Jump to content

Talk:2020–2021 women's strike protests in Poland

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Title change

[edit]

I suggest changing the title of the article to October 2020 Polish protests, 2020 abortion protests in Poland or something similar. The current title (2020 Polish protests) might be confusing because it's too general. There have already been other major protests in Poland, in August 2020 (see August 2020 LGBT protests in Poland). This article does not refer to protests in general, but specifically to protests following the Constitutional Tribunal's judgment on abortion. It is necessary for this fact to be reflected in the article's name. Forgive me my poor English by the way 37.47.78.255 (talk) 18:30, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Finding a good title will be difficult. 2020 abortion protests in Poland would be ambiguous and possibly misleading, because it sounds like protests against abortions, rather than defence of women's rights. 2020 pseudo-Constitutional-Court abortion law tightening protests would be more accurate, but rather long, and subject to dispute (plenty of sources in Polish) about whether the TK is currently a real court, a neo-court, a pseudo-court, or a so-called court. I think that a more-or-less literal translation of the pl.Wikipedia title is probably the only reasonable option, despite being long, until/if the protests gain a popular short name in the English-language press: Protests against the tightening of abortion law in Poland. The protests rapidly seem to be escalating and evolving into more radical aims: separating the Catholic Church from the Polish state and creating a Belarusian type Coordination Council to handle the backsliding rule-of-law situation. But we could change the title later if the protests gained a well-defined name.
Does anyone object to Protests against the tightening of abortion law in Poland? Or are there better proposals? Boud (talk) 00:47, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would leave the title as it is for now, because even if the primary reason and spark was the resolution of the constitutional court, within just a few days it turned out that the objectives of the protesters are much broader, to the inclusion of the dismissal of the government. --Ouro (blah blah) 04:41, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're arguing that my proposed title would be misleading because the aims of the protests have broadened. I agree. (That's why I said the choice is difficult...) Boud (talk) 18:43, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Title should be changed because it could be misleading. Just before anti-abortion ban protests started there were gastronomy industry protests, fitness industry protests and farmers protests. Sławobóg (talk) 15:22, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have consensus that the title is misleading, but we don't have a good proposal that is better. My best proposal (above in bold) is misleading too, and I think that 2020 Polish anti–abortion-ban protests (en dash and hyphen) would risk being misleading too: abortion was already mostly banned, and the aims of the protests have already greatly widened to anti-PiS, anti-Catholic-Church protests. As Ouro says, there was a spark and the aims have broadened. Probably we should accept October 2020 Polish protests for the moment, and switch to Oct-Nov next week... Boud (talk) 18:43, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion: 2020 Polish abortion ruling protests? Kahlores (talk) 17:06, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Polls comment

[edit]

I think it's a manipulation to upload a graph, according to which 58% of Poles support abortion on demand up to 12th week of pregnancy. According to the newest poll (also cited in the article) the support is much lower, at 20%, and protests are mostly aimed at upholding the status quo. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.150.233.10 (talk) 13:12, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the poll. T Magierowski (talk) 18:48, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You removed it, you didn't fix it. The wording was misleading, but removing the data totally is also misleading. Boud (talk) 19:00, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.rmf24.pl/raporty/raport-strajk-kobiet/news-polacy-nie-popieraja-decyzji-tk-ws-zakazu-aborcji-co-piaty-j,nId,4820537

Discussion at Talk:Catholic Church in Poland § Apostasy? Fake news.

[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Catholic Church in Poland § Apostasy? Fake news.. Elizium23 (talk) 01:19, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pie chart positioning

[edit]

Greetings and felicitations. I've done my best, but IMHO it isn't good enough. Would someone more knowledgable than me please be so kind as to arrange the opinion pie charts in a horizontal "gallery", or otherwise make the three of them together much more vertically compact? Currently they intrude into the appendices in all but the narrowest of browser windows. —DocWatson42 (talk) 06:44, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your fix is better than what we had before. :) Boud (talk) 07:22, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

[edit]

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:00, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pie charts

[edit]

Does anyone know how to make those three pie charts horizontal? Vertically, I imagine they'll break into the reference section on any browser width. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:26, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

former presidents of the TK

[edit]

Why have the former presidents of the Constitutional Tribunal (TK) been listed as being opposed to the protestors? Maybe an editing mistake? The best answer would be to find sources and put them on whichever side is correct - if it's clear they should be on one side or the other. They are certainly all opposed to the current state of the TK, having publicly signed a statement against that, so it would be surprising if they supported PiS+Catholic-Church against the protestors. In any case, the best answer to my question would be to add the sources. Boud (talk) 02:02, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Informal reopening of title change discussion

[edit]

See #Title change above. @Kahlores: - people don't often check sections higher up. I think your suggestion might achieve consensus, though I would probably wait a bit longer to see how much the aim of the protests continues to extend way beyond that of the abortion ruling itself - women's rights in general, disestablishmentarianism (Polish contemporary context instead of UK a long time ago), return to the rule of law. Since this is a highly active page now, I think you should probably do a formal requested move using the instructions at {{WP:RM}}. Boud (talk) 17:58, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So I suggested 2020 Polish abortion ruling protests because noone else did and it seems to be both more precise in scope (abortion ruling) and less precise in time (October 2020).
I don't think it needs a ton of explaining.
Why "just" abortion ruling, you may ask? Although some sectors of Polish society have hopes way beyond the repeal of the ban, I fail to see how they could come true. PiS has 3 years before the next elections.
I'm afraid that Wikipedia's article on the main page, itself a sign of global scrutiny, is giving people and contributors wild expectations. "Protests" didn't materialize for Belarus, Venezuela, and so many more that got to the Wikipedia main page. Three days ago you wrote The protests rapidly seem to be escalating and evolving into (...) a Belarusian type Coordination Council to handle the backsliding rule-of-law situation. If we're a bit salty, that would mean it would evolve into the virtual realm, while the situation on the ground is cooled down in two months with the help of the latest policing tactics. Kahlores (talk) 18:25, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should stay with the current name. Firstly it started with the judgment of the Constitutional Tribunal prohibiting ~97-98% of abortions in Poland but now it snationwide movement of various environments/ different people; newly created Consultative Council presented today the composition of the council as well as its postulates - for e.g. postulates regarding LGBT people, the climate catastrophe, and the end of financing of the Church [1]. Natanieluz (talk) 20:00, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Whether the aims of the protests come true or not is irrelevant to the title of the article. The fact is that there is little interest in only reversing the neo-Constitutional-Council ruling - the aim in terms of abortion is full abortion rights, with the woman's right to decide, along with restoring the rule of law. Subversiveness to the Catholic Church has disappeared. A taboo has been broken. The Consultative Council (Poland) exists. I don't see any sources saying that the protestors' aims are currently limited to reversing the neo-Constitutional-Council ruling. The aims include taking the climate catastrophe seriously and returning to respectful, participatory, rational, informed, structured debate (which would allow the climate catastrophe to be handled properly) - I don't see any sources saying that waiting three years for a parliamentary election would satisfy the protestors. (Łukaszenko wants Belarusians to wait another five years for the next presidential election, but there's no sign of the protestors giving up or the Belarusian Coordination Council dismantling itself; in fact, it's expanding its number of working groups.) Boud (talk) 04:10, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Informal conservative title proposal: October–November 2020 Polish protests. This would give us a month to see if the sources converge on a more time-stable title. Boud (talk) 04:10, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Boud --Andrei (talk) 13:15, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but . . . let's not forget that there's another 2020 protest in Poland with its own article: August 2020 LGBT protests in Poland. It could get confusing.
Boud, you misread me. I was saying, just like you illustrated in detail, that some sectors of Polish society have hopes way beyond the repeal of the ban. Isn't this typical of most protests throughout modern history and throughout the world? There is one issue that lights the powder keg, that brings people onto the street, but for the media and the organizers it's never just about that issue alone.
If it really expands outside the ruling issue, then we could call it "2020 Polish anti-government protests". If it becomes a revolution, then I vote to let you rename it Polish revolution of 2020.
But so far, no such thing is happening, and I'm afraid you're being trapped into a militant bubble. Kahlores (talk) 16:39, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal - How about 2020 Polish Constitutional Tribunal protests? Whilst it is far from a revolution so far, and not all anti-government forces are on the opposition side, they're certainly anti-government in its scope and fundamentally about the fact that the protesters do not recognise the Constitutional Tribunal in the first place and see the abortion ruling as a government and episcopacy controlled show trial undertaken by a kangaroo court. Abcmaxx (talk) 17:52, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at the 2015 Polish Constitutional Court crisis. My calculation is that, had the 3 PO replacements of judges whose terms ended after the 2015 election but before the first session, taken their oaths of office, there would be today 11 judges appointed by PiS instead of 14... Kahlores (talk) 18:40, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Kahlores Which doesn't change the fact that the tribunal is tightly government controlled and protestors disagree with both the way in these people were appointed, having omitted all checks and balances and due diligence that all the other appointees went through before 2015, and the ruling itself. The only reason these people are in the tribunal is loyalty to Kaczyńskiand Ziobro, and not any judicial achievements. Besides 14 is more than 11 anyway and to claim it is independent by any academic criteria applied is absurd. The protest is fundamentally about United Right's erosion of judicial independence. Whether they see it that way is irrelevant, after all Lukashenko still claims he didn't rig the election, Hancock claims he has a world beating track and trace app, Trump thinks he [insert ridiculous claim here], Russia did not use Novichok, and the CCP claim Hong Kong is fully autonomous; all of this is of course not true and even in the event that someone thinks somehow it is, then the majority of people disagree Abcmaxx (talk) 22:12, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What does this have to do with the naming of the article, Abcmaxx? Remember we're debating whether the protests are about the CT or the ruling itself. I say both, but the ruling is what people talk about, and react to, whereas the CT is an institutional factor. It is the Strajk Kobiet not the KOD that is campaigning. Kahlores (talk) 22:30, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My point was that what one side is defending against isn't necessarily what the protests are about. The point of contention here is I actually think it's the other way round: it's the politicisation of the TK they are protesting; the ruling is just the example and the case in point. What I mean by that is, had they made an unpopular ruling but on a different subject; let's say for example they declared that the Catholic Church is the country's state religion according to the constitution or outlawed homosexuality (hypothetically); then the outcome would have been the same. There are similar gripes regarding closing cemeteries last minute or the farmers protest against the new animal welfare rules; it's the way these "laws" are passed. Abcmaxx (talk) 22:41, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There's a test coming up very soon. President Duda has proposed a bill. He expects it to calm protesters. It may or may not work. If Duda and the PiS majority lose on this then it could spill over. In the meantime you shouldn't build castles in the air. Kahlores (talk) 23:07, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
2020 Polish abortion ruling protests seems most apt. The protests are definitely continuing beyond October. Mkwia (talk) 17:32, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It might be beneficial to draw attention to the Polish-language Wikipedia's version of this article, named *Protesty przeciwko zaostrzeniu przepisów dotyczących aborcji w Polsce*, or "Protests against tightening abortion laws in Poland". sam1370 (talk · contribs) 07:12, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The pl.Wikipedia name, focussing on the trigger event - the TK ruling - was a reasonable descriptive title on the night of 22 Oct and maybe also 23 Oct, but not any more. The protests during the 5-11 Nov week that we have covered so far are mostly those against domestic violence in Zakopane/Giemont; and against Czarnek in Warsaw (text) and Toruń (photo). We have three weeks to see if either the international English media, or at least the Polish media, come up with a common name for the protests, or if we can come up with an accurate descriptive name. Boud (talk) 23:59, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've just moved the page temporarily to October–December 2020 Polish protests, but I postulate it should be renamed 2020 Women's Strike protests, as the protests look like they will last over next months. And when we have the new year, and there are new protests then, the page could be renamed 2020–2021 Women's Strike protests. In my opinion, there is no other clear and concise way to put it. — Kochas 16:50, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kochas: I think it's probably time for a formal title proposal, per WP:RM. Seven days is short compared to the editing and protest time scales, and I think it's better to have a clear (standard) procedure to avoid the impression that one of the involved editors (including me) gets to choose alone. Given the precedent and links with the 1975 Icelandic women's strike, I think I would probably list arguments in favour of 2020 Women's Strike protests... But please start it at the bottom - people don't often look at the top of en.Wikipedia talk pages, except for the coloured boxes. You can link up to the section here for people to read the existing discussion. Boud (talk) 00:25, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Boud: Done. See below. Please vote yea. ;-) — Kochas 09:36, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

article needs statement about anti-riot police/army

[edit]

Several RS's state the gov't has activated anti-riot police and army units to shadow the protesters. Live rounds are supposedly being used by the military.50.111.11.25 (talk) 19:43, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sceptical. There have been a few incidents and harassment, but mostly on orders "from upstairs", and the police involved know that legal cases are going to be filed against them. (These are not (yet?) in the article.) This is not the Tiananmen Square massacre. Different place, different epoch, 31 more years of internet development. Where are the sources? Boud (talk) 02:04, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Credibility of abortion estimates for context

[edit]

If anyone noticed the error in my edit comment from a moment ago, then yes, I saw that too. Here's a more careful calculation. The Sedgh_2012 worldwide abortion rates find about 10 to 40 per year per 1000 women in the 15-44 age range (1% to 4% per year) in countries around the world, independent of whether abortion laws are liberal or restrictive. Rough estimate: Poland has about 40M people; about half are women; about 3/8 of the women are in a 30-year span if we count a typical 80-year life expectancy. So that gives about 75,000 to 300,000 abortions in Poland per year, unless Poland is extremely different from other countries around the world with liberal, restrictive or in-between abortion laws. So the Federation estimate of 100,000 per year is credible: it makes Poland a quite average country in terms of the annual number of abortions. The Polish Association of Defenders of Human Life's estimate of 8,000–13,000 per year is not credible, but one editor took it seriously... Boud (talk) 00:36, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Rough estimate". That's a fair point! Rough they are. Too rough to be included here.
Nevertheless the Sedgh et al. paper is worth mentioning, as well as your calculation, in the Abortion in Poland article ('statistics' section). It is a pity that this protest article gets larger (94Kb) than the object of the protest itself (44Kb).
unless Poland is extremely different from other countries around the world It is: in Poland, it's illegal! Poland does stand out on the map of abortion laws. So one would be surprised to find more abortions carried out by Polish women, than, say, in France, where it's perfectly legal, and which stands stable at over 200K a year for a population a half larger than Poland, where it's not. Notwithstanding the cultural attitudes, national ideologies, etc. which are also reducing factors.
I've added your re-calculation of 75K abortions, though.
The (...) estimate of 8,000–13,000 per year is not credible We can only conclude by looking at the methodology that was used. I sincerely wonder how any of these estimates were reached. Obviously there is a political bias, on whether access to abortion is a 'fait accompli' or not. The ideal would be to get to the real sources, and not a master's thesis recollecting the data.
Kahlores (talk) 03:20, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Notwithstanding the cultural attitudes, national ideologies, etc. which are also reducing factors. If you re-read the Sedgh et al paper, you'll see that the variation as a function of cultural attitudes, national ideologies, etc is about a factor of two from the average, not a factor of ten. If we write that as percentages, it's a variation of about plus/minus 50%, not plus 1000%/minus 90%, around the world. The 8,000–13,000 per year claim is 90% below what should be typical, around 100,000 per year.
In any case, we cannot leave this article without context. Please seek consensus here if you really want to remove the context. A detailed look at more (or better) sources makes sense on the other page; with that I agree. Boud (talk) 20:58, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 16 December 2020

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

The result of the move request was: Moved. Wide consensus current name should be changed. 2020 women's strike protests in Poland is the most supported option. (non-admin closure) Vpab15 (talk) 18:40, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


October–December 2020 Polish protests → 2020 women's strike protests in Poland – The protests look like they will last over next months, so adding months to the title is no loger relevant, hence a clear and concise title. In my opinion, there is no need to add the word "Polish," neither "All-Polish" (emphasizing the OSK, as not only one organization stands behind the protests), and there is no other Women's Strike in the world protesting in 2020. When there are new protests next year, the title could add –2021. — Kochas 09:34, 16 December 2020 (UTC) —Relisted. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 02:43, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note 1: revised proposal, as per discussion below. — Kochas 00:08, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note 2: Initially this request was to rename to 2020 Women's Strike protests; as of 00:08, 23 December 2020 (UTC), the proposal was revised. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 02:38, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Lembit Staan: Thanks for the vote. 1. The article is about protests, plural. 2. About the name of the organization: that's the point, they were advocates of the protests. 3. Enwiki has different nomenclature than Plwiki, seven- or eight-piece titles are rarities. Plus, there is a discussion on the title of the Polish article, as well — the protests are no longer about abortion only, though. — Kochas 18:55, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I meant protests before abortion protests. Anyway, thanks for the explanation. The proposal makes sense now. Lembit Staan (talk) 19:32, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Lembit Staan: If you have changed your opinion sufficiently, it would help uninvolved editors (and in the end, an admin) if you could edit your first few words, e.g. oldopinion revisedopinion. This is a !vote, but the bold summaries still help for an overview. [I'll add an opinion soon after looking at the other arguments/evidence in relation to en.Wikipedia policy...] Boud (talk) 00:59, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am still not supporting the proposal. Another thing to think through is whether they are called "2020 Women's Strike protests". Also, I don't htink it is protests of this organization. They did led them , but they are protests of Polish women, not of a single movement. Lembit Staan (talk) 01:40, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's true that OSK is only a catalyst in the protests, but the fact is that the name is commonly associated with the protests in the international (and Polish) press. Also, there are local Strajk Kobiet groups that see themselves as networked with but not controlled by OSK. See non-neutral but common names and my suggested ALT1 below. Boud (talk) 03:38, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
yes but generally it seem like if there is a identifiable name the year is left out.—blindlynx (talk) 22:15, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedians who are far away from the issue better not try to guess identifiable or not. And here we have exactly the case: "Black Protest" of 2016 was also Women's Strike protest. Lembit Staan (talk) 17:54, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's why it could've been named a "2016 Women's Strike protest" – and this time we have "2020 Women's Strike protests." :-) — Kochas 20:07, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free anyone to split off the 2016 article if you're willing to do the editing and referencing work... Boud (talk) 03:38, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: As it was said earlier, although that was the trigger, the protests are long not only about abortion any more. You can see the very description of the protests in the article's lead section, though. Plus, you have these semantics. Re: "Protests against stricter abortion laws in Poland" — they're not protesting because the law itself is being "stricter"; technically/legally it's not yet, they still haven't published it. Closer to truth would be this other option suggested above, "Protests against tightening abortion laws in Poland". But then again, the protests are against the bigger idea about the abortion, rather than the abortion law alone. You've got the Church discourse, the feminist discourse, and so on. — Kochas 13:35, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it started on the abortion issue. The rest are natural add-ons, because yes this is a feminist issue, yes it is the pressure of the Church, etc. We dont know how it will develop. Next thing and they will demand resignation of the government. This will not change the fact that the trigger and the focus is still abortion, and everybody recognizes these protests by this. Lembit Staan (talk) 17:54, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh they do want the government to resign huh. The very catchphrase for the protests is "F@#$ Off!" (tagged in a Solidarity fashion, on Ellen Ripley posters), isn't it? Well, it's just the matter of a simple naming of the article. "2020 Women's Strike protests" is a fairer and more concise title than "2020 Polish abortion protests." — Kochas 20:07, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Confusing and ORish": the terms "Women's Strike" and "women's strike" are widely used in this context and better describe the fact that the protests widened way beyond Polish women's right for their 100,000 abortions per year to be done under medically safe conditions without having to travel internationally. Boud (talk) 03:38, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, but also support ALT1: 2020 women's strike protests in Poland to better satisfy all the criteria. Based on the five main title criteria: recognizability checkY; naturalness checkY though "in Poland" or "(Poland)" could be added at the cost of conciseness; precision checkY though again "in Poland" or "(Poland)" would help; conciseness checkY, adding "in Poland" or "(Poland)" would lengthen the title; consistency checkY. A non-neutral but common name is acceptable; lower case women's strike would reduce the non-neutrality.
  • recognizability – strong evidence in favour: BBC News 28 Oct Poland abortion ruling sparks 'women's strike'; Bloomberg 28 Oct Women Strike in Poland as Tensions Over Abortion Escalate; Amnesty International 11 Nov Poland crackdown on Women's Strike protests continues unabated; Associated Press 16 Dec The Women's Strike has organized mass nationwide anti-government protests; Jacobin mag 13 Nov This is where the idea of a women's strike, or Strajk Kobiet in Poland, becomes critical.; openDemocracy 10 Dec Are Poland’s football ultras really supporting the Women's Strike?; RSF 25 Nov ... who is being prosecuted for assaulting a police officer while covering a "women's strike" protest.; The Nation 14 Dec The movement is called the Women's Strike, with a red lightning bolt as its symbol.
  • naturalness – people remembering the general idea, e.g. 5 years later, would probably think "women's protest" "Poland"; two of these key words are in 2020 Women's Strike protests, but "Poland" is missing
  • precision (= non-ambiguity) – the 2020 Belarusian protests have a very strong feminist component but they're not generally called "Women's Strike protests", so that's not a problem; Is there a risk of confusion with the March 2020 Women's day marches? NYT 9 Mar 2020 In Mexico, Women Go on Strike Nationwide to Protest Violence; Thomson Reuters 10 Mar 2020 A day without women: Strikes across Latin America; there is a modest ambiguity risk here;
  • conciseness – the name cannot reasonably be shorter;
  • consistency – generally follows the style of article names in Category:Protests and Category:Ongoing protests
It's true that All-Poland Women's Strike (OSK) is the name of an organisation that is not the sole organiser of the protests, but rather it's a major catalyst of the protests and it's publicly associated with the protests. This is an issue of a title with a non-neutral but common name: ... Sometimes that common name includes non-neutral words that Wikipedia normally avoids .... In such cases, the prevalence of the name, or the fact that a given description has effectively become a proper noun (and that proper noun has become the usual term for the event), generally overrides concern that Wikipedia might appear as endorsing one side of an issue. In this case, "women's strike" was a common noun description for the 1975 Icelandic women's strike, which set a precedent, but now in 2020 it's associated for Poland as much with the current protest movement as with OSK; often capitalised, but not always.
The non-neutrality would be reduced, and naturalness and precision would be increased, with ALT1: 2020 women's strike protests in Poland.
Boud (talk) 03:24, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Boud: I agree. Thank you, I appreciate the impressive effort! — Kochas 11:01, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Revised and relisted

[edit]
This subsection is for !votes and rationales written after this request was relisted at 02:43 on 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Dates mentioned in the article
22.10 7 5.11 0 19.11 4
23.10 7 6.11 3 20.11 4
24.10 4 7.11 0 21.11 0
25.10 8 8.11 3 22.11 0
26.10 15 9.11 2 23.11 7
27.10 15 10.11 5 24.11 4
28.10 41 11.11 5 25.11 0
29.10 26 12.11 8 26.11 0
30.10 28 13.11 1 27.11 0
31.10 10 14.11 0 28.11 1
1.11 17 15.11 0 29.11 0
2.11 9 16.11 0 ... 0
3.11 13 17.11 0 13.12 1
4.11 0 18.11 7 ... 0
  • Oppose, but would agree to a title mentioning "abortion" . This is still too vague. On 1 November, I suggested 2020 abortion ruling protests (see above), but it was replaced by the more vague wording that we have now. There were two grounds:
    1. that this would escalate. I predicted the opposite: "Although some sectors of Polish society have hopes way beyond the repeal of the ban, I fail to see how they could come true. PiS has 3 years before the next elections." As the table on the right shows, I was correct: the "momentum" of the women's strike has been lost as soon as the government decided to delay the ruling's publication on 3 November. The protests have had an effect on opinion polling, which shows PiS has taken a nose-dive of almost 10% and would be ousted in the next elections. But the street protests clearly died down, and if it were not for the march on 13 December the title would not even have been renamed to include December. This is a stereotypical pattern of many protest movements worldwide. Governments today have more than an ace up their sleeve.
    2. that the protests go beyond the abortion ruling. This is true . . . as is always the case in politics. Affairs, demonstrations, are rarely about the subject of discussion only. They are political footballs between opposing factions of society. You can never expect a successful protest not to spill over to other subjects. In this case, it is unsurprising that a protest against an abortion ban would try to challenge institutions supportive of it (PiS, Church, etc.) and also bring other feminist demands onto the table. But as this table shows, the protests are ruling-related, otherwise the momentum would not be so correlated.
    Thus, I'm still suggesting 2020 Polish abortion ruling protests, a concise, straight-to-the-point title, which would become 2020–21 Polish abortion ruling protests in the likely event where a new law enforcing the ban provokes the resumption of the protests. Another advantage of this title I did not mention in November, is the fact that this title makes sense of the large foreign protests in 'pro-abortion' societies in support (unlike 2020 women's strike in Poland, which is limited in scope). Kahlores (talk) 03:45, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Undue weight from weak source

[edit]

In this edit, the term political violence was introduced to the infobox as a method of the protests, without any sources in the body of the article. It was introduced a second time by the same user and a third time by the same user, the third time as violence. The only source in the third edit was an edit summary source from Cruxnow. The only direct claim in the source of a violent incident is Poland's Czestochowa Archdiocese said Oct. 28 that windows had been smashed at its archbishop's residence when protesters blocked surrounding streets. This does not claim that the protestors smashed the windows. The source itself is rather WP:FRINGE, stating that the 1,100 abortions in Poland in 2019 involved unborn children, using the oxymoron "unborn children" to talk about foetuses and embryos, and is about a factor of 100 too low in estimating the number of abortions that take place in Poland annually; the legally recognised fraction is about 1000, but omitting the adjective makes a critically important difference (a factor of 100).

Getting back to the incident itself, the Cruxnow report is a lot vaguer than the more detailed Polish language report on the incident.

Naszemiasto Częstochowa says that the window breaking did occur around 23:10 27 Oct 2020, but there was no demonstration on that day (Tuesday 27 Oct 2020), and a police investigation is underway. So there's no evidence that the breaking of the window was part of the protests in the more detailed Polish language press. It's not clear if it makes sense to add either the Polish-language detailed report or the English-language claim by the Curia (or Arch-Curia?) to this article, because the relation to the protests is quite vague.

Putting the word "violence" into the infobox based on this rather weak source that hints at violence and appears to be misleading compared to the Polish-language sources seems rather undue weight. To avoid an edit war, I propose that someone other than me remove the word "violence" from the infobox. Boud (talk) 03:35, 2 January 2021 (UTC) (fixed error Boud (talk) 15:29, 3 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]

Does anybody oppose the removal of the word "violence" from the infobox? If yes, then please justify why the word should be retained. See the above for the lack of justification for the word "violence". Boud (talk) 14:56, 3 January 2021 (UTC) (fixed error Boud (talk) 15:29, 3 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]
I do. CRUX is not a fringe or unreliable source it is regularly cited by NYT and WP for facts. It takes the viewpoint of the Catholic Church but having a POV is not a problem for a source. The Nation and the New Republic are firmly on the Left in American politics, but are labeled reliable, holding a view that about half the American people and one of the largest religions on earth is not fringe. In regards to violence I admit to not being fully informed of what is happening in Poland, but your claim is rather odd. To say that no demonstration occurred that day does not mean that a supporter of the protest could not have done this. It does not take many people to break a window. 3Kingdoms (talk) 23:44, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out that "Nasze Miasto" portals are owned by Polska Press/Orlen which is very much pro-Law and Justice so hardly a credible source either. Abcmaxx (talk) 19:37, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I know Russia Today is not reliable source, but that does not mean all government aligned papers are. Do you have an example of fake news from it? 3Kingdoms (talk) 23:44, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Affiliation with a political party that's just shy of being neo-nazi is pretty much disqualifying. IHateAccounts (talk) 00:09, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Law and Justice are no where close to being neo-nazi, that is an absurd claim. Especially when the Kaczyński brothers father served in the Home Army during the Second World War fighting the Nazis. 3Kingdoms (talk) 00:16, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The height of leftist arrogance - accusing patriotic Poles (even though I hardly support PiS because of their economic policies) of being Nazis because they don't support infanticide. You should feel ashamed. The actual Nazis practiced infanticide, maybe you should look in a mirror instead of spreading slander? 178.37.146.119 (talk) 07:58, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just to state that the confusion in the discussion is partly my fault: my above comments are not quite correct: in the third edit by 3Kingdoms, only "vandalism" was restored, not "violence". So we don't currently have an edit war on the word "violence" in the infobox. As for To say that no demonstration occurred that day does not mean that a supporter of the protest could not have done this. Yes, that is correct. A supporter of the protests could have done it. A priest could have done it too, in the hope of blaming it on the protestors. A member of the ABW (secret police) could have done it to provoke conflict. A Russian spy could have done it to increase the level of conflict. We in terms of writing in en.Wikipedia don't know. So one violent incident might be related to the protests by hundreds of thousands of people who have been using the techniques of nonviolent resistance, for which Poland is world-wide famous for the Solidarity (Polish trade union) as it was in the 1980s and Orange Alternative. The 1980s protests are widely called "non-violent" by reliable sources, but I would be surprised if no individual incidents such as breaking windows occurred at all. This is called due weight. A report stating that one person might have converted to Pastafarianism in protest would not justify adding "conversions to Pastafarianism" to the infobox.
I think using the term secret police for Agencja Bezpieczeństwa Wewnętrznego is a little much. Also while you have a point about it being someone else I have my doubts while Communist Poland's government did try to pin the blame on Solidarity I feel that even with the fears people have of LJ Poland something like that could not be pulled off. Finally I also added the window-breaking as part of vandalism not violence since I could not find much to prove attacks on people disagreeing with the Protests. 3Kingdoms (talk) 00:41, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On "vandalism", I find the sources unconvincing, but there's more room for interpretation here, as per the lead of graffiti. Boud (talk) 00:30, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree most laws and statements of graffiti are that it is vandalism, which most clearly is in this case.3Kingdoms (talk) 00:41, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To get back to the point on "vandalism": we have no sources stating any form of vandalism, apart from graffiti, that in many legal jurisdictions, including Poland, can be interpreted as vandalism in some cases (e.g. with physical damage). However, it's clearer to state "graffiti" directly rather than the wider term of "vandalism". Whether or not Cruxnow or Naszemiasto are accepted as reliable sources (which is a separate issue), taking their info together does not support the claim that breaking of church windows is a notable protest tactic of these protests.
To my understanding the Polish Government is treating this as vandalism. 3Kingdoms (talk) 00:53, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have any objections to removing the word "vandalism" in the infobox and retaining what we currently have with "graffiti on church walls"? Please provide a proper argument in terms of sources and due weight. Boud (talk) 00:48, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do. Vandalism is a fine summation of what happened. If a Synagague was graffitied with Nazi symbols it would clearly be considered vandalism, I see no reason why this is any different in theory. 3Kingdoms (talk) 00:53, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Vandalism" is an interpretation, not a summary. It adds no new information apart from an interpretation, which is not factual-type information. Your analogy equates symbols of women's rights to symbols of nazism. That's original research. Boud (talk) 01:02, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No it does not. The Catholic Church opposes abortion, so protestors graffiti images and words that mock the church. You might disagree, but functionally it is no different than an anti-Semitic person posting Nazi images on a Synagaue, to mock, insult and intimidate said group. Any reasonable look would see that as vandalism. 3Kingdoms (talk) 02:03, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the sources, crux.com is a Catholic news site and Nasze Miasto is indirectly funded by the ruling government which strongly opposes the protests. They may well be reliable sources on other matters, but certainly this is not one as they clearly have a vested interest and will not be objective on the matter. Abcmaxx (talk) 03:25, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki policy is that just because a sources has a viewpoint does not make it unreliable [2]. Crux is perfect fine to cite here. 3Kingdoms (talk) 04:19, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the "vandalism" tag I support its removal; one man's terrorist is another one's freedom fighter. Protesters do not see it as vandalism, and those opposed to them do. The reader can judge for themselves whether it is or is not, Wikipedia's role is not to editorialise but to state the facts. Abcmaxx (talk) 03:25, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By that logic we should remove all actions since one can just as easily claim that protests are rioting. Vandalism is an accurate statement of what has happened.3Kingdoms (talk) 04:19, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@User:3Kingdoms Massive jump to conclusions here. Where does it reliably say that the graffiti "mock the church" or that its intention is to "to mock, insult and intimidate"? That is very much your opinion. It is no different than an anti-Semitic person posting Nazi images on a Synagogue; this is entirely different, in fact could not be more different, starting from motivations, content, location, demographics, people involved, location, support, opposition etc. In fact other than the presence of graffiti on a temple I cannot see anything in common between the two. Abcmaxx (talk) 03:33, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Writing "F yourself with your own organs" or something to that effect is clearly to mock. There is no need to jump around this. Please explain the differences because as to my mind there is no difference, the only one I see is that you support one group doing it, but not another. 3Kingdoms (talk) 04:22, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's a storm in a teapot.
As evidenced by countless photos, there were plenty of graffiti over the walls where the protests occurred or over the walls of the protesters' adversaries. For the ruling supporters, this counts as vandalism and PM Morawiecki, at least, can be quoted using the term. This is certainly an attack on property, that requires removal and its cost.
There were also cases of protesters entering a church, disturbing church service and distributing leaflets. (pic) If this does not count as 'vandalism' then it certainly is desecration -- both sides would, I think, agree, one side happily and the other not.
And there was at least one case of window-smashing, which, although unrepresentative, is undisputably constituting violence.
Currently the infobox describes the protests' methods as: "Demonstrations, marches, street dance protests, street blockades, strike, graffiti on church walls, and vandalism".
I would suggest
  1. putting graffiti in third position (after marches and before street dance protests), without 'on church walls' (as they could be found on other places: the CT, a School)
  2. adding leaflet drop in fourth position
  3. adding desecration
  4. once these details are added, then 'vandalism' (meaning: the remaining, more violent, attacks on property) could be replaced using the expression 'cases of vandalism'
This would alleviate both concerns for balance.
Kahlores (talk) 04:11, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you I 100% agree with what you suggest. 3Kingdoms (talk) 04:19, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Desecration", a loaded term, does not satisfy the requirement to use WP:IMPARTIAL tone. (t · c) buidhe 03:41, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is a loaded term here, but an accurate way of describing what protesters have done in the church, doing these actions during what is an important aspect of the religion in question to me sounds like desecration. 3Kingdoms (talk) 05:03, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@3Kingdoms you've put an isolated incident as a major tactic cited by some fringe one-sided sources. Daily Mail is not a WP:RS neither is crux.com Abcmaxx (talk) 01:02, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I cited NYT as well. Crux is not the same as the daily mail, you have not explained what your issue with the source is [3]. 3Kingdoms (talk) 01:07, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@3Kingdoms You have literally pointed to the fact that crux.com is not a reliable source, as per the post itself except in matters specifically relating to Catholic only matters. Clearly they not neutral in this. Secondly, nowhere does it say it is a widespread tactic. One incident is indeed due weight, as states so many times before. The NYT does not use the word vandalism anywhere, so it is failed verification. You have also ignored the consensus on here, the only person who agrees with is User:Kahlores who cited the Daily Mail as evidence. Abcmaxx (talk) 01:14, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Boud: as a frequent editor on this page maybe you can have some input into this Abcmaxx (talk) 01:16, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@3Kingdoms also I have just noticed that it was yourself that recommended crux.com be added as a reliable source, and not only that, failed to do so. Smacks of underhanded tactics by trying to game the system in your favour. Abcmaxx (talk) 01:20, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah real gaming from the guy whining about the source despite not understanding how this work. So let me explain, a source not being on the noticeboard does not mean it is unreliable or can't be used. Crux ultimately was not added because the source was considered too minor I don't agree, but whatever. It does not matter in regards to if it can be used. Next there is no consensus, you and the others opposed stopped giving answers and for about a month it stood till you started edit warring over this. Finally here are three more sources proving the point that vandalism is being done by some protestors and yes graffiti itself is vandalism it is not hard to understand/ [4] [5] [6] A before you bring this up no having a pov is does not make a source unreliable per the rules. Finally I created the noticeboard because you kept saying it was not reliable despite it not being labeled as such I thought I might as well do some work to stop hairsplitting like this. 3Kingdoms (talk) 01:32, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Being staunchly anti-abortion and pro-Catholic on a matter directly related is POV. Same way you would not quote the National Front newsletter on their stance on the recent migrant crisis. None of your sources sate the word vandalism anywhere. yes graffiti itself is vandalism YOU think it is vandalism, but there is no evidence anyone else does. Pointing out obvious flaws in your warped logic is not whining. And the reason it has not been reverted because you keep sneakilly restoring it, unjustly. Abcmaxx (talk) 01:47, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And? Once again you don't understand that having a viewpoint does not make something unreliable. Numerous articles on Trump and Republican party officals uses sources such as slate, TNR, The Nation, The Guardian, NYT, and the WP which have a left of centre viewpoint, but are deemed reliable. As I explained before with Graffiti all dictionaries describe it as a form of vandalism. As I said before "If a Synagague was graffitied with Nazi symbols it would clearly be considered vandalism, I see no reason why this is any different in theory". I have not been sneakly I simply reverted nonsense edits meant to ignore aspects of the protest because people don't want that information posted. The removal by you is the unjust edit. 3Kingdoms (talk) 01:58, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@3Kingdoms No you are POV-pushing quite clearly. You quoted Washington Examiner, which is not a WP:RS and a load of WP:FRINGE Catholic news sites. Neither NYT nor Reuters mention "vandalism" anywhere AT ALL. It does not matter what you said in what hypothetical scenario you dream up, you have no proof it is considered vandalism by any reliable source that isnt some fringe conservative or religious mouthpiece. Even then, overcoming that hurdle, you have not proven that they are not a minority and nor a widespread tactic that merits being put into the infobox. You are basically cherry-picking what other have told you to suit your own needs. Abcmaxx (talk) 02:06, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From reuthers "In Warsaw protesters sprayed “abortion without borders” on one church, according to state news agency PAP. At another church “you have blood on your hands” was daubed on the wall." Yes that is a form of vandalism that you can't understand this shows only that you don't want sources that show the protest in a negative light. Actually explain why sources are "fringe" they are not but go for it, as opposed to whining that they are. You saying they are does not make it true. Also the WE has no agreement on being reliable so you are just wrong there. Actually defend your point with merit, also stop with the anti-Catholic claim of being a mouthpiece numerous catholic publications give different views on subjects. 3Kingdoms (talk) 02:12, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and where does it say "vandalism" or "vandalised"? Nowhere, it is just your editorialising and you trying to insert a loaded term. The sources are fringe because they are not mainstream news outlets, and target a very specific audience from a specific viewpoint. They are not reliable because they are pro-Catholic, written by Catholics for Catholics with a small reach and audience. The same would apply to any other fringe source written by "group X" for "supporters and/or members of group X". Besides you've literally posted on the reliability board and was told there specifically by lots of users why it is not a reliable source. Abcmaxx (talk) 02:22, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also are you saying Catholic news outlets do not have Catholic viewpoint? Because I think you will find all of them do. Otherwise, please name a Catholic news outlet that supports the protests and opposes the abortion ban. Abcmaxx (talk) 02:24, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a loaded term, breaking windows is vandalism as already pointed out, you want to ignore that. So I pointed out that Grafitti is itself vandalism, you don't like that cause you favor the protest and don't want them to look bad. Point 2 you don't understand what Fringe means so here is what the page says "In Wikipedia parlance, the term fringe theory is used in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field." Since that is not the case your wrong. Third, 2 people opposed it being added wow really decided, you don't understand how this site works, its no ones job to add sources, so it wasn't added stop acting like this is somehow a big deal it means nothing. Fourth yes America, a generally left of centre magazine, has had conservatives and marxist write in it. Commonweal had one editor oppose the Alabama abortion law despite the church supporting it, and National Catholic Reporter has pro abortion rights writiers. Finally for the last time VIEWPOINT on a topic does not make it unreliable. Per the reliable source page:
"Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject."
This is not a hard concept either learn how wiki works and actually debate, or just stop. You keep ignoring points, goalpost moving, and hairsplitting its annoying and shows you don't know what your talking about. Please respond point by point to what was posted or don't bother at all. 3Kingdoms (talk) 04:12, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, please do not assume people's deeply held political or religious beliefs, under no circumstances that is acceptable. Secondly, your claim that declared Marxists regularly write for minor Catholic news outlets is preposterous Abcmaxx (talk) 15:13, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Would you look at that [7]. Not exactly a minor paper America (magazine), the Editor in chief Fr. Martin is a regular commentator on the news here in the US. I suggest you actually look into these things before posting. Also thanks for ignoring everything else said, but I am not suprised. Once again either answer the points or don't bother responding. 3Kingdoms (talk) 17:26, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Rfc request: As per above thread, the issue relates to the word "vandalism" to describe graffiti as a major widespread tactic of the protests. The only sources that use this term are American Catholic news outlets. Abcmaxx (talk) 10:34, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WE is not an "American Catholic news outlet" neither is Reuthers, that is simply an incorrect statement. Second being Catholic news outlets has no bearing on if they are unreliable, having a POV does not make a source unreliable. 3Kingdoms (talk) 17:15, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The interpretation of graffiti as either vandalism, art or political expression varies between authorities, artists (e.g. urban youths living in a concrete jungle who can't afford pianos or violins, or Banksy) and protestors. In this particular case, there are no reliable sources stating that church walls were physically damaged by the paint as far as I know. From the practical point of view, the word and link graffiti is accurate, sourced and sufficient, so there's no need to add the ambiguous POV word "vandalism". Boud (talk) 22:04, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aside: (On the topic of abstract symbols and vandalism, the WMF's controversial plan about branding could be called vandalism; the claim by a WMF project group is that we need to profit from the wider public's fuzzy notion of "Wikipedia" to confuse the public even more and gain more faithful Wikipedia/Wiktionary/WMCommons/Wikidata/Wikibooks/Wikisource/Wikiquote/Wikispecies/Wikivoyage devotees/clients. "I believeth in Wikipedia and shalt worship no other lords than Him." This project would risk causing damage to the WMF wikis as a whole (e.g. Commons, Wiktionary) and to local Wikimedia chapters. As a result of community protest, the Wikipedia-as-a-religion-to-gain-more-clients project has been suspended until March 2021.) Boud (talk) 22:04, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing vague about Vandalism here the use of Graffiti here is clearly an example of vandalism. The "Physically damaged" part makes little sense, "If a Synagague was graffitied with Nazi symbols it would clearly be considered vandalism, I see no reason why this is any different in theory". I already pointed to other examples of vandalism. Finally I don't understand what the point of the "Aside" is here. 3Kingdoms (talk) 17:15, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(Probably the word "vandalism" is not the best here; it's more like "unintentionally damaging your own organised, incredibly influential group in the desire for getting even closer to hegemony" - haven't we heard that many times before in history? Maybe hubris would be a better word... The aside was because the question of symbols is key here. But it's only an aside, which I've reduced to small font.) Boud (talk) 17:18, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Holocaust is not the topic here. Boud (talk) 17:29, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain the difference. 3Kingdoms (talk) 18:23, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please click and read. Boud (talk) 20:11, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Godwin's law" has no bearing here please explain exactly why these to things are different functionally. 3Kingdoms (talk) 22:32, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Posted notices of Rfc at: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sociology/Social movements task force#Rfc notice for 2020–21 women's strike protests in Poland Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics#Rfc notice for 2020–21 women's strike protests in Poland and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poland#Rfc notice for 2020–21 women's strike protests in Poland Abcmaxx (talk) 00:53, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The word vandalism is not strictly defined by legality, dictionary definition or general consensus (in the world or in this thread). It can encompass any number of activities which impede the use of legally-owned property or would cost the owner money to correct. It is generally up to a judge to decide if something constitutes vandalism, even when it's obviously destructive to any person looking at it - because a lot of other factors affect that decision, like intent.

While I acknowledge that there's a lot of bias in how the term is used today, and how municipalities define it legally, the dictionary definition of of the word graffiti is words and pictures drawn on a wall in public view. It does not imply legality or destruction. Even Wiktionary only adds that it's "usually" made without authorization, it doesn't stop being defined as graffiti if it is authorized. It can be on your own wall, it can be on a wall you were commissioned to paint on, and it's still graffiti. And even if you would argue that common usage has changed, the most up-to-date usage is as a genre or style of art, that again isn't defined by it being authorized.

Therefore, the word graffiti can be used as summation of the behavior, "painting something on a publicly-visible wall," without any editorial bias. But to call it vandalism, without that exact word being used by a reliable source that you can cite, is editorializing not summarizing.

I have not reviewed the different sources being used, I am not weighing in on what is and isn't considered a reliable source for factual information on this topic. I am only saying the two words do not have the same weight and therefore cannot be treated as interchangeable examples in this discussion. Graffiti can be a form of vandalism, but it's not inherently one, and it is not for Wikipedia editors to decide when to label something as vandalism. That is precisely the kind of language we are supposed to cite. CleverTitania (talk) 20:25, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct that not all instances of graffiti is vandalism, but this is clearly of case of it being so. When you write on a church "F@%k yourself with your own organs" or something to that effect is clearly vandalism. This article from AP mentions vandalism [8] One of the leaders of the protest supports the use of these methods, it is not a disputed point. [9]. 3Kingdoms (talk) 17:46, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Poland 2050

[edit]

Why is Poland 2050 classified as an activist group and not a political party in the infobox section? Since 3 November 2020 they have registered to become a party and currently have two members of parliament in the Sejm and one senator in the Senate of Poland. HorCrux48 (talk) 14:27, 09 Febraury 2021 (UTC)

@User:HorCrux48 Because that is what they registered as and they're not technically a political party under the law, similarly to Kukiz '15; they can still sit in parliament though. This may change though once their registration is confirmed, again, similarly to Kukiz '15's path. Abcmaxx (talk) 23:06, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

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

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:53, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:2020–2021_women%27s_strike_protests_in_Poland&oldid=1254878296"