Talk:LGBT-free zone/Archive 2

Title
Sources commonly write LGBT free zone   , most common. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Violet Chains (talk • contribs) 08:03, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Here is the list of the 60 cities, municipalities, powiats and voivodships that adopted the resolution. Translated from Polish - Resolutions "..against LGBT ideology.."
 * The newspaper stickers do not include the words 'against LGBT ideology' (whatever that is), and so irrespective of this or that council resolution, its obvious historical connection with Judenfrei is being watered down by limiting the title of this article to the pejorative 'ideology'. The political rhetoric enveloping Poland is both redolent and prescient of pogroms still in living memory.

The title is correct. The zones are referred by some foreign media as "LGBT free zones" instead "LGBT ideology-free zones," and that is already clearly stated in the lead of the article. GizzyCatBella 🍁  08:44, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The Polish for 'LGBT-free zone' appears to be 'Strefa wolna od LGBT' and this is the wording that is appearing on the signs. [ The signs do not wordily say "LGBT ideology-free zone" and so the title of this article should revert to 'LGBT-free zone'. This more generic title would thus allow for subheadings that include council resolutions and other promulgations to that effect. Conflation with Judenfrei is not alarmist, since designating an area to be "Free of LGBT+ people" (since the signs do not stipulate 'ideology' or 'iconography' per se), is an early manifestation of social exclusion and pogroms comparable with German erasure of citizenship for its Jewish minority. User:Chrisdevelop 20:32, 14 July 2020 (GMT)

This English Wikipedia and English media use LGBT free zone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Violet Chains (talk • contribs) 08:58, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Not all. The Washington Post for example correctly refers to it as "LGBT-ideology free"
 * Can you adduce images of the signs from within Poland itself, that say 'Strefa wolna od ideologii LGBT' rather than merely 'Strefa wolna od LGBT'? User:Chrisdevelop 19:29, 14 July 2020 (GMT)
 * The article is not about the signs (read the article). There are no signs anywhere. The activist mounted those signs on the road to fight homophobia and took pictures.  GizzyCatBella  🍁  18:43, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless, the 'LGBT-free zone' material is being disseminated. User:Chrisdevelop 20;13, 14 July 2020 (GMT)

Some cities and provinces have declared themselves “LGBT-ideology free,” even though the declarations have no legal significance. We should reflect on what the correct name is per municipal resolution, and what media describe it is. This is correctly presented in the article. GizzyCatBella 🍁  09:21, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * But not in the Title, per this thread. 'Ideology' is not only a non-neutral term in this context, it is loaded and pejorative, and should be placed in quotation marks in the Title. User:Chrisdevelop 10:30 15 July 2020 (GMT)
 * That’s what those politicians officially named the bill. ''Declaration No. 1/19 of the Lesser Poland Regional Assembly of 29 April 2019 on opposition to the introduction of the LGBT ideology in local government communities - hence the title. Here is an article discussing the term -  What does LGBT ideology mean? Nothing. Such a creation does not exist. Local government officials were simply deceived (per source) -  GizzyCatBella  🍁  10:46, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Surprisingly lucid, sane and useful article, thank you. Now returning to the Title.  By any stretch of the imagination, the Title says this is an article on "Zones that are free of LGBT Ideology". It is not clear from the title that this is nothing more than the name of dozens of Polish bills - even after reading the article.  If indeed this is all the articla is about, then it should be perhaps italicised, like Judenfrei, or re-titled, 'Polish LGBT ideology-free zones' or similar - to make it clearer that the concept of an 'LGBT ideology' is political. User:Chrisdevelop 12:59 15 July 2020 (GMT)
 * Sure, as long as the title doesn't suggest that the bill was intended to prohibit LGBT folks from accessing or living in the region, I have no objections. GizzyCatBella  🍁  12:28, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

@User:Chrisdevelop - today’s news - The Administrative Court in Radom today invalidated the resolution of the Commune Council in Klwów regarding the declaration Klwów free from the LGBT ideology  GizzyCatBella  🍁  13:00, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you. That's extraordinary. One can only wonder where it leaves the newly elected President Duda. User:Chrisdevelop 21:13 15 July 2020 (GMT)

Declarations
Similiarly as in LGBT rights in Poland there is a problem here with "the LGBT free Zones" motions. This content may probably be improved, but the point that I think should be noted is that the name "LGBT free zone" is just a media label which doesn't really correspond with the actual text of these resolutions. It's true that these motions were described and received as homophobic. However they're neither actually called "LGBT-free zones" nor contain any statements of creating such thing. --Monsieur empereur (talk) 11:19, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Note there's a parallel discussion at Talk:LGBT rights in Poland. Reply either here or there, but let's try to keep the discussion in one place. François Robere (talk) 11:43, 31 July 2020 (UTC)


 * In the LGBT rights in Poland article, the heading is "LGBT-free zones" (in inverted commas) and these are talking about the same thing as this article, so there is inconsistent nomenclature. A search has already been conducted as to popular use, and 'LGBT-free zones' is what they're known as in Poland. If this article is to remain standalone, the title needs to be expanded to '"LGBT ideology-free zones" in Poland', importing from LGBT rights in Poland the inverted commas so as to make it clear it is the generic name of the Polish councils' resolutions, rather than that 'LGBT ideology' is 'a thing'. If it exists, then what is it? No-one has offered a robust definition, yet councils here, there and everywhere (e.g. Russia) are passing resolutions against it. Chrisdevelop (talk) 12:11, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * From the discussion at Talk:LGBT_rights_in_Poland it appears from the Polish sources cited that 'LGBT ideology-free zone' is not the one-size-fits-all name given by Polish councils. Chrisdevelop (talk) 12:19, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * At https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/15yrxAGCj9RKop_IBz35OuD5KKylSIHUVnpfJ2b5W8Xg/edit#gid=4303681 is a partial list of Polish towns with international twin-city arrangements, that have purportedly passed anti-LGBT resolutions. Intitial investigation shows that they're not all called 'LGBT ideology-free zones', and in the case of Wieluń, the mayor, Paweł Okras, in open reply to an open letter from Piotr Piwowarczyk, implicitly denied the council had ever passed such a resolution, saying, "I can assure you that you will not meet stigmatization due to your sexual orientation. Wieluń is an open and tolerant city."
 * Biała Podlaska
 * Bielski (county)
 * Dębica
 * Jaroslawski (county)
 * Kraśnik
 * Łódzkie voivodeship
 * Łódzkie, Lubelskie, Podkarpackie and Świętokrzyskie voivodeship
 * Łososina Dolna
 * Lubelski (county)
 * Lubelskie and Świętokrzyskie voivodeship
 * Lubelskie voivodeship
 * Małopolskie voivodeship
 * Mielec
 * Nowa Dęba
 * Opole Lubelskie
 * Opole Lubelskie city
 * Podkarpackie voivodeship
 * Poniatowa
 * Przemyśl
 * Puławy
 * Puławy (city)
 * Rypin
 * Stary Sącz
 * Świdnik
 * Świętokrzyskie voivodeship
 * Sztumski (county)
 * Tomaszów Mazowiecki
 * Tuchów
 * Wieluń
 * Wielunski (county)
 * woj. lubelskie
 * Żabno
 * Zakrzówek
 * Zamość
 * Zwierzyniec
 * Chrisdevelop (talk) 01:26, 1 August 2020 (UTC)


 * It may be right that Polish legislation uses different more legalese terms, but as lined out in the WP policy per WP:COMMONNAME we should use the most recoginzable and commonly used English term from the sources the article is built on. By my understanding the term "LGBT Free Zones" is unequivocally used by the international press, so we should go with that. It's the same reason we have an article called Taiwan, despite the fact that there is no such country and the correct legalese term is actually the "Republic of China". Dead Mary (talk) 18:24, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That ^ . François Robere (talk) 19:22, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If the title is changed to "LGBT-free zones", the inverted commas used at Talk:LGBT_rights_in_Poland should also be used in the title of this article.Chrisdevelop (talk) 19:51, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info, but what's the point of the list..? François Robere (talk) 19:22, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The list is provided as a courtesy to spare editors the tedium of looking for Polish towns with international twin-city treaties, that have passed anti-LGBT ordinances, and in the process to allow anyone with time on their hands to research the name that each regional council gave their resolution. The example provided of Wieluń shows that the name doesn't necessarily match the title of this article, which has been being defended as the one-size-fits-all title of the resolutions. The word of contention, "ideology", is omitted when discussed at Talk:LGBT_rights_in_Poland, where it is instead called "LGBT-free zones" (including "so-called" style inverted commas). That would make a better title for this article, and it would moreover permit the inclusion of countries other than Poland. If the article is to remain solely about Poland, then it could be renamed, '"LGBT-free zones" in Poland', thereby importing the inverted commas from LGBT rights in Poland and at the same time, indicating these zones are a particular phenomenon in Poland. Chrisdevelop (talk) 19:48, 1 August 2020 (UTC)


 * BTW, there's a related discussion at Talk:Poland. François Robere (talk) 19:15, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

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

No such thing exists. It’s the same mechanism as with calling antisemitism a “fight against Zionist ideology”. Trasz (talk) 22:39, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Just because you claim something does not exist, does not make it so. LGBT activism is very much real; just as the push-back against it. -69.121.10.105 (talk) 03:39, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I think you misread Trasz. LGBT activism exists because of a broad liberal ideology, not a uniquely LGBT ideology; trying to paint it as the latter is merely a cover for intolerance of LGBT people (see eg. the quotes here). François Robere (talk) 05:22, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The issue with the title in that case, is that it declares there are "zones" in Poland "free of LGBT 'ideology'", thereby implying that it is 'a thing', without defining what 'LGBT idedology' actually is in this context, even if only from the perspective of the councils outlawing it. This needs to be fleshed out in the article itself, and perhaps ironic quotation marks added to some part of the title. User:Chrisdevelop 01:21, 15 July 2020 (GMT)
 * I agree. WP:TITLE suggests we should either accept it as common in Polish, but reject it as non-neutral and uncommon in English. François Robere (talk) 05:22, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I suggest starting an article on the LGBT ideology, which I agree is a loaded term used by politicians. It is already discussed in some scholarly research, check for example the The fight against ‘gender’ and ‘LGBT ideology’: new developments in Poland. Also see pl:Gender for a related topic. PS. Also see https://www.encyklopedia.edu.pl/wiki/Ideologia_gender but I am not sure if this a reliable source. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  05:25, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * So basically another Moon landing. François Robere (talk) 05:28, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It is not clear from the title that it is nothing more than the published name of dozens of Polish bills - even after reading the article. If indeed this is all the articla is about, then it should be perhaps italicised, like Judenfrei, or re-titled, 'Polish LGBT ideology-free zones' or similar - to make it clearer that the concept of an 'LGBT ideology' is political. As it stands, the Title says the article ia about "zones that are free of LGBT ideology", suggesting that LGBT ideology exists, albeit undefined, and that it is being 'dealt with'. User:Chrisdevelop 13:01 15 July 2020 (GMT)
 * Quotation marks? François Robere (talk) 18:12, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * To denote a 'so-called' phrase. There isn't a single, accepted 'LGBT ideology'. It's a politically pejorative term connoting bad-faith, and implies there is a powerful, central controlling infiltration of social infrastructures, encapsulated in a malfeasant, so-called 'ideology'. Quotation marks don't normally appear in Titles so another possibility might be simply to expand it to 'Polish LGBT ideology-free zones'. User:Chrisdevelop 21:24, 15 July 2020 (GMT)
 * It's a politically pejorative term connoting bad-faith Chrisdevelop, the term LGBT ideology has been also used by representatives of liberal anti-clerical movement as well, in positive sense, we actually have article on the author. I also note it used by some scholarly sources, for example Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services Marriage, Civil Unions, or Reciprocal Beneficiary Agreements: What Best Protects Older LGBT People? Kelly Knochel from University of Minnesota Assimilationist LGBT ideology views marriage as having a positive, steadying influence on relationships, improving the health and safety of LGBT people by promoting stability and monogamy (Adam, 2003; Yep et al.,2003) or in Gender in Philosophy and LawTo disagree with the ‘LGBT ideology’, to disapprove of it or not consider it justified, does not mean to legitimise intolerance, violence, hatred or unfair discriminations: instead it means to distinguish equally between recognisable rights and rights which demand a differentiation. Finally, it seems it is also used by the far left movement, ie. Communist Party of Great Britain identity politics and the transgender trend:where is lgbt ideology taking us?'. No comment on the article, but the use of the term is certainly not restricted to negative view and used not only by conservatives.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 00:39, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Quotes and full citations please. François Robere (talk) 15:22, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * No argument there. What I meant - perhaps we can use quotation marks in the title rather than italics? François Robere (talk) 15:14, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * From your first article: "The word 'ideology' has a pejorative meaning in modern language. It means a set of strong, bossy beliefs about a just and just social system and lifestyle that should be promoted and implemented by all means - not necessarily democratic. In the language of the Church, this [...] means that the name 'ideology' applies only to false and immoral beliefs. The Catholic system is not called ideology, because by its very nature it is only right..." Your second article does not mention the acronym, and your third is to a book - can you please cite the relevant part(s)? Your fourth link is to a lengthy paper that examines why there is negativity towards LGBT+ 'ideology, mainly from the transgender perspective. None of your references appear to support your claim of a positive connotation for the pejorative, 'LGBT ideology'. Do you have more specific citations to support a positive connotation for 'LGBT ideology' to save the time of lengthy reading that may turn up nothing?  User:Chrisdevelop 19:58, 16 July 2020 (GMT)
 * Quotation marks appear to be part of the Title format coding, and probably aren't part of the housestyle, hence the suggestion of italics. Another possiblity is to merge with LGBT history in Poland and LGBT rights in Poland to build a bigger article, of which this could be a section. Or, one could build a bigger article on LGBT Ideology, and include other countries such as Russia, that also outlaw 'Gay Propaganda'. User:Chrisdevelop 20:00, 16 July 2020 (GMT)
 * I don't think a merge would be right, given the particularity of the phenomenon and the size of this article. I also don't think "LGBT Ideology" would make much sense, given the fact it doesn't exist as such; and while we could start an article on the misconception (see my comment on the Moon landing above), I'm not sure it would be the right course of action here and it would only be extending the naming problem.
 * My problem with italics is that their semantics aren't clear; in other words, a lay reader may not understand that they signal fabrication rather than simply being an aesthetic choice. François Robere (talk) 21:19, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Judenfrei is in italics because it's "German words and phrases". Apostrophes are reserved for formatting, so maybe cannot be used in Titles. Perhaps another editor can clarify. At the very least there should be a paragraph in this article that discusses what 'LGBT ideology' actually is, or is perceived to be. The issue with the current title, is that it gives the term 'LGBT Ideology' inappropriate legitimacy, given that "it doesn't exist". A renaming of this article to "Polish LGBT ideology-free zones" would obviously give it particularity to Poland's legislation, but in the process would omit Russia and former Soviet satellites that manifest comparable, and intensifying national animus towards their LGBT demographics, enacted both legislatively and socially.  There is a heading further up this Talk page on 'Title' and perhaps this aspect of the discussion should move back to there. User:Chrisdevelop 23:53, 16 July 2020 (GMT)
 * Difference is "Judenfrei" is in a foreign language (German), so the semantics are clearer.
 * I agree about the need for an explanation.
 * I've posted on WP:NPOVN to get some more feedback. François Robere (talk) 10:49, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * My comment is at Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:23, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

The most noticable characteristic of political correctness, is that those accused of engaging in it almost always dispute it even exists, also the accuser never thinks that there is anything 'correct' about PC, they are ascribing motive to the accused. Nonetheless it is the term used. Similarly, it is difficult to understand what on earth was supposedly 'un-American' about the activites investigated by HUAC, nonetheless again it was the term used. We cannot put topics in quotes because we think the terms make little sense TO US. AFAI can see 'LGBT ideology-free' and 'LGBT free' are both terms used by critics of these declarations to describe policies which the actual enacters refer to by euphemisms, pro-family or similar. I fully understand the wish to not give credit to beliefs and prejudices which probably do not exist outside the imaginations of accusers, but quote marks etc are not the way forward IMO.Pincrete (talk) 12:41, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Please check out a new article LGBT ideology just created by User:Buidhe. Chrisdevelop (talk) 19:11, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Confederate flag in Poland
In the US there are a small minority of people who mistakenly believe that the Confederate flag is some type of "southern pride" or "heritage" symbol. However, if someone is displaying it halfway around the world (!) it is hard to believe that they are not some kind of white supremacist. Note: apparently several times as many Poles fought on the Union side (t &#183; c)  buidhe  16:55, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * @User talk:Buidhe Can you change that caption for me? I’m not sure how do do it. GizzyCatBella  🍁  17:07, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * They probably are "white supremacists" but we should not assume that ourselves simply because one of them is holding a Confederate flag. What about people standing next to the flag? We don’t know if they are with the person hiding behind the flag. GizzyCatBella  🍁  17:17, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I concur that the person holding the flag is likely someone with an agenda, but nonetheless, can we rule out that they are just fond of the Southern heritage or such? I am again reminded of the Nazi chic in Asia, there are people here who think SS was just "cool" because they had "cool uniforms", and don't know anything about Holocaust and such. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:31, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Merger proposal
Per discussion at Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard and Talk:LGBT_ideology-free_zone proposal to merge LGBT ideology-free zone into LGBT rights in Poland. The current article is solely about 'LGBT ideology-free zones' in Poland, and thus would be better situated as a satellite within the parent article, complementing the existing section LGBT rights in Poland|"LGBT_free_zones". Please indicate Agree or Oppose with your reasons and ID. Chrisdevelop (talk) 22:31, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree - GizzyCatBella  🍁  23:30, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree Chrisdevelop (talk) 00:16, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:LENGTH and WP:OVERLAP - the topics are distinct and detailed enough to merit separate articles, at least while the relevant events are ongoing. Maybe in the future they can be condensed and merged, but at the moment merger would result in an overly lengthy and convoluted article. François Robere (talk) 10:33, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * As for the article name, "LGBT-free zones" is clearly more common. Mild stylistic objection to "in Poland", unless we anticipate adding content on non-Polish places in the future. François Robere (talk) 21:05, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:18, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree--Darwinek (talk) 00:42, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose, because sources cover the exclusion zones extensively, the EU has denounced them, cities rescinded twinning with Polish cities over them, and this is a major issue that can not be covered with suitable length in the rights articles.Violet Chains (talk) 14:13, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Nope, I am entirely unconvinced and I disagree with your assessment of this matter that appears to be (WP:OR and factually incorrect. The article follows the language used by the lawmakers and is properly summarized without OR, we follow top-quality sources here. We should use a direct quote from the legislation itself, exact and precise. Proper name is clearly identified in the text, is extensively sourced. I will further note that other names are already in our other article so it should be merged. GizzyCatBella  🍁  21:06, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Pinging editors who took part in the other discussions and may want to opine here as well. François Robere (talk) 10:15, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. It is interesting that Polish Wikipedia has this article too - but its talk page states it has been translated from English version. Usually it is the other way around. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:34, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * * Yes, it was partially translated from english, but that article was heavily expanded since then. We should probably remove that template since most of the article is original work. Matinee71 (talk) 18:45, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think we should. It maybe for copyright attribution reasons. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:55, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify: the talk page notice is not for copyright reasons; it is merely a nice-to-have. The WP:COPYRIGHT page states Wikipedia's licensing requirements, and the required notice must be in the edit summary (see WP:TFOLWP). If is not already in the edit summary, the talk page notice is not sufficient replacement; instead, WP:RIA describes what must be done. And must here is not guideline, or policy-level, which is merely should-level; it is a legal requirement. And unlike policy and guidelines, for which pl-wiki has its own set and therefore their policies govern there, not en-wiki's, legal requirements are different because Wikimedia is based in the U.S. and thus U.S. legal requirements obtain to all Wikipedias. Mathglot (talk) 23:06, 30 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Agree in principle, but if the article gets split out again I think that "LGBT-free zones" is a better name. Guy (help!) 11:47, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment – I'm unable to respond, as I don't know what "a satellite within the parent article" is. I can guess, but I'd rather hear it from you., can you elaborate? Mathglot (talk) 23:12, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

===Closing Tally===
 * Agree 5 votes
 * Oppose 2 votes
 * Rename 3 votes (2 including Merge option)
 * Retain name 2 votes (1 including Merge option)

The Merge will now go ahead to LGBT_rights_in_Poland, and there is no need to change the existing name that is currently in the merged-to article. Please allow time (a day or so) for the task to be completed. Chrisdevelop (talk) 13:54, 30 July 2020 (UTC)


 * The "LGBT rights in Poland" article is already far too long per WP:LENGTH. There is no way to properly integrate this article into the main LGBT article in an appropriate manner. "LGBT free zones" is a distinct topic which is getting a lot of coverage in major RS for a long time now and there is ample evidence that this is going to continue to be a significant topic in the future. Pretty ridiculous move to be honest. Also why was this poposal not posted to somewhere more prominent (such as WP:RFC or some of the taskforces), so more editors could partake in the discussion? Dead Mary (talk) 14:33, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * What do you think of the merger? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:57, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * LGBT Free Zones and the general LGBT history of Poland are two very seperate topics. The LGBT Free Zones are a long enduring topic which has been making major international headlines for quite some time now. There are a lot of political and diplomatic developments which in turn get extensively covered by a heap of RS. Just yesterday the EU started to put some measures into effect, withholding EU funds for some of the affected Polish cities. It's very clear that the EU-Poland spat here is going to continue with further developments down the line. This topic is going to grow and the main LGBT Poland article is already overloaded as mentioned before. It will not be possible to adequately cover this topic within the limiting frameworks of the 100 years spanning main Poland-LGBT article. A separate article for the LGBT free zones is definitely warranted and I oppose any merger measures. Dead Mary (talk) 10:22, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Since the merger proposal arose out of failure to reach consensus over a name change for this article, to either "LGBT-free zones" (including the inverted commas presently used at LGBT_rights_in_Poland to clarify LGBT ideology is "so-called" and is the name used by some Polish councils), or '"LGBT ideology-free" zones', or 'LGBT-free zones in Poland' or '"LGBT ideology-free" zones in Poland' (importing the inverted commas as above), it may be worth reconsidering a name-change. Further down this page, under 'Declarations' is evidence that 'LGBT ideology-free zone' is not the name given by all Polish councils, nor in the Polish vernacular, and the term 'LGBT-free zone' is what is used on the stickers sold by Polish newspapers. Currently this article is solely about Polish LGBT free zones, not all the councils are using the term 'LGBT ideology-free zones', the vernacular use is 'LGBT-free zones', and there is to date, no robust definition for what 'LGBT ideology' actually is. For all these reasons, a name change should be reconsidered. As regards the concerns about bloat of LGBT rights in Poland since it already exceeds the maximum allowable length of 100Kb, the article LGBT history in Poland could be considered as a merge target, since it is currently less then 40Kb, and could be improved by the integration of this article.Chrisdevelop (talk) 14:54, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I understand your reasoning, but merging the articles is not the answer; especially when the initial issue was just the name. This topic warrants its own article. Regarding the title we should just use standard WP policy as outlined by WP:COMMONNAME. Looking into the media coverage the commonly used term is "LGBT Free Zones", so the article should moved there accordingly. Dead Mary (talk) 18:15, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree with. The discussion was closed prematurely and possibly in violation of WP:NACINV (the closing user,, is the same person who started the merger discussion). DraconicDark (talk) 17:52, 30 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Close reverted. Chrisdevelop, you may not close your own contested merge proposal and discussions are not a vote. Fences  &amp;  Windows  22:16, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * FYI, a deletion debate in November closed as keep: Articles for deletion/LGBT-free zone. Fences  &amp;  Windows  22:33, 30 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose This article is sufficiently developed and sourced to stand on its own, and while related to the proposed merge title, it deals in sufficient depth to require a separate article. Merging would result in an excessively long article unless content were removed, thus not meeting Merge Test. Doing so would be tantamount deletion, violating WP:PRESERVE. -- Deep fried okra ( talk ) 09:57, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * LGBT rights in Poland currently exports to 18 pages PDF, and this article to 13. Assuming a lot of duplicate information would coalesce in a merge, e.g. shared external references, the expanded article would probably reach 24 pages or so. If 24 pages is an "excessively long article", what should be done about Brian Eno (36 pages) and others like it? Chrisdevelop (talk) 16:55, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Interesting. That's not what I got by a factor of ten. -- Deep fried okra  ( talk ) 17:36, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * FWIW, this page shows 42,000 bytes and this page shows 110,000, while this guideline says "> 100 kB almost certainly should be divided." -- Deep fried okra ( talk ) 17:48, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * And Brian Eno [115,828 bytes,] (113Kb) alongside many others that significantly exceed the maximum. Given that it's already too large, what sections should LGBT rights in Poland be split into? The other article that has been proposed to merge to is LGBT history in Poland, whose page length is 40,470 bytes (39Kb). falling well within the size allowance. Chrisdevelop (talk) 22:01, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

This merge proposal arose out of the discussion of a proposal for a name change (which may itself have been prematurely closed), so as to remove the word 'Ideology' from the Title, since no-one is able to define for encyclopedic purposes what 'LGBT Ideology' is. In the 'LGBT rights in Poland' article, the title for the section dealing with this, is "LGBT-free zones" (in inverted commas), not 'LGBT ideology-free zone' as for this article. It has already been pointed out that the current title for this article is the name the Polish councils banning so-called 'LGBT ideology' collectively gave to their resolutions (so it should be in inverted commas anyway), however the popular use in Poland is "LGBT-free zones" placed in "so-called" inverted commas, and that is what the heading is for this topic in the article 'LGBT rights in Poland'. Since this article is only about 'LGBT-ideology free zones' in Poland, then the title should be amended to '"LGBT ideology-free zones" in Poland' (copying the "so-called" inverted commas from the parent article) or '"LGBT-free zones" in Poland'. If on the other hand countries other than Poland are to be considered, then the title should be 'LGBT-free zones' or '"LGBT-free zones"'. Otherwise, someone needs to write a paragraph or an article explaing what 'LGBT ideology' is. In terms of a merger, pruning of duplicated material and integration with other aspects of the issue of LGBT rights in Poland would lessen the likelihood of bloating the parent article. There is another article LGBT history in Poland, to where it has also been suggested this article could be merged.Chrisdevelop (talk) 10:47, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The name change proposal was closed because you opened this merge proposal. Really the name change proposal should have been a move proposal in my view. Defining 'LGBT ideology' is irrelevant, we use the name in the sources not our own. If the 'LGBT rights in Poland' section title doesn't match this article we can update it. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 10:57, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Reply below, under LGBT_ideology-free_zone Chrisdevelop (talk) 12:14, 31 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose merge, but Rename to "LGBT free zones". There isn't such thing like "LGBT ideology"... Natanieluz (talk) 20:27, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I would oppose the merger. I understand that the discussion on LGBT free zone do fit under the larger rubric of LGBT rights in Poland. However, it is also clear that the LGBT free zone has generated enough attention, discussion and controversy to merit an article dedicated to this topic. By merging, the topic cannot be properly fleshed out without disrupting the sober, historical perspective of the broader issue of LGBT rights in Poland, and without falling afoul of WP:RECENTISM. On the other hand, if the topic is to be shoehorned into the latter, it will not receive the full, balanced treatment that it deserve.

The topic can be given brief mention in the article on LGBT rights in Poland, while at the same time, having an article on its own. I don't see why the two cannot coexist. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 00:33, 2 August 2020 (UTC) c)  buidhe  21:23, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose The subject, unfortunately, received widespread coverage in international media and easily meets WP:GNG and WP:NEVENT. It has had significant impact, such as EU-Poland relations and twin cities. I also support renaming to "LGBT-free zones". (t &#183; c)  buidhe  19:16, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, "LGBT rights in Poland" is not an appropriate merge target as these zones do not change anyone's legal rights. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  19:36, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * LGBT rights in Poland has already been ruled out on the grounds it currently exceeds the maximum allowed length of 100,000 bytes, and may itself need to be broken up. However LGBT history in Poland has also been proposed as a merge target, and has enough room to accommodate a merge. This merge proposal arose out of failure to reach consensus on removing the word 'ideology' from the Title, since it is not present here: LGBT rights in Poland|"LGBT_free_zones" where "so-called" inverted commas are used, as they should also be in the Title here. Several alternative names have been proposed, including '"LGBT-free zones" in Poland', (eliminating 'ideology' and including inverted commas) if this article is to remain standalone. If there is no infringement of rights resulting from these zones, why would anyone be objecting to them?Chrisdevelop (talk) 20:34, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it would unbalance the LGBT history in Poland article with excessive recent material; we are talking about hundreds of years of history. I oppose any merge. To your other point, here in the US someone can wave Nazi flags in front of my house without breaking any laws or changing my legal rights, but I would still find it strongly objectionable. (t &#183;
 * The peaceful marches by LGBT+ demonstrators appear to be solely for equal civil rights, which currently they do not enjoy in Poland. This is therefore clearly a rights issue, but just as clearly, it can't splice into the LGBT rights in Poland originally proposed, because since it exceeds the allowable maximum of 100,000 bytes, that article is already in need of splitting. `Chrisdevelop (talk) 23:09, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You stressed the importance of inverted commas. Just to clarify - is this in continuation of our previous discussion on italics, and how to imply that it's a contrived name? François Robere (talk) 21:09, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Italics turned out to be unsuitable, since they indicate non-English language, e.g. Judenfrei (German). Since inverted commas are used at LGBT rights in Poland|"LGBT_free_zones" anyway, then it makes sense simply to move the title of this article to be the same as that section.  There seems to be growing consensus that 'LGBT-free zones' is a more suitable title, since it comports with current Polish vernacular, and if that is adopted after all, then inverted commas should also be used, to make it clear that it is a contrived term. Chrisdevelop (talk) 22:41, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed. François Robere (talk) 09:25, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose For reasons of size and distinct topic as articulated by 'Dead Mary'. I would probably endorse a rename, partly because "ideology free-zone" appears to be synthed from "LGBT-free zone", a term used by critics of these policies, and remarks by some supporters of the policies who speak of opposing "LGBT ideology". Pincrete (talk) 14:41, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose, for reasons explained by other folks above - those are two entirely different topics.Trasz (talk) 16:07, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

TALLY Since the Rename>Move proposal has succeeded, this Merge appears no longer necessary. Can someone please WP:CLD? Chrisdevelop (talk) 07:23, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree = 5
 * Oppose = 7
 * Majority - 2 opposing
 * This is not a vote. The move proposal is irrelevant, we can still merge if needed. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:55, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * How was the vote for the successful Move proposal taken, if not by tallying the bolded Support v. Oppose responses? Chrisdevelop (talk) 23:54, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * BTW there is a Merge proposal now active for the LGBT ideology article to merge with Anti-gender movement Chrisdevelop (talk) 23:56, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * LGBY ideology was not one of the proposed merged targets, but I can add a tag for that. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 10:39, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * What did you mean by "this is not a vote"? Chrisdevelop (talk) 10:57, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry I meant LGBT not LGBY. NOTAVOTE is an explanatory supplement to the Wikipedia:Consensus and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not policies. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:01, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Wrong map in lead
See my comment here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LGBT-free_zone&diff=979361753&oldid=978709949

I have only tagged it as such there for now. Zezen (talk) 09:19, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not wrong, the sources are from 2019 but the map depicts the situation in 2020. Updated source added. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  14:51, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for not engaging in a revert war and removing these conflicting sources. Updating as per your new source then, t · c) ''' buidhe.

Zezen (talk) 18:50, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Cleary NPOV and false
LGBT free zone is a term made by leftwing activists and publicists for regions where local governments signed acts about family support. This doesn't belong on the encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.173.49.37 (talk) 17:24, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Not true. If you read those acts, there's nothing there that would in any way help families.  It all revolves around hate against LGBT.  Calling it "family support" is like neofascist bands calling themselves "rock against communism".Trasz (talk) 00:59, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Newspapers have been distributing 'LGBT-free zone' stickers ('STREFA WOLNA OD LGBT'), which have presumably been put up on noticeboards and lamposts. Moreover Poland has just elected, on an anti-LGBT platform, the right-wing President Duda who says [//https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-53039864 "LGBT ideology is worse than communism"]; the 'LGBT free zone' signs are representative of a growing animus against LGBT+ minorities, coupled with a marked swing away from secular rule, and towards Catholicism as quasi state religion. This is not associated with the contemporary 'left' or 'moderate' wings of political discourse. User:Chrisdevelop 23:25, 14 July 2020 (GMT)
 * Reading and forming your own opinion about this is ORIGINAL RESEARCH. Better show proof that the map in this article represents governments that passed legislation that mentions LGBT people or so-called "LGBT ideology" at all. Otherwise - which seems to be the case - this article is just propaganda. Nothing new really, on wikipedia. It's really hard to enforce real npov here. 20:52, 30 September 2020 (UTC)Vealoshawa (talk)

Should this article be at least semi-protected?
This is an ongoing issue and it is very controversial-so I think the article security should be raised. --BonsMans1 (talk) 14:17, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

LGBT free zone is a metaphor
There are no LGBT free zones in Poland. The following description was removed: Warning:as the map contains are 3 layers of administrative division, red mark doesnt mean that the resolution is passed on commune level. [1] Another removed content: LGBT-free zones (Polish: Strefy wolne od LGBT)[2] [3] [4] [5] [6][7] or LGBT ideology–free zones (Polish: Strefy wolne od ideologii LGBT)[8] is an artistic happenning organised by Bart Staszewski in order to shame the communes, which have their councils pass so called Family Right resolutions. The resolutions could be passed on 3 different levels of administrative division (municipalities, counties and regions of Poland) and allegedly contain content unwelcoming of an alleged "LGBT ideology",[9] --Cautious (talk) 21:24, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That may be your opinion but most reliable sources in English do call them LGBT free zones hence the title. For example, these three academic papers discuss LGBT free zones in Poland I believe the article already says that the relevant municipalities officially reject the term "LGBT-free zones". (t &#183; c)  buidhe  21:30, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Really? TRZEBIESZOW, Poland (Reuters) - An activist has begun photographing members of Poland’s LGBT community next to a fake “LGBT-free zone” sign outside towns that passed motions rejecting what they call “LGBT ideology” or defending traditional family values. This is the source, already there. --Cautious (talk) 21:36, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

3 points to improve the article
1. Clearly state the status of the zone. 2. Improve the map in order to distinguish between resolutions on different levels of the administrative division. I.e. when the resolution was passed on the region level, but not on commune level. 3. Clearly describe the consequences, together with distinction from the level of administrative division.--Cautious (talk) 11:59, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

There are no LGBT free zones in Poland
There are no zones in Poland where gays or lesbians could not live. Some local authorities passed a resolution to defend traditional family values. That is all. --Adam Lutostański (talk) 18:31, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes there are zones in Poland where the mere existence of LGBT people is called "an ideology". If Polish people are so bothered by the presence of these resolution they should try to have them removed instead of unnecessarily trying to convince others that they do not exist. :)--95.248.253.145 (talk) 17:27, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Sticking to facts, LGBT-free zones across Poland are analogous in intent to Judenfrei. The fact you "can live" in a place does not necessarily mean you have freedom of the city enjoyed by the majority. Supported by the majority, and apparently by the OP, President Duda has denounced the LGBT+ demographic as an ideological construct: 'Polish election: Andrzej Duda says LGBT 'ideology' worse than communism'.Chrisdevelop (talk) 00:18, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Looking ahead.
Ya'll might want to consider having this article semi-protected. Determined banned editors will likely create socks & continue with their disruption. GoodDay (talk) 22:53, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:52, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Strefa wolna od LGBT - cropped, background removes.jpg