Talk:LGBT-free zone

New Ways Ministry

The blog published by New Ways is a self-published source and not usable as a WP:RS on Wikipedia. "News blogs" are acceptable because they are published by news organizations; New Ways is a "justice and advocacy" group. Two criteria to keep in mind for RS: editorial oversight and a reputation for fact-checking. If the petition is worthy of inclusion, then there will be reputable news outlets reporting on it (it's fine if they're in Polish, we work with sources like that already), and there is no need to cite New Ways or even link to the petition itself on a blacklisted site which was requested by @Jackgrimm1504: in his first edit upon account creation. Elizium23 (talk) 19:02, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

The New Ways Ministry is a reliable, large organization. Their news site is styled as a "blog" but it isn't a selfpublished or in any other way unreliable source of information. The WP:RS clearly states that this isn't a case of inreliability. Yes, it may have been my first edit on this account, but is it a problem? I have requested to take the petition off the black list to cite the source itself. As the administrative body asked to provide another, reliable source - I did. Calling New Ways Ministry as an unreliable source on that matter is actually not very professional. Jackgrimm1504 (talk) 19:10, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

You are resorting to a tautology: New Ways is reliable because they're reliable. You have no evidence that it is. It would truly be an exceptional matter if it were. New Ways' purpose is not to report the news or check facts, but "justice and advocacy". Elizium23 (talk) 19:14, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Jackgrimm1504 This appears to be a group talking about itself? We can't use it. We can add this information once someone else is reporting on it in a reliable source. --valereee (talk) 19:16, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

It isn't - they are not reporting about themselves, they are reporting about a petition from Poland. Petition was made by a group of Polish laity, and American New Ways Ministry made a report about itJackgrimm1504 (talk) 21:21, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I believe it would be acceptable if New Ways were reporting on something New Ways had done, then their website would be reliable for such a claim. Since they're making claims about a third party, there is no way we can use this as a source. Elizium23 (talk) 19:27, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Jackgrimm1504, I don't think that necessarily rises to the level of proving noteworthiness. Not every reaction is worth reporting on. If/when other reliable sources pick the story up, it's worth including. If it is, it'll happen. There's no deadline here. --valereee (talk) 19:28, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree that they're reliable for what they do/believe/say, but if they're reporting on themselves, that wouldn't show it was worth including. Not everything someone says they've done is worth including in an article, even if it were the article about them. :) --valereee (talk) 19:31, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

It was mentioned by various LGBT advocacy groups in Poland as well as other Catholic groups in Poland. The topic isn't fresh, and there's election in Poland - nobody cares about a petition that started over two months ago to make a story about it on a large News Site. The topic however is quite niche, and therefore this petition can be considered notable, due to it being notice across the Ocean along with other vital pieces of information that New Ways Ministry article cover. And again New Ways is not reporting on something that they did - they are reporting about an initiatve of people from Poland that are in no way affiliated with them. Not to mention we have Twitter covreges mentioned in this article. Jackgrimm1504 (talk) 21:33, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Your concepts of "notability" and "reliability" are at odds with Wikipedia's. "nobody cares... to make a story" yet it's notable because why now? Elizium23 (talk) 19:38, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Well about a petition that is to months old, and make a news about it? Does someone cover Iraq War that happend years ago in News anymore? So it isn't a notable thing right? Nobody will do new covreges on the topic, because it is OLD! There are reports from LGBT advocacy groups and it was reported abroad - it is notable. The topic of this whole article is niche, you can't expect it to make ito the front page of times, can you? Jackgrimm1504 (talk) 21:41, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

The only twitter mention I see are from an NBC news story -- is that what you mean? We report this because NBC reported it. That's my whole point: when NBC reports about this petition, we will consider it important enough to include here. --valereee (talk) 19:43, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

"Notability" is a red herring. Facts and events and people do not need to be notable in order to be included in a Wikipedia article about a notable topic. So it is not productive for us to debate "notability" of this petition. Elizium23 (talk) 19:47, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Your main argument was that it wasn't notable and reliable, so how come now it doesn't matter? I can provide you with hundreds of retweets, forums discussions, Facebook mentions, etc. but those are not Wikipedia sources. However it made enough buzz around itself that people in the US noticed it. It is in my opinion notable and reliable enough to be included in the article regarding a niche topic which the LGBT-Free zones are. Jackgrimm1504 (talk) 19:49, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

What is "it"? The petition? Why does a petition need to be reliable? What are you arguing about, anyway? Elizium23 (talk) 20:02, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

No? Not the petition. The article which you said that was an unreliable source. You're acting strangly now, as if you don't know what this discussion is really about. The petition is on the other hand notable, and if it was mentioned in the US, on the topic that is in itself so niche, in a country that isn't that important for the world's geopolitics, it it notable enough to be mentioned in the article about that particular niche topic in that particular country Jackgrimm1504 (talk) 20:06, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I think we may be talking about two different issues. The first is reliability. I don't recognize this New Ways Ministry, but it's quite possible they're reliable for news about such things. But it doesn't really matter in this argument because an equally important issue is whether the petition is noteworthy -- worthy of including in the WP article. One of the ways we know whether something is worth including is which sources pick it up and how many of them pick it up. One obscure outlet is not enough. If there were even one major news outlet picking it up, it might be worth including. But we don't include every reaction from every possible source. Mrs. Schmidt next door may get up a petition on this, too, and her local weekly may very well write a story about it. That doesn't mean we include it. --valereee (talk) 20:27, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Valereee I couldn't agree more, but that's not the case here. The petition has been discussed in Poland, but due to it being a niche topic in itself, we can't expect many articles about it. It was done mainly via social media, Twitter, LGBT advocacy groups. For instance, famous polish writer - Jacek Dehnel mentioned it via Facebook. It is a unique petition in itself and it is right on topic, therefore it does seem notable enough in this article. Remeber that notability is scalable, depending on the topic. This petition is notable for the topic of criticism of the LGBT Free Zones - it may not be notable thing for the Criticism of the Catholic Church section, but I don't see why wouldn't it be considered notable here. In my opinion, if a petition from one country, regarding a niche topic is noticed in another, far larger country it is enough to consider it notable for that particualr niche topic. I wouldn't mind the the article's author or someone who does seem to be neutral would raise the problem about that portion of the article, but Elizium questioned Telegraph's reliability and nobody except her and Xx236 had a problem with that source for over 10 days. I'm not saying it has to stay here, but we should really consider the motives here. Jackgrimm1504 (talk) 20:44, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

@Jackgrimm1504: - I agree with you that as this is attributed this isn't a WP:RS question - we can use a PRIMARY statement sourced to an organization. The real question here is whether it is WP:DUE - as the LGBT-free zones have received quite a bit of coverage (including international press). Is there any 3rd party coverage of the petition? If we have 1-2-3 3rd party RSes - inclusion here will be much easier.Icewhiz (talk) 05:29, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

This is not a New Ways petition, and therefore we may not use this SPS for claims (by New Ways) about a third party (the Polish petitioners). Elizium23 (talk) 05:39, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: I'm unsure what you mean - this is already a 3rd party report regarding the topic - the petition was created by Polish laity, reported by various advocacy groups via their social media and blogs, and then New Ways Ministry created their report covering the story. @Elizium23: you keep on distorting reality, the WP:SPS clearly states that:

Anyone can create a personal web page, self-publish a book, or claim to be an expert. That is why self-published material such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), content farms, internet forum postings, and social media postings are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications.[8] Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent reliable sources.[10] Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.

Therefore we have a following situation: 1. It isn't a self-published source as 3rd party about a living person - it is about a petition. Check. 2. New Ways Ministry do not fall under typical self-published content, they are an established expert on Church-LGBT relations, therefore they fall under a category of reliable source on subject matter. Check. You insisted that Telegraph isn't a valid source, you constantly keep changing the articles regarding this topic. I don't trust neither your judgement nor your good faith. Not to mention you're acting as if you're part of Wikimedia administration while you're just a regular user. Not to mention that Wikipedia marks you as level 5 on scale of vandalism. Your credibility is questionable. Jackgrimm1504 (talk) 16:26, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

To show DUEness - more than one source would be better. So I searched - I found more sources (of varying quality - e.g. Bild we would avoid as a tabloid generally) - [1], [2], [3], [4] - in addition to [5]. However - the problem I now see is different - Anna Przedpelska-Trzeciakowska (plwiki) and veterans- are denouncing Archbishop Marek Jędraszewski for his "rainbow plague" comments. However - they are not denouncing the zones (queer.de does mention the zones as background, the other sources - including newwaysministry.org - do not even do that) - thus we have a WP:SYNTH problem in this particular article. Icewhiz (talk) 16:41, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: Icewhiz I think you're not reading the article. Anna Trzeciakwoska case is totaly seperate from the petition. Those two cases have nothing to do with each other. They are both just mentioned in the same article. This is the part of the article about the petition "But some of Poland’s faithful have resisted the bishops’ harmful rhetoric, launching a Change.org petition (available here in Polish and here in English) that calls on the hierarchy and all LGBTQ-negative Catholics to end the harsh and deceitful rhetoric currently employed. The petition is a lengthy refutation using Scripture and tradition, as well as contemporary knowledge, against arguments being levied against LGBTQ people in Poland." Please read the New Ways Ministry article carefully. The petition itself has a long passage on the LGBT-Free zones. Jackgrimm1504 (talk) 20:08, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Jackgrimm1504, but the article doesn't mention the zones at all, which is a good catch by Icewhiz. It's possible this source belongs in the article about the archbishop, but if the article about the petition doesn't even mention the zones, then it doesn't belong in the zones article. --valereee (talk) 16:52, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

I indeed searched for Anna Trzeciakwoska - thought it was related (and good search keyword). Jackgrimm1504 - we are left for now with the change.org petition (which you say does mention the zones) as the sole primary source here. Are there other sources on the petition? Non-English (e.g, Polish) is OK too if a WP:RS. You would those sources to cover the zones as well.Icewhiz (talk) 17:55, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: I doubt that we may find more WP:RS sources that talk about both the petition and the zones. The petition covered various topics, including the LGBT-Free zones, but critizied the Catholic Church involvment in actions against the LGBTQ+ and most articles never explicitly mentioned LGBT-zones but rather stated that it covered various topics. There were some posts that simply copied the entire petition too, but they were mainly on the forums and social media. Petition circulated in the social media of the advocacy groups, famous activists etc, and since it's over 2 months old, there won't be any new articles regarding it or at least I don't expect them to be, just like there are no new articles regarding Moschbacher's comment on the LGBT-free zone stickers. I have no other option but to agree with your decision, however I have a feeling, that without a particular's individual intervention, that problem would never arise. I also don't feel particular well, cause I'm being now dragged around the whole Wiki and accused of misconduct because I've been defending my own edit. The fact that it was the first is used as if it's some sort of a crime Jackgrimm1504 (talk) 9:11, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Well guys, it appears I was wrong - one of the first LGBTQ+ Websites published the petition in one of their articles - https://queer.pl/news/203473/jedraszewski-agresywna-propaganda-ideologii-lgbt-przypomina-totalitarne-czasy-prl-u. Although we've agreed on that it doesn't fit into the LGBT-Free zones article, I think it does fit in the LGBT Right in Poland one? What do you think? The passage from the article:

"W internecie powstała także petycja "Odezwa wiernych świeckich i ludzi dobrej woli do biskupów, prezbiterów, diakonów oraz osób konsekrowanych w związku z eskalacją konfliktu ze środowiskami LGBT w Polsce", w której wskazują, iż "Ósme przykazanie wciąż istnieje" i obszernie opisana jest sytuacja osób LGBT w naszym kraju. Link do petycji po polsku i po angielsku" Jackgrimm1504 (talk) 16:58, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Violence

@François Robere: my determination that there is no violence connected to the article topic has been contested because apparently a symbolic political act is tantamount to grievous bodily harm? We go by verifiability and not wishful/fanciful exaggerations. Elizium23 (talk) 09:38, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

A symbolic political act designed to prevent the very recognition (not to say the rights) of a distinct political group, accompanied by physical violence from its supporters; cf. political violence. François Robere (talk) 10:49, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

We need reliable secondary sources supporting this, rather than your original research of reading broad definitions and using your fertile imagination. Elizium23 (talk) 11:00, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

[6] - seems to connect this to violence.Icewhiz (talk) 11:13, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

"Stickers could incite violence" this category is not slapped on things with potential for violence. Białystok equality march already rightfully has the category. This article is not about that event. We'll need WP:RS that document actual incidents of violence committed because of the declarations. Elizium23 (talk) 11:27, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Gotta confess, folks, I'm confused! One of you says that the declarations themselves are inherently violent; the other says that stickers promoting the declarations might possibly incite violence. I am glad you have at least two angles to work. There must be some great sources out there. Keep on lookin'! Elizium23 (talk) 11:30, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Now I'm confused. Aren't you affiliated with the Knights of Columbus, an organization which has put millions into anti-LGBT advocacy (See Political activity of the Knights of Columbus#Marriage and family life)? François Robere (talk) 12:05, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

FR is confused, unsigned.Xx236 (talk) 13:24, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Just noticed it. Added the signature and correct timestamp. Thanks François Robere (talk) 13:48, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

WHat about affiliation of other involved editors? Xx236 (talk) 13:26, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

AFAIK no one else here is affiliated with any organization that's engaged in related activities. François Robere (talk) 13:48, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

categories

Hey, *Treker, what was your objection to those categories? (FWIW, this article probably requires full explanations in edit summaries). --valereee (talk) 12:00, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Category:Discrimination against LGBT people is a subcategory of Category:Sexuality and gender-related prejudices so there is no need to include it. Category:Homophobia is very broad and since this article refers to LGBT discrimination in general and not just Homophobia it doesn't belong and only creates overcategoryization.★Trekker (talk) 12:13, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

content of resolutions

You should actually check and quote original content of resolutions, not just articles about them. Such content can be find by link on this page: https://ordoiuris.pl/rodzina-i-malzenstwo/uwagi-do-przyjmowanych-przez-organy-wladzy-publicznej-deklaracji-przeciw (polish version) and there is also explanation of this situation done by lawyers who support it) them. You should also quote such opinions. In general, those resolutions are about education methods at schools (who should or should not organise special lessons about sexuality for children).

FWIW, everything Ordo Iuris says is extreme right-wing propaganda. It's been proven many times that they are spreading lies, and they just don't care. Trasz (talk) 17:19, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Local government Charter of the Rights of the Family

Local government Charter of the Rights of the Family (polish: Samorządowa Karta Praw Rodzin) is listed by some as being the same as act of declaring an area LGBT-free zone and by others as something diffrent. The truth is that it doesnt really use a phrase "LGBT ideology", but fundamentally it is the same or maybe worse. It might be worth explaining that it's not about one legislation, but many diffrent ones(mostly two: Resolution against "LGBT ideology" and earlier mentioned Charter of the Rights of the Family). Also, that's why there is no consensus on how many local governments declared themselves "LGBT-free"(46 signed the first one or something similar, and 36 signed the other one). You could translate from pl wiki sections: Lista jednostek samorządowych, w których przyjęto uchwały, deklaracje lub stanowiska dotyczące „ideologii LGBT” and Samorządowa Karta Praw Rodzin.Matinee71 (talk) 17:27, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Title

Sources commonly write LGBT free zone, most common. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Violet Chains (talk • contribs) 08:03, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Here is the list of the 60 cities, municipalities, powiats and voivodships that adopted the resolution. Translated from Polish - Resolutions "..against LGBT ideology.."[7]

The newspaper stickers do not include the words 'against LGBT ideology' (whatever that is), and so irrespective of this or that council resolution, its obvious historical connection with Judenfrei is being watered down by limiting the title of this article to the pejorative 'ideology'. The political rhetoric enveloping Poland is both redolent and prescient of pogroms still in living memory.

The title is correct. The zones are referred by some foreign media as "LGBT free zones" instead "LGBT ideology-free zones," and that is already clearly stated in the lead of the article.GizzyCatBella🍁 08:44, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

The Polish for 'LGBT-free zone' appears to be 'Strefa wolna od LGBT' and this is the wording that is appearing on the signs. [ The signs do not wordily say "LGBT ideology-free zone" and so the title of this article should revert to 'LGBT-free zone'. This more generic title would thus allow for subheadings that include council resolutions and other promulgations to that effect. Conflation with Judenfrei is not alarmist, since designating an area to be "Free of LGBT+ people" (since the signs do not stipulate 'ideology' or 'iconography' per se), is an early manifestation of social exclusion and pogroms comparable with German erasure of citizenship for its Jewish minority. User:Chrisdevelop 20:32, 14 July 2020 (GMT)

This English Wikipedia and English media use LGBT free zone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Violet Chains (talk • contribs) 08:58, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Not all. The Washington Post for example correctly refers to it as "LGBT-ideology free" [8]

Can you adduce images of the signs from within Poland itself, that say 'Strefa wolna od ideologii LGBT' rather than merely 'Strefa wolna od LGBT'? User:Chrisdevelop 19:29, 14 July 2020 (GMT)

The article is not about the signs (read the article). There are no signs anywhere. The activist [9] mounted those signs on the road to fight homophobia and took pictures.[10] GizzyCatBella🍁 18:43, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Nevertheless, the 'LGBT-free zone' material is being disseminated. User:Chrisdevelop 20;13, 14 July 2020 (GMT)

Some cities and provinces have declared themselves “LGBT-ideology free,” even though the declarations have no legal significance. We should reflect on what the correct name is per municipal resolution, and what media describe it is. This is correctly presented in the article.GizzyCatBella🍁 09:21, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

But not in the Title, per this thread. 'Ideology' is not only a non-neutral term in this context, it is loaded and pejorative, and should be placed in quotation marks in the Title. User:Chrisdevelop 10:30 15 July 2020 (GMT)

That’s what those politicians officially named the bill.[11] Declaration No. 1/19 of the Lesser Poland Regional Assembly of 29 April 2019 on opposition to the introduction of the LGBT ideology in local government communities - hence the title. Here is an article discussing the term [12] - What does LGBT ideology mean? Nothing. Such a creation does not exist. Local government officials were simply deceived (per source) - GizzyCatBella🍁 10:46, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Surprisingly lucid, sane and useful article, thank you. Now returning to the Title. By any stretch of the imagination, the Title says this is an article on "Zones that are free of LGBT Ideology". It is not clear from the title that this is nothing more than the name of dozens of Polish bills - even after reading the article. If indeed this is all the articla is about, then it should be perhaps italicised, like Judenfrei, or re-titled, 'Polish LGBT ideology-free zones' or similar - to make it clearer that the concept of an 'LGBT ideology' is political. User:Chrisdevelop 12:59 15 July 2020 (GMT)

Sure, as long as the title doesn't suggest that the bill was intended to prohibit LGBT folks from accessing or living in the region, I have no objections.GizzyCatBella🍁 12:28, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

@User:Chrisdevelop - today’s news - [13] The Administrative Court in Radom today invalidated the resolution of the Commune Council in Klwów regarding the declaration Klwów free from the LGBT ideology GizzyCatBella🍁 13:00, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. That's extraordinary. One can only wonder where it leaves the newly elected President Duda. User:Chrisdevelop 21:13 15 July 2020 (GMT)

This map is fake

Just to let you know that this map is fake.

Original map uses two red colours - light and dark one. Places denoted with dark red colour introduced anti LGBT legislation, but places denoted with light colour in fact not. Please just check carefully what you publish or just use original map with original descriptions. Fake news are not legitimate means of fight even in good case. Pnti (talk) 21:26, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Actually, I looked at the map (Atlas nienawiści / Atlas of Hate) and I see two red colors. But keep in mind, the darker red is for smaller units within lighter bigger administrative units. So if we have LGBT-free zone in, let's say, Łódzkie, and some kind of powiat within Łódzkie, powiat will be darker. ONLY to make it more visible.

Or did I said something wrong? --Kaworu1992 (talk) 15:47, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• 02019 0471 Equality March 2019 in Częstochowa cropped.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:52, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

LGBT-free zone

The lead talks about "lgbt-free zones" with a translation in polish with copious citations. But not of the citations appears to include the polish translation. This is misleading - there is no evidence that these are referred to as lbgt-free zones in poland itself. (23:40, 19 March 2020 (UTC)). I want to delete the citations, or change the text to something like "refered to in english speaking media as LBGT-free zones". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.89.86 (talk)

The Polish for 'LGBT-free zone' appears to be 'Strefa wolna od LGBT' and this is the wording that is appearing on the signs. User:Chrisdevelop 19:01, 14 July 2020 (GMT)

The article is not about the sign that activist made but about the legislation.GizzyCatBella🍁 18:29, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

The signs clearly comport with these resolutions. Moreover, they appear to be all over the place, and being of the same design, look official. Do you have evidence that they are being disavowed by the councils in whose regions these resolutions were passed, and that they are being pulled down by authorities as fast as they go up? Failure to disavow the signs and summarily to remove them, connotes official endorsement. User:Chrisdevelop 19:43, 14 July 2020 (GMT)

Do some research, please. THERE WERE NEVER SIGNS put by anyone but an activist Bartosz Staszewski who installed posters that resembled road signs and took photos. Activist fights homophobia in Poland with photo series of 'LGBT-free' zones [14] The article is not about his campaign but about the legislation.GizzyCatBella🍁 18:53, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Newspapers have been printing stickers, so if these are appearing in public areas as obviously intended, they would surely count as 'signs'. There seems to be no Wikipedia article currently defining 'LGBT ideology'. Currently it appears to be nothing more than nebulous, generic pejorative, and as such difficult to refute. As for the signs, be they activist from the right or from the left, is there evidence following on from the court ruling, that they were taken down, condemned or otherwise disavowed by authorities, notwithstanding their activist origins? User:Chrisdevelop 20:28, 14 July 2020 (GMT)

DO RESEARCH, please, the signs were NEVER up. It was an anti-homophobia photoshoot protest project called an "LGBT-FREE ZONES PROJECT" conducted by an activist. You're reviewing the PHOTOS of the poster attached to the road sign by a protestor. [15] How many more times it has to be repeated to you?GizzyCatBella🍁 20:44, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Already did. Your repsonse must have been in haste, since it doesn't address the question of disavowal by authorities of the activist road signs, or the 'LGBT-free zone' stickers sold by the newspapers, which obviously constitute 'LGBT-free zone' "signs". As previously explained, these were ruled illegal, but that doesn't mean they won't still be being put up around Poland. User:Chrisdevelop 22:24, 14 July 2020 (GMT)

Why you keep talking about those signs and stickers? There is a section in the article informing about them already [16]. Expand the section or make a new one. This article is about "LGBT ideology-free zones” bills advanced by some local, simple-minded politicians concerning the Charter of the Rights of the Family. Not about signs, not posters or stickers.GizzyCatBella🍁 01:41, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

What is 'LGBT Ideology'? User:Chrisdevelop 03:19, 15 July 2020 (GMT)

IDK, lol, ask those dull politicians who introduced that bill (joking) - GizzyCatBella🍁 05:20, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

it’s all about getting votes of conservative rural population, crazy. GizzyCatBella🍁 05:22, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Gay free zones in London

There was minor kerfluffle in 2011 when at least one British Muslim posted stickers calling their neighborhood a "gay free zone". But unlike in Poland this was apparently condemned by Muslim organizations. buidhe 18:19, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. As you note it seems pretty minor; if the person/s gets elected to the city council it might be worth a mention. François Robere (talk) 20:59, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

References

Cleary NPOV and false

LGBT free zone is a term made by leftwing activists and publicists for regions where local governments signed acts about family support. This doesn't belong on the encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.173.49.37 (talk) 17:24, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Not true. If you read those acts, there's nothing there that would in any way help families. It all revolves around hate against LGBT. Calling it "family support" is like neofascist bands calling themselves "rock against communism".Trasz (talk) 00:59, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Newspapers have been distributing 'LGBT-free zone' stickers ('STREFA WOLNA OD LGBT'), which have presumably been put up on noticeboards and lamposts. Moreover Poland has just elected, on an anti-LGBT platform, the right-wing President Duda who says "LGBT ideology is worse than communism"; the 'LGBT free zone' signs are representative of a growing animus against LGBT+ minorities, coupled with a marked swing away from secular rule, and towards Catholicism as quasi state religion. This is not associated with the contemporary 'left' or 'moderate' wings of political discourse. User:Chrisdevelop 23:25, 14 July 2020 (GMT)

What is 'LGBT ideology'?

This invariably pejorative term is used in the article title as though it is an accepted (and acceptable) term, yet there is no Wikipedia article with this title. Can this be clarified? There is an article in the Krakow Post that may provide a useful start. User:Chrisdevelop 23:35, 14 July 2020 (GMT)

No such thing exists. It’s the same mechanism as with calling antisemitism a “fight against Zionist ideology”. Trasz (talk) 22:39, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Just because you claim something does not exist, does not make it so. LGBT activism is very much real; just as the push-back against it. -69.121.10.105 (talk) 03:39, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I think you misread Trasz. LGBT activism exists because of a broad liberal ideology, not a uniquely LGBT ideology; trying to paint it as the latter is merely a cover for intolerance of LGBT people (see eg. the quotes here). François Robere (talk) 05:22, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

The issue with the title in that case, is that it declares there are "zones" in Poland "free of LGBT 'ideology'", thereby implying that it is 'a thing', without defining what 'LGBT idedology' actually is in this context, even if only from the perspective of the councils outlawing it. This needs to be fleshed out in the article itself, and perhaps ironic quotation marks added to some part of the title. User:Chrisdevelop 01:21, 15 July 2020 (GMT)

I agree. WP:TITLE suggests we should either accept it as common in Polish, but reject it as non-neutral and uncommon in English. François Robere (talk) 05:22, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I suggest starting an article on the LGBT ideology, which I agree is a loaded term used by politicians. It is already discussed in some scholarly research, check for example the The fight against ‘gender’ and ‘LGBT ideology’: new developments in Poland. Also see pl:Gender#Kontrowersje_w_Polsce for a related topic. PS. Also see https://www.encyklopedia.edu.pl/wiki/Ideologia_gender but I am not sure if this a reliable source. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:25, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

So basically another Moon landing. François Robere (talk) 05:28, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

It is not clear from the title that it is nothing more than the published name of dozens of Polish bills - even after reading the article. If indeed this is all the articla is about, then it should be perhaps italicised, like Judenfrei, or re-titled, 'Polish LGBT ideology-free zones' or similar - to make it clearer that the concept of an 'LGBT ideology' is political. As it stands, the Title says the article ia about "zones that are free of LGBT ideology", suggesting that LGBT ideology exists, albeit undefined, and that it is being 'dealt with'. User:Chrisdevelop 13:01 15 July 2020 (GMT)

@Chrisdevelop: Quotation marks? François Robere (talk) 18:12, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

@François Robere: To denote a 'so-called' phrase. There isn't a single, accepted 'LGBT ideology'. It's a politically pejorative term connoting bad-faith, and implies there is a powerful, central controlling infiltration of social infrastructures, encapsulated in a malfeasant, so-called 'ideology'. Quotation marks don't normally appear in Titles so another possibility might be simply to expand it to 'Polish LGBT ideology-free zones'. User:Chrisdevelop 21:24, 15 July 2020 (GMT)

It's a politically pejorative term connoting bad-faith Chrisdevelop, the term LGBT ideology has been also used by representatives of liberal anti-clerical movement as well, in positive sense[17], we actually have article on the author[18]. I also note it used by some scholarly sources, for example Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services Marriage, Civil Unions, or Reciprocal Beneficiary Agreements: What Best Protects Older LGBT People? Kelly Knochel from University of Minnesota Assimilationist LGBT ideology views marriage as having a positive, steadying influence on relationships, improving the health and safety of LGBT people by promoting stability and monogamy (Adam, 2003; Yep et al.,2003) or in Gender in Philosophy and Law[19]To disagree with the ‘LGBT ideology’, to disapprove of it or not consider it justified, does not mean to legitimise intolerance, violence, hatred or unfair discriminations: instead it means to distinguish equally between recognisable rights and rights which demand a differentiation. Finally, it seems it is also used by the far left movement, ie. Communist Party of Great Britain identity politics and the transgender trend:where is lgbt ideology taking us?'[20]. No comment on the article, but the use of the term is certainly not restricted to negative view and used not only by conservatives.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 00:39, 16 July 2020 (UTC)