This is an archive of past discussions about LGBT-free zone. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I have reverted this removal as the cited source - the Washington Post uses this langauge and devotes extensive space to LGBT rights activists visiting the pogrom sites prior to the march. Volunteer Marek - we follow mainstream sources on Wikipedia. If you disagree with mainstream sources, then I suggest you take a deep breath and write a polite letter to their editor. Should you manage to sway weight in mainstream coverage, then you may have grounds to change Wikipedoa's reflection of said coverage.Icewhiz (talk) 03:58, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Again, having a reliable source is a necessary not a sufficient condition for inclusion. In this particular case, this is WP:COATRACK. Overall, while the info is important, it is not notable to have an article of its own. Its place is in LGBT rights in Poland (putting it there would also cut down on the COATRACKin').
For comparison look at something like, say, teh Georgia Abortion Law [1], or any number of recently passed measures in some US states. Those are more significant than these "declarations", if for no other reason than the fact they have the status of a law, could be enforceable and may actually lead to a Supreme Court case (most likely will be struck down). But we do not have any articles on this or similar law because on their own, they are not notable (and they are a helluva notable then this stuff here) enough for their own articles, and any info about them belongs in an article about Abortion in the United States. In both cases such articles, in addition to not meeting notability standards, would also violate WP:NOTNEWS.
These are legal resolutions by government - extensively covered in international WP:NEWORGs and easily passing Wikipedia notability standards. As for WP:COATRACK - when the Washington Post (and several other sources) deem a certain connection to be relevant to a subject - so do we. If you have an issue when mainstream media - please write the respective editors' a polite letter. In the meanwhile - please avoid making assertions here that are not backed up by sources on the topic. Icewhiz (talk) 05:42, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
No, these fail WP:NOTNEWS and by themselves are not notable and this article isn't encyclopedic. Useful content here can be merged to LGBT rights in Poland where it belongs. This is pretty standard procedure on Wikipedia and should't really be controversial. Your objections are noted but Wikipedia's policies and guidelines take precedent.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:53, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
You misunderstand WP:NOTNEWS - this is not routine, nor is this limited a newscycle (or two, or three). These resolutions by elected bodies - pass WP:GNG by a mile - or rather 4,457 miles at least (the distance from Warsaw to Washington). Icewhiz (talk) 06:27, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
No they do not. Just like there's no article on 2019 Georgia Abortion Law there's even less reason for articles such as this one. We already have an article where this content belongs. Can you at least make an effort in explaining HOW this article supposedly "passes WP:GNG by a mile". An assertion is just that - an assertion. Anyone can make assertions. They don't mean anything, unless you can actually support it. Because I can - WP:GNG says "Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability." (WP:SUSTAINED and WP:NOPAGE also apply).Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:42, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Disruptive removal of notability tag
Icewhiz removed the notability tag I added to the article with the false edit summary tag not based on any Wikipedia notability policy[2]. This is blatantly false since the policy rationale was just articulated in the section above, herehere and freakin' here. I even quoted the relevant part of WP:GNG. Icewhiz failed to reply.
Now, I understand that Icewhiz disagrees with these rationales - but that is NOT a legitimate reason to remove the tag. Of course he disagrees, he created this article. That does not give him the right to remove the concerns of other editors from the page. His actions are a gross violation of WP:OWN. The matter should be discussed and the tag should stay in pace until it's resolved. Removing the tag is disruptive and it constitutes edit warring.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:13, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
I should also note that Icewhiz removed the merge tag without even giving me the chance to open the relevant section for discussion. The idea of the merger was already raised above. I added the merge tag at 6:38 [3]. Icewhiz removed it only minutes later (while I went to the kitchen to pour myself some cherry coke! Literally!) [4]. This is clearly disruptive and a bad faithed attempt at WP:GAME.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:20, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
When placing maintenance tags, please properly update all relevant pages. As for the notability tag - more than one editor disagreed with you. The LGBT-free zone declarations have started significant protests (pride marches, solidarity protests) as well as attacks on pride marches. Beside being resolutions by duly elected legal entities, these resolutions have been the subject of continuing WP:SIGCOV that amply surpasses GNG. This is nothing close to "routine news reporting". Icewhiz (talk) 08:23, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
You removed the merge tag within minutes of me putting it there so please spare me this "please properly update all relevant pages". You didn't even give me a chance to "update all relevant pages" before you started edit warring over it. YOU put it back and start the relevant discussion. I'm not going to do it, because, based on my past experience with you, there's a pretty damn good chance that as soon as I try to restore the merge tag you will run off to WP:3RR or some admin claiming that I'm edit warring.
As for the notability tag, again YOU removed it within minutes of it being added so NO OTHER EDITORS have actually had a chance to comment. Obviously you disagree with it. But that does NOT give you the right to remove it in order to sabotage discussion. This is disruptive and it constitutes WP:GAMEing. Please put it back in.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:45, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
neutrality
Hey, Icewhiz! How would you feel about requesting an assessment by TRM for neutrality? He's really good, and I'm thinking his input could be very valuable. It would be something you'd have to specifically request from him yourself, as only the article nominator can make this request. --valereee (talk) 19:16, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
@Valereee: - there is a clear inline citation next to every single piece of text here. I've also followed the cited sources very-very closely (not too closely in terms of paraphrasing/copy-vio - but I was very close to lingo and tone). Icewhiz (talk) 13:45, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Icewhiz, I put a cn on a sentence that doesn't have its own source. The source says The visceral reaction of the establishment itself belies the fear among the Catholic church of increasing secularisation, declining church attendances and the drip-drip of the kind of paedophile scandals that has so sapped the church's credibility in Ireland. That 'belies' is confusing me. --valereee (talk) 14:02, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
I think that "The conservative establishment is fearful of a liberal transition that may erode the power of the Catholic Church in Poland in a manner similar to the transition around the Irish Church" is a more toned-down version (no visceral....) of that sentence + the "Asked whether he fears that Poland might follow Ireland..." continuation (directed at a regional parliament member that led a drive for a zone). I parse "belies" as "to present an appearance not in agreement with" (mw meaning 1b) - the reaction of the establishment - a very-very strong conservative reaction is in strong contradiction to the currents in Polish society which is actually becoming more tolerant to LGBT in recent years (so the establishment's anti-LGBT rhetoric, resolutions in elected bodies - an apparent anti-LGBT shift in policy is in fact reactionary in regards to public perceptions in Poland that have been moving the other way (particularly in urban areas - e..g there is a big Warsaw vs. rural divide (think NYC vs. a farm in Nebraska - red state vs. blue state in the US))). Icewhiz (talk) 14:16, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I think that is better. Okay, and I'm also wondering about the statement about Judenfrei zones. The only source I recognize is the BBC, and that only mentions a tweet by the Deputy Mayor of Warsaw. I'm not sure that's an important enough figure to establish a tweet as noteworthy. --valereee (talk) 14:45, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
la Repubblica - a major Italian newspaper is reporting this in its own voice (unattributed). We have an opinion piece in Attitude (magazine) with this as a topic. BBC indeed reports a tweet by a Warsaw official. Queer.de is reporting on a tweet (with the image) by a different political party + saying that "many users in social networks" compared this to anti-Semitic messages from the Nazi era. I can beef this up with more citations - but these are 4 entirely different sources.Icewhiz (talk) 14:52, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Our la Repubblica article calls it center-left, with roots in radical leftism. I don't think we should use that one. Attitude is a gay-interest publication, and I'd assume Queer.de is also, don't think we should use those either. I think we can list specific comparisons with attribution -- something like "Warsaw Deputy Mayor X tweeted "quote." Activist Adam Bodnar said "quote." Polish television channel TVN24, which has been boycotted by PiS, said "quote." etc. But this is an extremely strong statement, and I think we should be reporting very specifically and with attribution until/unless we start getting actual thoughtful analysis in an extremely reliable source. There's a reason the NYT, WaPo, CBC aren't publishing opinion pieces using this very-easy-to-make comparison. --valereee (talk) 15:11, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Bodnar is Ombudsman - an official position of some note - he's not just an activist. We'll end up with a very long attribution list if we do this - even if we chuck queer.de and Attitude (I think la Repubblica would definitely be DUE an attributed statement) - we end up with 5 different attributions. Could we perhaps characterize them all as "Detractors of the LGBT-free zones have compared...." ? I can get a whole lot more of comparisons here. Icewhiz (talk) 15:18, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
e.g. - NBC News - [6] - "While conservative social media users cheered the move on Twitter and on Facebook, many liberal Poles connected the effort to create “LGBT-free” zones to Nazi efforts to create zones free of Jews.". Icewhiz (talk) 15:26, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
I went ahead and filled those in, just to see what we had. Couldn't get to the Rzeczpospolita article, it keeps asking me to click to accept their terms but doesn't open for me, can you get that one? I think you're right that it's now too long, how should we trim? --valereee (talk) 16:24, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
rp.pl - "Wyrazem tego błędnego podejścia jest dołączenie do jednego z tygodników naklejek „Strefa wolna od ideologii LGBT". - Hasło to budzi mój głęboki sprzeciw. Można bowiem uznać, że nawiązuje w sposób nie budzący wątpliwości do hasła „Judenfrei" (Wolny od Żydów), stosowanego przez niemieckich nazistów oraz pogłębia i powiela uprzedzenia oraz wprost nawołuje do wykluczenia społeczności osób nieheteronormatywnych - wskazuje Rzecznik.". Icewhiz (talk) 16:34, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Vogue - Schwulen is gay men, Schwulenrein is same as Judenrein - purified of gay men. Pedał is a derogatory way of saying gay in Polish. It is one of those (many) Polish words (slang) with Latin roots - this comes off of Pederasty. Icewhiz (talk) 16:36, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
I think we're in WP:OVERCITE turf - no need to add more (the exercise of producing refs here demonstrates WP:DUE, but I don't think we need this in the text). I think the attributed Queer.de in the text isn't needed (it is useful for the image caption - as it gives the tweeter an identity - political party) - NBC news says the same more or less (and has more gravitas). I'd also nuke Attitude (a ref for DUEness - fine - but I don't think it's needed (it is useful being in English, but other than that - it's not a particularly high gravity source). Icewhiz (talk) 16:46, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Going to:
Liberal politicians and media and rights activists have compared the declarations to Nazi-era declarations of areas being Judenfrei (free of Jews). Left-leaning Italian newspaper la Repubblica called it "a concept that evokes the term 'Judenfrei'".[22] Campaign Against Homophobia director Slava Melnyk compared the declarations to "1933, when there were also free zones from a specific group of people."[25] Warsaw's deputy president Paweł Rabiej tweeted, “The German fascists created zones free of Jews. Apartheid, of black.”[12][19]
got it. I think we should probably choose the three or four most reliable source and attribute those. And we'll need to balance it with reaction from those on the right. If we're going to use leftist sources, we have to be willing to accept rightist sources that are no more extreme, so we ought to be able to find someone somewhere saying something in a center-right rs. --valereee (talk) 16:49, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
We need someone in an rs directly connecting the Pride marches to the declarations -- someone saying the marches were held in direct response or something -- to intro this section; otherwise it feels like OR to have this section --valereee (talk) 17:20, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Serious POV issues in the article
1.The article gives impression that this is somehow a legal exclusion act.It isn't. It's just a meaningless declaration. Polish constitution bans discrimination on basis of sexual orientation and such acts violate Polish law[7].At the moment the article reads like there are some real exclusion zones-they aren't, it's just declarations during upcoming elections.
2.The background section is missing the lead up to the events, which were very controversial in Poland-during some LGBT marches in Poland, there were activists performing mock catholic masses and showing imagery of catholic saints with LGBT symbols[8],[9][10],this was criticized not only by the traditionally christian parties but also some liberal groups and Jewish community in Poland.
3.Also missing from the background section is that the main conflict over signing of the LGBT Charter was over inclusion of sexual education for young children that supposedly is in the charter.
4.There was escalation in imagery and propaganda including mock murder of one of the bishops in Poland[11]
Overall I am not sure the article is notable on its own-I believe it would be better to merge it with LGBT rights in Poland or create article LGBT rights in Polish Electoral Vote of 2019.Also as a personal disclaimer:I am a atheist, so I am a bit impartial to a lot of the above, but believe the article should be covered in neutral way with all relevant information included.
--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:15, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Fancy seeing you here. We don't place LGBT in the LGBT rights in Poland closet, but cover where relevant. Clearly notable and size wise this is already quite large. The Polish langauge sources you presented above are rather obscure in relation to the rather strong sourcing in the article.
1 - is this a RS? I would prefer sticking to higher quality sources for background (and we have a few). International NEWSORGs - e.g. Washington Post, CBC, Telegraph see this as quite significant, and it seems LGBT activists are protesting - and being met with extreme violence - e.g. the New York Times compared violence in Białystok to Charlottesville.
2 - I am not oppposed to including the rainbow Lady of Częstochowa (could also make a picture addition, and possibly notable standalone) - but do any of the sources you are citing tie this to the zones? The arrest of the activist for a poster was widely covered and condemned. CNN.
3 - we have a quote from Bozena Bierylo alluding to this. If you have substantial sources tying this to the zones - sure could be included. Sources please.
4 - obscure website with news item from 14 August (after the zones) - so possibly a reaction to the zones and to Jędraszewski calling LGBT a "rainbow plague". Possibly could be included with better sourcing establishing relevance.
Aha - found one - Balkan Insight have an excellent piece - [12] - it just was title a bit differently (resolution against “LGBT ideology”) - and it has the Madonna as background - so that's no longer SYNTH. Icewhiz (talk) 08:27, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
I have removed the tag, as issues above have been addressed. Points 1, 2, and 3 raised above have been addressed and included in the article. Point 4's source isn't great, is fairly recent (a show in a Poznan club for Mr. Gay Poland - story from 14 August, story on pictures - 9/10 August). It also seems that this is WP:SYNTH on this article as the source doesn't mention the zones. It may merit inclusion on Marek Jędraszewski's page - maybe - as he's portrayed there. Icewhiz (talk) 08:31, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
An "X-free zone", applicable to any minority, is more than vaguely reminiscent of a declaration of intent to commit ethnic cleansing. If 30 mayors from across any other country - say, Germany, the States or the UK - had declared their municipalities "Pole-free zones", you wouldn't have called it "meaningless" regardless of what their respective laws said, because it isn't.
The "lead up" is important, but it isn't the ultimate reason for the events, and we should be careful not to imply that it is. The ultimate reasons for these events are socio-demographic[13] - the bias is a priori, not empirical.
LGBT "ideology".[6] While symbolic, the declared zones signal exclusion of the LGBT community.
LGBT is an ideology in Poland rather than any exclusion. The alleged LGBT community is a perhaps 1000 activis community
dispersed in several cities, who organize rallies. The community is leftist, anti-government. The same people organize anti-governmeny, ecological and LGBT manifestations travelling around country.Xx236 (talk) 10:00, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
One source dominates parts of the page. British culture has been anti-Catholic since ages. The reader should be informed about the bias. Burning of Catholic Guy Fawkes effigy is a part of British culture.Xx236 (talk) 07:04, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
If Elżbiet Podleśna is a civil right activist, Piotr Rybak is one too. And the anti-LGBT ideology protesters are ones. Who decides which rights are better? The Daily Telegraph?Xx236 (talk) 07:07, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Telegraph article
There is a single Daily Telegraph article that is being leaned upon very heavily to support some extraordinary and exceptional claims. Some of those claims were wholly unsupported by the Telegraph, or the facts had been misrepresented by the Wikipedia editor who added them. I attempted to clean this up. @Icewhiz: says it's "mainstream" and restored some extremely questionable stuff. I'd like to hear the justifications for such things as calling the mayor "liberal" when the Wikipedia article does not use the word; for the survey results which were worded completely differently from what the Telegraph said, and for why the Telegraph would have extraordinary insight into the minds of "the conservative establishment" that Wikipedia should repeat the claims of this primary source about mindset, motive, strategy, etc., without additional analysis or consensus in other reliable sources. Elizium23 (talk) 05:56, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
"liberal" from Warsaw mayor. The mayor of Warsaw is described as a liberal by the Telegraph (and - hey - by just about anyone else) - "...in recent months after the liberal mayor of Warsaw signed a declaration in February supporting LGBTQ rights"
"The conservative establishment is fearful of a liberal transition that may erode the power of the Catholic Church in Poland in a manner similar to the transition around the Irish Church.Decreasing Church attendance, rising secularization, and priest pedophilia scandals have put pressure on the conservative position". This is supported by the source:
"The visceral reaction of the establishment itself belies the fear among the Catholic church of increasing secularisation, declining church attendances and the drip-drip of the kind of paedophile scandals that has so sapped the church's credibility in Ireland. Asked whether he fears that Poland might follow Ireland - which now has a gay Taoiseach and has legalised both abortion and gay marriage - the conservative regional legislator, Mr Kotula, is adamant it will not."
.
"As of 2019, being openly gay in Poland's small towns and rural areas "[takes] increasing physical and mental fortitude" due to the efforts of Polish authorities and the Catholic Church, according to The Telegraph.Public perceptions, however, have been becoming more tolerant of gays, albeit more slowly in rural areas, according to surveys. Source says:
"Being openly LGBTQ in Poland in 2019, particularly in rural areas and smaller towns, is now taking increasing physical and mental fortitude as both the Catholic Church and the Polish state actively work to create a hostile environment for the gay community."
+
"Still, surveys show attitudes are changing, even if towns like Rzeszow are slower to reflect the inexorable liberalisation of opinion.
We following reliable sources on Wikipedia - there is nothing exceptional in the Telegraph's reporting - reporting by the Washington Post, BBC, etc. has been quite similar. Icewhiz (talk) 06:05, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
So... how did the Telegraph measure "physical and mental fortitude"? On what did they base their measurement of tolerance in rural vs. other areas, because the surveys did not address geography? They cite one politician who denied their characterization of "the conservative establishment", and none who confirmed it. This article seems to have a significant measure of opinion, rather than statements of fact: Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact.WP:NEWSORG tells us that sources such as the Telegraph is a primary source generally reliable for statements of fact, and I do not see how the abovementioned excerpts could be considered "fact". Elizium23 (talk) 06:17, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
This is a recent event - only covered by NEWSORGs. The Telegraph piece is clearly in-depth secondary coverage, and is not an editorial. As for their measurement methods of "physical and mental fortitude" - I suggest you write a letter to the editor of the Telegraph with your query as to their methods (there are several possibilities - for instance they may have interviewed several LGBT people in rural areas). On Wikipedia - we follow reliable sources - we don't engage in our own analysis (known as WP:OR). Icewhiz (talk) 06:31, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Elizium, I would argue that it doesn't matter how the Telegraph measured physical and mental fortitude. They're a reliable source, and we attribute the quote to them in the article. --valereee (talk) 19:35, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
They are reliable for statements of fact -- "fortitude" is a subjective matter of opinion. This is an opinion piece which is relied upon heavily here. Also, there is nothing in the surveys about "rural areas" rate of change in tolerance, and the surveys never asked whether "gays should be tolerated", so Icewhiz has again restored false assertions. They have been tagged. Elizium23 (talk) 06:23, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
@Elizium23: - tag and tag are disruptive. You've been provided quotes above of the source - what precisely are you claiming that fails verification? Telegraph expressly writes fortitude - if you have an issue with The Telegraph's reporting - write a letter to their editor. Icewhiz (talk) 06:25, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Telegraph says fortitude. We even attribute the statement. Telegraph is certainly reliable for stating LGBT people feel in danger in certain areas. Telegraph also makes a distinction on rural areas (as do other sources) - that is not present in the survey and is unconnected from the survey. And again - the Telegraph is a reliable source for such a distinction. Icewhiz (talk) 06:34, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
So if you know that the distinction is not present or connected to the surveys, why did you just write, in the article, in Wikipedia's voice, unattributed, that it is? Elizium23 (talk) 06:37, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
The Telegraph is a reliable source. Please explain - your second tag - on " In 2001 41 percent of Poles surveyed stated gayness should "not be tolerated", whereas in 2017 only 24 percent expressed this opinion and 55 percent said gays should be tolerated." - when the source says - "Although 24 per cent of Poles told the state pollster CBOS in 2017 that being gay should “not be tolerated”, that is a significant drop from the 41 per cent who expressed that view in 2001. 55 per cent of Poles now say homosexuality should be tolerated.". what fails verification here ? Icewhiz (talk) 06:50, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure I even have a belief or opinion on this matter. If there is a particular word tweak you want to make here - suggest it. Second source: "But other CBOS polls show that people in Poland are slowly growing more tolerant. In a 2017 survey, 24 percent of respondents said being gay wasn’t normal and shouldn’t be tolerated compared to 41 percent in 2001; and 16 percent said in 2017 that being gay was normal compared to 5 percent in 2001. - Reuters (seems they are picking different stats for the 16% vs. 5% of "normal", but the 41% vs. 24% is on "being gay wasn’t normal and shouldn’t be tolerated"). Icewhiz (talk) 07:02, 12 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)
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)
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)
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) - [16], [17], [18], [19] - in addition to [20]. 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)
"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)
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)
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.
There was minor kerfluffle in 2011 when at least one British Muslim posted stickers calling their neighborhood a "gay free zone".[1][2] But unlike in Poland this was apparently condemned by Muslim organizations. buidhe18:19, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
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 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[21] 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. [22] 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 [23]. 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)
