men in Chechnya. Another possibility—and this may speak to what Fæ says just above—would be something like Violence targeting homosexuality in Chechnya. It's a bit awkward, and it casts a human trait rather than the humans themselves as victim, which I don't much like, but it's a thought.
 * Fæ, I'm not completely sure what you're suggesting. Suppose a Chechen man was believed to have expressed interest in the concept of gay identity but explicitly renounced any possibility of personally engaging in same-sex sexual activity and verifiably didn't engage in it. Would he not still have been targeted? I suspect he would, because they're tarring people with a very broad brush. In any event, we both seem to be speculating here instead of going by the sources. I've read scores of articles on this over the past year or so, and I don't recall too many of them saying that it was specifically behavior that was being targeted. Guilt by association seems to be standard operating procedure, from what I've read. <b style="color: #393;">Rivertorch</b> FIREWATER  16:54, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * (Incidentally, Fæ, if none of the proposed titles works for you, it might be worthwhile to oppose them and add a proposal of your own to the table.) <b style="color: #393;">Rivertorch</b> FIREWATER  16:58, 7 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Is the mention of any torture, murder or targeting of Lesbians or Transsexuals in the article? LGBT or LGBTQ is an umbrella term.  Most sources cite gay men were targeted and I think the article's title should reflect this rather than using an umbrella term. Gmcbjames (talk) 17:52, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Reports by Gessen and others have confirmed as much: it's the men that are targeted. One could argue they are more a threat to the social order. --Calthinus (talk) 17:30, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Forced Disappearances
The problem I have and why I don't support the use of Forced Disappearances in the title is forced disappearances is whitewashing the actual horror of rounding up gay men, torturing them, and killing them only because they are either suspected of participating in homosexual behavior or have associated with men who are suspected of homosexual behavior. Those who were murdered did not disappear, they were murdered. Those who were tortured did not disappear, they were tortured. The gay men who are unaccounted for did not just vanish or disappear, rather any true investigation into their disappearance has not been investigated by the Russian authorities. I refuse to be a part of the cover-up by the Russian government regarding the gay men in Chechnya somehow just "disappeared." Gmcbjames (talk) 17:42, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Have you heard of forced disappearance in other contexts before? The term has been used by human rights activists for decades internationally to protest the treatment of those who have been secretly abducted, tortured and murdered.--Pharos (talk) 17:55, 7 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, however in the case of Chechnya, the forced disappearances were not secret. In the sub-section of the article forced disappearance under Russia, it is noted Russian rights groups estimate there have been about 5,000 forced disappearances in Chechnya since 1999. This article is about a date and time when Chechnya was caught red-handed in the early stages of gendercide and the international community responded.  This article isn't about the forced disappearances of 5,000 people in Chechnya since 1999, it is about gay men & suspected gay men who were rounded up, imprisoned, tortured & murdered in February 2017. Gmcbjames (talk) 18:26, 7 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Your mileage may vary, but I think the term applies. When I see it, it makes me think of people who mostly are never heard from again. The lead section of Forced disappearance describes it pretty well. If I thought the term glossed over the reality of it, I'd oppose using it. (That was my main objection to "mass detainment" and "purges".)
 * For clarity's sake, not all of the gay men who were targeted beginning around (not necessarily in) February 2017 were murdered. Some were released, often to their murderous families, and then escaped. Others escaped without being caught in the first place. Many fled Chechnya and have borne witness to what happened to their less fortunate peers. This article is about them, too. <b style="color: #393;">Rivertorch</b> FIREWATER  18:54, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * James and Rivertorch: I earlier floated teh idea of "crackdown" which is less euphemistic than "forced disappearance" while less vague than "persecution" (which is not new). I suppose I'll add Anti-gay crackdown in Chechnya (2016-present) to the poll?
 * That being said I do think that James' logic about "not capturing the horror" etc etc is going about it the wrong way. Our job on a detached, NPOV encyclopedia is not to capture the emotional salience of an event. We would never ever have a page like Attempted annihilation of male homosexuality from Chechnya via state-sponsored terrorism (even though that's like, mostly accurate). --Calthinus (talk) 19:30, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I think crackdown could be read to imply wrongdoing on the part of those targeted. (Yes, it can also mean wrongdoing from a strictly legal perspective rather than an ethical perspective, but considering that the "crackdown" has used extrajudicial methods and was denied by the government, either way it's not great.) There really is no perfect way to word it—at least not that would be short enough to make a good title. At some point, I suspect we're going to have to settle on the the wording that the most people find the least imperfect. Were you going to notify the WikiProjects, by the way? I'm of two minds about it. <b style="color: #393;">Rivertorch</b> FIREWATER  21:10, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Crackdown is a term that can be used negatively for the targets and victims. For example, it was used in the Turkish media about the people in Turkey who are affiliated (without proof, only upon suspicions) with the Gulen Movement. For me too, it is not exactly a good choice of word given the different connotations it can bear for different readers. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 (talk ✉️ &#124; contribs 📝) 03:02, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The term is also used for pot. But this is a pretty good point still. This is such a minefield :/ --Calthinus (talk) 07:30, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

In reviewing the article, there is no mention of "forced disappearances." There is one mention of enforced disappearances, in the executive summary in the section International, as one of a number of practices in Chechnya. The term purge is used more often in the article and by sources. The HRC (and Amnesty International) on April 4th referred to "No Justice for Chechnya' Anti-Gay Purge Victims" (see . I do think it is quite difficult to title an article about a current event, which has yet to be fully analyzed & written about by third party sources. Purge isn't perfect I agree, though to avoid OR with a NPOV, we should follow the sources we have available - and purge seems to be used by first and secondary sources over the terms crackdown, enforced disappearances or forced disappearances.  Gmcbjames (talk) 06:32, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The article is deficient in not developing the concept of forced disappearance more, which is what these persecutions are classified as under international law. "Enforced disappearance" is of course a synonym.  Which is not to say this term should necessarily be in the title, but it's a very key concept for this whole article.--Pharos (talk) 03:38, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Zelim Bakaev was alledgedly abducted, tortured, murdered in a an example of forced dissapearance during (per that article), the anti-gay purge. Will add as see also, please feel free to incorporate in article Djflem (talk) 16:37, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note -- we actually have no idea what happened to Zelim Bakaev. He did disappear at hte right time for it to be because of that. As I said, LGBT media likes the word "purge". They don't tend to engage with the fact that the word has another usage in the post-Soviet area that is quite different (and still occurs in Chechnya-- like what happens to anyone who gets too powerful for Kadyrov's liking). But I suppose words can change their connotations. --Calthinus (talk) 05:56, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The word purge doesn't change in meaning, the targets of a purge do.Djflem (talk) 07:09, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Second Chechen War crimes and terrorism also provides backgroundDjflem (talk) 16:42, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Purges and persecution
At the risk of repeating myself...well, for the record, here's what I said a year ago: 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"). I realize that it has negative meanings, too, but the word just doesn't seem quite up to the task of denoting at a glance the life-and-death seriousness of the topic. Yes, reliable sources have used the word, but that can also be said of pogrom and, for that matter, concentration camps. Compare purges with persecution: the latter invariably refers to negative actions but still seems too weak for our purposes. For instance, only one major dictionary mentions death in connection with persecution. None mentions death in connection with purges. <b style="color: #393;">Rivertorch</b> FIREWATER  15:27, 8 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I guess almost all words can have multiple meanings. For me, the word "purge" first of all associates with the Great Purge, in which my relatives, too, were killed, hardly a trivial event.Miacek (talk) 15:31, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The Soviet example is my primary association for "purge" as well.--Pharos (talk) 03:33, 12 May 2018 (UTC)


 * The media likes using the word purges for these events []. It's very likely the trend started with the LGBT media. Purges are a very serious thing in Chechnya, which is obviously in the post-Soviet domain. Thing is that things in Chechnya that are described as purges have also happened to people that Western media doesn't care about, such as Kadyrov's political rivals (the Yamadayevs, etc etc) -- and for mainly political reasons. --Calthinus (talk) 16:41, 8 May 2018 (UTC)


 * In the article Purge, "Purges can be either nonviolent or violent; with the former often resolved by the simple removal of those who have been purged from office, and the latter often resolved by the imprisonment, exile, or murder of those who have been purged." Gmcbjames (talk) 18:17, 8 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Purge is consitent with text for which there has been long-standing consensus in the intro of the article itself:

The paper, citing its sources in the Chechen special services, called the wave of detentions a "prophylactic sweep". As news spread of Chechen authorities' actions, which have been described as part of a systematic anti-LGBT purge, Russian and international activists scrambled to evacuate survivors of the camps and other vulnerable Chechens...Djflem (talk) 20:21, 8 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm sort of warming up to purge. <b style="color: #393;">Rivertorch</b> FIREWATER  18:44, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Anglocentrism issue? Potentially fake news?
Rivertorch attempted to delete my proposal that this be titled "Chechen concentration camps conspiracy theory", but I think we need to address first whether these things even exist.

The only people who are are claiming it does are the Anglo-Americans and their close allies. The Russian Federation in general denies they exist, as do the Chechens. We have no photographic evidence, no video evidence, no unassailable first hand accounts, nobody in the UN has launched a human rights investigation or whatever. Our primary source for this unproven claim is Novaya Gazeta, which is a US-supported anti-government publication. Here, to the right, is an image of the editor in chief wearing a US-bestowed Four Freedoms Award?? As it stands this whole thing are just accusations nothing more than that.

At the moment, the entire process for renaming this article, or maintaining the current bias one, is being driven by people who appear to be very favourable to "LGBT" issues and may find it emotionally gratifying to feel, by proxy, "persecuted" and so might not be able to approach the topic with a clear head and NPOV. We need to first establish reliable and non-partisan evidence that this even exists and isn't just fake news from the United States and British governments in their information war with the Russian Federation before we can decide on a title. Claíomh Solais (talk) 09:22, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Let's have a consensus please. I propose this thread is collapsed as apparent trolling per WP:DENY and if uncollapsed will be handled as vandalism. To dismiss the wealth of international reliable sources with impeccable histories for reliable independent reporting as "partisan" or "fake news" and part of a fruity conspiracy by US and UK government is not worth discussing and is a misuse of this talk page by creating a hostile environment and distracts from collegiate article improvement. I believe the above paragraphs are an intentional attack and an attempt to humiliate/scare off a minority group of contributors, to label everyone who contributes here with an interest in LGBT+ topics as people who are "emotionally gratified" by misusing this horrific persecution of LGBT people for their own ends rather than to ensure the mission of the encyclopaedia. --Fæ (talk) 14:01, 5 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I'd rather see it removed per WP:DENY, but collapsing certainly would be preferable to leaving it in plain sight. It is a lot of things, some of which you mentioned, but in terms of its relation to this long and otherwise productive discussion it is a distraction. <b style="color: #393;">Rivertorch</b> FIREWATER  16:26, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Since my proposal the person making these claims has been formally warned on their talk page per Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. I am collapsing this discussion and will remove the related name option in the table as part of the same issue. Should anyone disagree, I recommend they read the details of how discretionary sanctions work before considering any revert, or raise an admin request on ANI for action. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 17:27, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

RfC
You guys cool with me advertising this discussion in various wiki projects? I think it would be good to get some outside views.--Calthinus (talk) 18:00, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry to not have responded sooner. Think it would be appropriate to summarize above survey and choose those 4/5 options that are seem to be most viable and poll again. After that, only if necessary, seek Requests for comment, perhaps at Requests for comment/Politics, government, and law and Requests for comment/Society, sports, and culture, though maybe not at Requests for comment/Wikipedia style and naming (seems it seems a content/title issue).Djflem (talk) 04:49, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * If we must, we must...but must we? I'm under the impression that consensus had more or less coalesced. Clearly, not everyone is thrilled with any of the proposals, but one of them, Anti-gay purges in Chechnya, is endorsed by five users (more than any of the others) and is opposed by only one user (with a rationale that has been addressed and, I believe, adequately refuted). We could indeed advertise and open this up to a larger group, but I strongly suspect that in doing so we'd find ourselves going over the same ground again. I can't help thinking we've just about talked it to death. What I'd like to know is whether anyone who has participated in the discussion thus far objects so adamantly to Anti-gay purges in Chechnya that they'd either revert or open an RfC if we were to BOLDly move it to that title. <b style="color: #393;">Rivertorch</b> FIREWATER  12:55, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I am good with Anti-gay purges in Chechnya.Djflem (talk) 15:54, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * We've had a very long discussion about this, I think Anti-gay purges in Chechnya has emerged as the best choice.--Pharos (talk) 17:47, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I suggest we give it another couple of days, just in case someone wants to object, then go ahead and move it. <b style="color: #393;">Rivertorch</b> FIREWATER  20:23, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I support this title. I think you've landed on the best option.--Trystan (talk) 12:47, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Situation of lesbians
I think you wanted more coverage of this -- here are sources [], and, of course, what sort of anti-lesbian campaign would be complete without "correction" attempts []?

Also needs an update with the second round of the purge, which is still currently in process []

Not useful for this page, but German Sadulaev (a much beloved Chechen comedian) as usual is blunt -- "The main issue in Chechnya is the issue of sex" []

--Calthinus (talk) 19:17, 31 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Noted. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 17:50, 8 September 2019 (UTC)