Talk:LGBT-free zone: Difference between revisions

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Discrimination This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. Law This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Human rights This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Poland This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Poland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PolandWikipedia:WikiProject PolandTemplate:WikiProject PolandPoland articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. LGBT studies This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles Sociology This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Sexology and sexuality This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Template:Fss

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)[reply]

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.

Same thing here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:32, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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, here here 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Happy to have TRM on board. I have a fairly thick skin, :-).Icewhiz (talk) 19:17, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, exactly. You aren't human, probebly a bot.Xx236 (talk) 09:41, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• 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[5].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[6],[7][8],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[9]

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)[reply]

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.

Icewhiz (talk) 03:53, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to the Rainbow Madonna - I did find a pretty good picture

File:02019 0471 Equality March 2019 in Częstochowa.jpg

, but the only source I found so far connecting the two is - Telewizja Republika reporting on the comments of MP Krzysztof Mieszkowski. Do you have additional sources? Icewhiz (talk) 07:36, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aha - found one - Balkan Insight have an excellent piece - [10] - 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)[reply]

Icewhiz, please stop your anti-Polish war.Xx236 (talk) 09:40, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]