Talk:LGBT ideology

Draft of polish article about this topic
I abandoned writing article about LGBT ideology in polish a while ago. I want to link it here, since some people might find it useful, Matinee71 (talk) 21:22, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Notability
This article has questionable notability. It should probably be merged to LGBT-free zone. There are twenty references, but with the exception of four that are about the Polish issue, the others are about other things, like "gender ideology", and not about "LGBT ideology".

A big, red flag, is that the WP:LEADSENTENCE has fully four citations to reliable sources attached to it, and yet not one of them is about "LGBT ideology". They are valid sources for other topics, but not for this topic.

The policy on Article titles says: "The title indicates what the article is about and distinguishes it from other articles." The sources in the article and the content relying on them might be fine in some other article, but not in this one; at least, not as long as this article is entitled "LGBT ideology".

There seems to be a assumption in the current version that if some source says something about, say, "gay ideology", then, bingo! we have something about "LGBT ideology" because "gay" is the "G" in LGBT. But that's not how it works; that is pure WP:SYNTH: an editor making assumptions or deductions based on what several articles might be saying, while no single one of them supports what the editor asserts in the article. As editors, we cannot draw conclusions about what *either* LGBT ideology means, *or* what gay ideology means. Neither can we assume that if there's such a thing as "Gay ideology", then ipso facto, there is such a thing as "LGBT ideology", and the former is a subset of the latter. Absent a source that makes a claim about "LGBT ideology", we can't say anything at all about it. If we cannot find a reliable source (preferably three or more) that makes an unequivocal case specifically about "LGBT ideology", then it doesn't belong in this article.

So then the question is, what *does* belong in this article? Well, let's see:



There is virtually nothing, that isn't about the Polish LGBT-free zones. There are about three mentions in Google books about "LGBT ideology", including the expected references to Poland, and one about Indonesia and Malaysia. But the latter are trivial mentions, and do not meet WP:SIGCOV. So really, this article should be merged, possibly piecemeal, to LGBT-free zone, and possibly some of it to Homosexual agenda.

The content on gender ideology can be moved somewhere, if a good target for it can be found. If sufficient non-trivial mentions of LGBT ideology in Malaysia and Indonesia (or other countries) can be discovered, then perhaps the article could be recast that way. But in its current presentation, there's no there there.

Note: the article appears to have been created as a spinoff from LGBT-free zone, where discussion about whether that article should be called, "LGBT ideology-free zones" became very lively at Talk:LGBT-free zone (the word ideology appears 200 times on that page). So, this article, "LGBT ideology", may have been created as a back formation of LGBT ideology-free zone and a repository for "LGBT ideology"-related content from that discussion. There is also this discussion at WP:NPOV Archive 84. Mathglot (talk) 08:06, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Not really, it's true that most of the references are from Poland, but not all the Polish references are about the "LGBT free zones". Please see Polish-language article draft linked above for more significant coverage from Poland, including long list of sources.
 * There are RS that connect "gay ideology" with "LGBT ideology", or equate the two, so that aspect is not OR. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  08:35, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Neither of the two links you just offered even contains the term "LGBT ideology"; you are drawing inferences to "equate the two", and *that* is exactly what WP:SYNTH is, and it's prohibited. Rather than going way out on a limb trying to draw inferences from articles you think "equate the two", if this were a real topic, why is it that one cannot find five, solid sources that all say, "LGBT ideology is &lt;something-something>". Either it doesn't exist, or it does but it's not covered significantly enough yet by reliable sources to be able to even come up with a reliable definition.  Either way, it's not notable enough for an article here.
 * The fact that a Polish article has a long list of sources might indeed be relevant, but only if they are about this topic, not some other topic, like LGBT ideology-free zones for example, which without looking at them, is almost certainly what they are about. If you believe that any of the references from the long list are actually about *this* topic, please point me at them, so I can have a look. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 09:22, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * This article has been up only a week, and still needs beefing up in terms of which countries, other than Poland manifest an LGBT ideology. The Definition paragraph is likewise a work in progress, and perhaps would fit a different section title, but it does background the tensions. In terms of Notability, it's hard to see how a topic that is in the news in almost every country on a regular basis, that united 100 Polish councils and the entire Russian Duma against LGBT ideology, and that moreover manifests in anti-LGBT laws in over 70 countries (some with the Death Penalty) could not be considered 'notable'. While this article being developed, might it be better to Sandbox this piece until all the work that obviously needs to be done on it, has been given a chance to be carried out? It's far too early to bin it or merge it. Chrisdevelop (talk) 10:10, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Re: 100 councils and 70 countries: great news, then there must be hundreds and hundreds of reliable sources out there about it. Pick out the best ten, and let's get them in the article. English preferred, per WP:NONENG, but if no English source are available, then foreign ones are okay, although if it's as prevalent as you say, one would think there would be tons of them in English. Mathglot (talk) 10:41, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * There are citations of the use of the term 'LGBT ideology' by the Polish councils and the Polish President in the article which spawned this one, i.e. LGBT-free zones that can be re-used here, and since a google gives 30,900,000 results in 0.40 seconds, the chances are predictably higher than zero that more can be found, if this article is parked so it can be worked on more. Russia has similar laws against LGBT ideology, and so that would be a good country to start work on, to expand this article. Chrisdevelop (talk) 12:06, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Actual raw count is closer to 160 results. Mathglot (talk) 02:56, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that this phrase lacks independent notability. The article purports to be about the phrase, but that requires sources that go in-depth about the phrase itself. Currently, there are a few examples of people using the phrase, or objecting to it, but nowhere close to what would be required to support independent notability for a phrase; it's just padded out with a lot of WP:SYNTH. The Background section should be deleted as a WP:POVFORK; it prevents a very undue view of a topic covered in much better fashion at Sexual orientation and elsewhere. ("Is homosexuality innate? This survey and NARTH say no, but Lady Gaga says yes. Who's right?") Some of the subsequent sections may be able to be included at LGBT rights in Poland or LGBT-free zone, but it is all very disjointed. On the whole, there isn't anything here that would make me hesitate to support outright deletion.--Trystan (talk) 13:17, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Since a great deal of unpaid work goes into creating articles like this, it is surely better to try and improve it, than to delete as the first option within a week of its creation. This article went up to fill a defintion gap for LGBT ideology that became apparent in LGBT-free zone discussions, however it is being worked on 'in harness'. A more constructive option to speedy deletion is to move it to a User draft or Draft space where it can be properly structured, fleshed out and sourced before being reinstated to WP:MAINSPACE. Chrisdevelop (talk) 17:30, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , I'm a volunteer, too, and I'm sympathetic to your point about "deleting within a week". Here's my issue: with Wikipedia being the behemoth on the internet that it is, and mirrors and other copies of Wikipedia content proliferating, even getting into printed books, it just makes me very nervous to create an article in MAINSPACE which is instantly indexed by Google, and possibly linked from other articles here, being seen as "definitive" by outside websites and authors, who start to quote from it or link to it. There is a real, serious, Heisenberg issue here; Wikipedia can make something real, that isn't, simply by creating an article about it.  Imho, it's very important for us to remain an encyclopedia, and not drive the debate in the RW, but merely report on it.  It makes me very nervous having this article here, about something that might be percolating comments on blogs all over the place. If newspapers in Poland are using the phrase, great; let them use it, develop it on their own, and not start getting influenced by Wikipedia's saying that the homosexual agenda is also part of "LGBT ideology", because "Wikipedia says so", even when nobody in Poland is saying that.  If it turns out to be Notable and supportable, great; I don't have any problem with that.  But in its current state, it seems deeply flawed, and I just think we shouldn't provide fodder for a developing concept, definition, ideology, or whatever it is (or isn't) by prematurely throwing stuff at the wall, while we figure out what it is, or if it's anything at all. Does that make sense?  I feel like I'm rambling, a little... Mathglot (talk) 23:55, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * P.S., I forgot to add, articles in Draft space are *not* indexed by search engines. Mathglot (talk) 23:57, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed about "making it seem real", and "reality" has changed by the hour on this currently unfocussed article that the creator wants to be solely about Poland, and reverts any contributions that are not Polish (the opening lede includes only a Polish translation), including any citations that don't include the precise sequence of letters "L G B T I d e o l o g y". Synonyms are not allowed. Other countries with comparable laws are not allowed. Moving this article to Draft as you intimated or merging it back into its parent, LGBT ideology (also only about Poland) would have made far more sense, but since that is likely to be reverted or challenged by the article creator, and nearly 100% of my work got continually reverted by the article creator and an ally while it was barely 1/10 of the way through being edited, I have bowed out of this one entirely. It's pointless trying to contribute to it, since it has become an edit war. Thanks for your reply, though! Chrisdevelop (talk) 07:58, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed about "making it seem real", and "reality" has changed by the hour on this currently unfocussed article that the creator wants to be solely about Poland, and reverts any contributions that are not Polish (the opening lede includes only a Polish translation), including any citations that don't include the precise sequence of letters "L G B T I d e o l o g y". Synonyms are not allowed. Other countries with comparable laws are not allowed. Moving this article to Draft as you intimated or merging it back into its parent, LGBT ideology (also only about Poland) would have made far more sense, but since that is likely to be reverted or challenged by the article creator, and nearly 100% of my work got continually reverted by the article creator and an ally while it was barely 1/10 of the way through being edited, I have bowed out of this one entirely. It's pointless trying to contribute to it, since it has become an edit war. Thanks for your reply, though! Chrisdevelop (talk) 07:58, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Rewrite lead
The lead as of rev. 973791292 (just before my edits removing extraneous bolding) was: "LGBT ideology", "gay ideology" and "gender ideology", are anti-feminist and/or anti-LGBT phrases used by opponents of LGBT rights.

According to MOS:LEADSENTENCE, "The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what, or who, the subject is.". There are multiple problems with the lead sentence currently: The lead, or at least the WP:FIRSTSENTENCE, needs to be rewritten to contain a definition of the article topic, that is, LGBT ideology. The two other terms in the lead sentence should be dropped; they are not synonyms. As an aside: the body section "Definition" doesn't offer a definition, either; if it did, it could be summarized in the lead. But that's perhaps understandable, as none of the references currently in the Definition section ever mention LGBT ideology. Mathglot (talk) 09:09, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * no definition – the topic of this article, according to the article title, is "LGBT ideology", but this is not defined.
 * lack of focus – the lead sentence defines two other expressions and bolds them (presumably per MOS:BOLDSYN), however neither expression is a synonym (I've unbolded them in edits subsequent to rev 973791292).
 * mix of topics – one of the terms, gender ideology, is actually a redirect to another article.
 * lack of precision – the lead sentence describes the trio of terms as derogatory terms, but this is not a definition. Any term on the page List of LGBT-related slurs could just as well be included there.
 * unsourced – the lead sentence has four reliable sources. None of them support a definition of LGBT ideology.
 * The Lead clearly needs work, and the Definition section should probably be renamed, however as per comment above, this article is still a work in progress and should perhaps be sandboxed until developed enough to publish. If you follow the discussions on the Talk Page of LGBT-free zone, you'll soon see that no-one can define exactly what LGBT ideology actually is. That's how this article came to be, Maybe LGBT ideology doesn't exist, or like a haunted house exists only in the minds of opponents of LGBT rights. Just because it doesn't exist, doesn't mean it shouldn't have an article published about it. There's never been incontrovertible proof that the Roman or Greek or Christian gods exist. Chrisdevelop (talk) 10:28, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The issue of the definition was taken up once before at Talk:LGBT-free zone without resolution.
 * Regarding your comment, I did indeed follow that discussion and was linking it here as you wrote. Regarding the existence of Roman gods: they don't have to exist to be a notable topic: only the reliable sources have to exist, and they can even be evenly split as to whether the gods exist or don't exist. As long as those sources exist, it's notable. If they don't, it isn't. The truth of the matter is entirely immaterial. Not opposed to sandboxing (by that I assume you mean, making a User draft?) or moving to Draft space. Mathglot (talk) 10:37, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That was the whole point of the analogy with haunted house, made a while ago by someone in the Talk page of the LGBT-free zone article. For now, moving this article to User draft or Draft space makes more sense than deleting it a week after it went up, and perhaps should have been done in the first place, until it was ready to publish to WP:MAINSPACE. Chrisdevelop (talk) 17:32, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I should just add, before I forget, that I would have added the unfocused banner at the top of the article along with the other templates, but I think at some point, it just becomes clutter, and iirc there's a guideline recommendation somewhere to stick to the top three issues or so. I did list "unfocused" in the bullet list, and if other issues are dealt with and maintenance templates drop off the article, then unfocused might float to the top, unless it's handled before that. Mathglot (talk) 05:55, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Backstory at other articles
This article should stand or fall on its own merits, and how the relevant policies and guidelines apply to it. Nevertheless, this article definitely does not exist in a vaccuum, and some information about related articles and Talk page discussions may be helpful. Most of the prior history (I believe; I'm still learning about it) is at the article LGBT-free zone. which underwent numerous renames, starting out life as "LGBT-free zone":


 * created August 14, 2019 as "LGBT-free zone"
 * moved February 25, 2020 LGBT ideology-free zone (summary: an accurate title of the zones (translated from Polish))
 * moved ‎February 26, 2020 to LGBT-free zone (name used in English)
 * moved ‎February 26, 2020 to LGBT ideology-free zone (BANREVERT)
 * moved July 26, 2020 to LGBT-free zone (Consensus to move away from "ideology" label)
 * moved July 26, 2020 to Draft:Move/LGBT ideology-free zone (Round-robin history swap step 1 using pageswap)
 * moved July 26, 2020 to LGBT ideology-free zone (Round-robin history swap step 3 using pageswap)
 * moved August 13, 2020 to LGBT-free zones (Per move discussion)
 * moved ‎August 13, 2020 to LGBT-free zone: (Per request and WP:SINGULAR)

and ending up currently with the same name it started with.

There was also lots of discussion and some Rfc's at Talk:LGBT-free zone driving these moves, and one of them (I believe) led to the creation of LGBT ideology as a standalone article. other sections at that article discussed the definition as well, and pretty much came up blank: and these proposals:
 * Talk:LGBT-free zone (no resolution to the question)
 * Talk:LGBT-free zone
 * Talk:LGBT-free zone
 * Talk:LGBT-free zone
 * Talk:LGBT-free zone (LGBT ideology-free zone → LGBT-free zones; result: Moved.)

Other possibly related discussions: Mathglot (talk) 10:56, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Talk:Anti-gender movement – a merge discussion at #Merge from LGBT ideology
 * Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#"LGBT ideology-free zones" in Poland

LGBT ideology and liberalism
This edit added a new section to the lede about links between "LGBT ideology" and "liberal ideology", and after I challenged it, this edit offered new sources for the same claim: namely, that LGBT ideology has also been politically linked to a broader, liberal agenda. Now I don't know whether this statement can be sourced or not, but it certainly is not supported by either of the two sources originally offered, nor by either of the two replacement sources. It looks as though someone has been searching for "LGBT", "ideology" and "liberalism" and linking what they see, hoping that something sticks. This is not the way we are supposed to write articles.

Also, this material is being added solely to the lede in violation of WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY, so it really needs to be moved down to the article body even if it can be sourced. Right now it is somewhere in the Bermuda triangle of WP:OR unsourced, or WP:UNDUE, and almost certainly two of the three, if not the full trifecta. Newimpartial (talk) 21:42, 19 August 2020 (UTC)


 * It would be surely better to move this article to WP:USD or WP:DRAFT for now, so editors can work on it in peace (ideally without patronising feedback such as "This is not the way we are supposed to write articles.") until it's presentable to the readership. Chrisdevelop (talk) 22:01, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree with draftification, but in any case, the revised statement that LGBT rights have also been politically linked to a broader, liberal agenda, while in some generic sense true, is inappropriately sourced (to legal scholarship), of unclear relevance and manifestly UNDUE for the lede. Newimpartial (talk) 22:45, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The word 'undue' can also be understood in lower case, per WP:AGF. Chrisdevelop (talk) 23:00, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The main part of this paragraph currently reads, LGBT rights have also been linked to a broader, socialist or liberal agenda,[13] in a culture war with the political right and far right[14]. While interesting, neither of these references refer to "LGBT ideology" at all, and the relationship between this sentence (and its sources) and this article's topic is at best WP:SYNTH, and therefore it should not, by policy, be included in the article. Newimpartial (talk) 00:32, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * There's a citation to an article in the New Yorker, called 'The Right Wing’s War on the L.G.B.T.Q. Community' that supports this claim. Chrisdevelop (talk) 01:36, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * But said article doesn't refer to "LGBT ideology" at all, in any way, so it doesn't really support inclusion of this sentence in the LGBT ideology article here. Newimpartial (talk) 02:42, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It supports the claim of a culture war, i.e. an ideological divide, between left and right factions, over LGBT rights, which in the minds of anti-lght activists cited, are themselves an ideology. Not every cited reference has to have the exact words 'LGBT ideology' in it to help understand the big picture.Chrisdevelop (talk) 04:01, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * But this is you talking about a divide, between left and right factions, over LGBT rights, which in the minds of anti-lgbt activists cited, are themselves an ideology. We need sources that say that, and ones that don't are not relevant. I agree that the word "ideology" doesn't necessarily have to be used - the sources could say "ideological" or even use the language of "values" or what not - but the interpretation that there is an ideological divide has to come from the sources themselves, and not from an interpretation you impose on them from the outside. Yes? Newimpartial (talk) 12:52, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * This article might help (t &#183; c)  buidhe  13:19, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

The bulleted claims
None of the bulleted claims made by adherents of the "LGBT ideology" conspiracy theory are supported in the article body, so they are therefore not DUE in the lede, per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY.

In addition, to be included in the article at all, each bullet should be supported by at least one source stating that the "critics of LGBT ideology" actually make the allegations made. Right now we have certain bullets with no RS support, and other bullets where we know somebody makes the indicated claim but not that those doing so are adherents of the "LGBT ideology" thesis. Without this last point being made for a specified bullet, its inclusion in this article is WP:OR and entirely against policy, quite apart from the question of what is DUE in the lede. Newimpartial (talk) 00:12, 20 August 2020 (UTC)


 * This is why the article needs to go into draft namespace. One can only address one issue at a time, and it's not helped by having to continually respond to naysaying reversals while it's under construction, without any helpful suggestions for better sources or for improved delivery.


 * The opening edits, currently as bullet points, attempt to address the issues of concern raised at the head of the article, specifically: "The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline," and "The lead section of this article may need to be rewritten. The reason given is: The lead sentence doesn't define the topic of the article." Other matters appertaining to the body of the article need time to research and to construct, so that each bullet point in the lede can have a section expanding on it in the body. So, please vote in the Move proposal below, and perhaps you can be the one to move it there. Chrisdevelop (talk) 00:31, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The problem I have with the helpful suggestions for better sources request is that it pretty much assumes the thing to be demonstrated. The bullets in the lede, for example, should not be in the lede and probably should not be in the article at all. The relevant sources in this context (like the most recently added one on the Birmingham schools issue) are ones that actually allege that LGBT ideology exists and is being used for such and such (presumably nefarious) purpose. Random claims made against LGBT people are not part of the "LGBT ideology" conspiracy theory unless someone actually alleges that they are, and even then there is a serious DUE consideration for the lede. Draftification does not by itself encourage people to take policy into consideration when deciding what sources and what text to include, and that is the problem I am seeing right now. When inappropriate material is included by editors, our job is to challenge it through deletion, tagging or amendment, not to plead for draftification so that policy can be followed more slowly. Newimpartial (talk) 00:39, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The bullet points each represent a potential section for expansion. They summarise in point form what those who think there is such a thing as an LGBT ideology, believe it to be. Currently, construction of this barely out-of-stub article is going on in broad daylight, and can be accessed by users. This should be being built 'behind closed doors' until consensus is reached on the article being ready to publish. That takes as long as it takes, and isn't just "following policy more slowly". In the process, feel free to replace the bullet points with something that better defines what you think LGBT ideology really is in the minds of those who believe it's real. Just because a haunted house is not real, doesn't mean it's not notable enough to have an article written about it. LGBT ideology is all over the news. This article isn't necessarily about what LGBT ideology is, it's about what people think it is. Even if it's a conspiracy theory, like the Moon landing conspiracy theories, it is still notable. If this article is moved to Draft namespace, then the sections can be built and the bullet points re-edited to fit as necessary. Please vote for this below. Chrisdevelop (talk) 02:19, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Chrisdevelop, You need to use sources that actually use the phrase "LGBT ideology", otherwise it's wp:or. Many of the sources are in Polish. I do think the phrase is notable because there have been eg. pickets under slogans "LGBT is people" and "I am not an ideology". But we have to focus the article on what sources say about "LGBT ideology". (t &#183; c)  buidhe  12:38, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Homosexual agenda means more or less the same as LGBT ideology. This article currently relates only to Poland, but it should be expanded to other countries with similar laws, that don't necessarily use the precise phrase 'LGBT ideology', for example the Russian gay propaganda law. To understand what LGBT ideology is, to the point a reader of this article will have their understanding of it expanded, requires an exploration of what those who use the term believe it to mean. This is what the bullet points were addressing, although they could be moved to the body of the article. Since no editors so far seem to think LGBT ideology actually exists, it's obviously necessary and interesting to find out what people who use the term believe it means, as per the bullet points. For example, Birmingham activists who accused schools of indoctrination may or may not use the term 'LGBT ideology', but that is clearly concordant with the fears of those who use it. Chrisdevelop (talk) 13:21, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It's related, yes. If you can find sources saying LGBT ideology is the same as homosexual agenda, then you should propose merger. Otherwise, sources discussing "homosexual agenda" should go on the homosexual agenda article, and this one should be for sources discussing "LGBT ideology". (t &#183; c)  buidhe  13:24, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That's going to severely curtail the ambit of this article if only the precise sequence of letters 'L G B T i d e o l o g y' can be allowed in the sources. There are many synonymous terms, of which homosexual agenda is one. Out of curiosity, what do you say is the difference between 'LGBT ideology' and 'homosexual agenda', and was there a reason for not simply adding 'LGBT ideology' as a section in the homosexual agenda article in the first place? And why is this article only about Poland, when there are other countries, notably Russia and former member states of the Soviet Union, with comparable laws, such as the Russian gay propaganda law? Chrisdevelop (talk) 14:22, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Proposal to move to Draft Namespace
Per WP:DRAFTIFY, draft namespace is a better place to be peacefully and co-operatively building this article, and should obviate time-wasting edit wars. Please write below, Support or Oppose, with your reasons, and your ID. Chrisdevelop (talk) 23:30, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Support, provided the eventual version of the draft is submitted to WP:AFC to obtain input before moving back to article space.--Trystan (talk) 23:40, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Support – I hadn't considered the WP:AFC idea mentioned by Trystan, but I think it's a good one, and unless some glaring objection to it is added later that I hadn't considered, I support Trystan's proposal, or codicil let's say, as well. Mathglot (talk) 05:50, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment – Just wanted to add that while I appreciate Chrisdevelop seeking consensus on this point (especially as edit warring has been mentioned as a possible issue), nevertheless I don't know that it's absolutely necessary to have consensus on it. That is, if Chris (or someone) wanted to just move it without consensus, I don't think there's a guideline to say you can't. This would be a namespace change, not an article-title change, therefore, afaict, rules about seeking consensus before controversial moves do not apply. If you are doing it in the spirit of collaboration and respect for other editors' opinions, I think that's a fine motivation, but you won't be stepping on my toes, if you move it unilaterally. I guess this is a long-winded way of saying, "Thanks for asking." Mathglot (talk) 06:01, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * As I have said previously, I do not oppose this proposed dratification, although I am agnostic as to whether it is likely to produce a policy-compliant article any more efficiently. Newimpartial (talk) 13:26, 20 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose I think we have improve the article significantly by trimming sources that don't mention LGBT ideology, while adding additional sources and incidents that do discuss it. Note, most sources are in Polish. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  13:38, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Support With the reversion of nearly 100% of my work here by the article creator, presumably with a personal interest in keeping it how it was, this article is back to being primarily about Poland's use of the term 'LGBT ideology'. Yet now, there is no exploration of even what the Polish public believe it to mean, nor any exploration of its use in other contexts, such as the Russian gay propaganda law or homosexual agenda, which is as close to identical to 'LGBT ideology' as you can get. If consensus among editors is going to be that it is to remain only about Poland, then it surely needs a rename to 'LGBT ideology in Poland' or something equivalent. In its present state, the article should not be searchable by the public, since as has already been pointed out, it lacks focus. It should go to Draft namespace so as minimise confusion caused by having such significant changes from one hour to the next. An academiuc citing this article over the past week may find the article unrecognisable upon revisiting it, depending on the point when it had been read. Requiring sources to explicitly use the phrase 'LGBT ideology' and limiting its ambit to Poland shuts off swathes of interesting and pertinent information in relation to other countries who legislate against their LGBT minorities. Chrisdevelop (talk) 15:20, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Article about an ideology, vs. article about a phrase
Perhaps ironically, some of the references in the "#Criticism of the phrase" section may provide the best evidence yet of notability. However, there's a subtle trap here (or perhaps "issue" is a better word) involving the use–mention distinction. That is, both the Criticism section, and the "#Support" section after it (which I read as, "Support for the phrase") now align with the current state of the WP:LEADSENTENCE which starts out, ""LGBT ideology"... [is an] anti-feminist and/or anti-LGBT phrase.... The point is that these are mentions not uses, or put in other way, this whole article is now looking more and more like an article about a phrase.

Use–mention can be confusing the first time one comes across it, but you can't beat the "cheese" illustration given in the article about it:

Having an article about a word or phrase is by no means a problem, and there are other such articles, but you just have to be clear pretty early on what you want the topic of the article to be, and develop it accordingly, sticking to one, or the other; mixing up the two is a recipe for disaster and endless edit-warring. That is, is the article about "LGBT ideology" (which would involve discussions about what it means, what some of the ideologies are, leading proponents, what their impact is, whereas an article about the phrase LGBT ideology would be more about attitudes toward the phrase, comments about the phrase, history of the phrase, and so on, as opposed to comments and sources about the underlying "ideology", whatever it is.

For an example of an article about a word or phrase, which is also on an LGBT-related theme, and also is a bit of a hot button just as LGBT ideology is, see TERF. This article is about a word; the history of the word, arguments about the word, the "Slur debate", and so on. TERF is an article about a word, not an ideology. The article LGBT is also about a word, not an ideology, or a community, or a subculture, and so on; the "History" section there is about the history of the word LGBT; not about LGBT history, which, in fact, is a separate article.

To avoid hopeless confusion while developing this article in draft or wherever, please keep the use–mention distinction in mind as you go. This article currently appears to be a about a phrase; several sections and the (current) wording of the lead now support that. Is that how you view this article?

As a post-script: editors at Wikipedia frequently get confused about the proper style wrt this issue. MOS:WAW governs; thus, the article TERF should be styled TERF, but this is a relatively minor point of style, so I wouldn't worry about it now. On the other hand, what the article topic is, is completely central to further development, and should be decided rapidly. Mathglot (talk) 06:46, 20 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Uh-oh, given some recent additions to the Lead I hadn't noticed the topic is now starting to become confused. The first two sentences of the lead, as well as the Criticism and Support sections appear to be about the word, while the remainder of the Lead, and most of "Background" section is about the concept, not the word, and section "History" is about both. The topic of this article needs to be hammered out, before you can really proceed in any coherent way. Mathglot (talk) 06:53, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Polish justice ministry "counteracting crimes related to the violation of freedom of conscience committed under the influence of LGBT ideology"
Apparently this study will educate Polish citizens about the insidious influence of the Frankfurt School + other Marxists, dangerous threat of the rainbow revolution, and the horrible fate of those facing offense to their religious feelings. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  07:33, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Discuss recent reversions by article creator
The bullet points from this edit in the opening lead and the ILGA citation with everything else in the section have been reverted by User:buidhe who created the article to fill a void of a definition for LGBT ideology, that became apparent in the article LGBT-free zone. These bullet points address the problem of the opening paragraph that has been highlighted in the notice at the top of the page. They explore what those who oppose an LGBT ideology believe the ideology to be. If this cannot be explored, then there will be no chance of defining what LGBT ideology is. It exists in the mind of people, and the bullet points link to WP:RS citations what is in their mind. A conspiracy theory doesn't have to be true, just as haunted house doesn't have to exist.

The ILGA announcement and the announcment by the Holy See on gender ideology also mentioned in the History section in this edit, also reverted are relevant because they are a global voice with a relationship with the UN and this is a direct result of the announcment of LGBT-free zones.

The reversion of the reversion has been labeled WP:TW (vandalism) by the article creator, without clarification, which would be welcomed here.

Please discuss. Chrisdevelop (talk) 12:46, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No. ILGA-Europe issues a report covering every country in Europe each year. Their report is just on strictly legal rights and has nothing to with LGBT ideology or the zones (which do not affect legal rights).
 * The other things you added may be good inclusions... IF you can find a source which directly ties them to "LGBT ideology". (t &#183; c)  buidhe  12:50, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The other things you added may be good inclusions... IF you can find a source which directly ties them to "LGBT ideology". (t &#183; c)  buidhe  12:50, 20 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Discrimination and constructive discrimination relate to legal rights. If a minority within a community has special laws written about them that the majority do not, then that is a curtailment of rights. The two go hand in hand. For example, you could write a law that says "Jews may not kill Christian babies". No-one would argue that Jews should be allowed to Christian babies, so the question falls as to why such a law would be written to begin with. It doesn't require a PhD to understand that such a law implies that, but for this law, Jews WERE killing Christian babies, and this law was needed to stop them. Chrisdevelop (talk) 12:59, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I did not label anything vandalism. What you say isn't wrong, but to include it you have to find sources that tie it to LGBT ideology, LGBT as an ideology, or similar to avoid WP:OR. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  14:24, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Then what did you mean by WP:TW? And what is LGBT ideology? After your blanket reversions, this article now doesn't even try to define it. Moreover, the entire article is now back to being centred entirely in Poland, right from the opening line which gives only a Polish translation. Chrisdevelop (talk) 14:29, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You have also reverted this edit, on the basis there is "no consensus" for it. The fact no-one else proposed removing it, and several editors contributed to it, is implicit consensus for it to remain. What consensus can you show for the deletion of this entire section? If none, then surely this amounts to WP:VD. Chrisdevelop (talk) 15:10, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Proposed new title: LGBT ideology in Poland
After reviewing the Homosexual agenda article, which is essentially about the conspiracy theory in the United States, I believe there is no question of the Notability of an article focused on Poland, on the equivalent topic. My sense (not reading Polish) is that the uses of "LGBT ideology" discourse are not limited to the LGBT ideology-free zones, and that inclusion of this material in the "zones" article is likely either to be UNDUE for that article or to drift away from an appropriate focus on the conspiracy theory itself. TL; DR: I think there is an unquestionably notable and relevant article to be written here if the focus is kept to Poland; the equivalent issues in Russia seem to be effectively dealt with in the article on the anti-gay law, so I don't see a need to repeat them here. Newimpartial (talk) 14:53, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 'LGBT ideology in Poland' would more appropriately be the heading of a section within this article, if other countries with the equivalent concept could be included. Otherwise if it is remain solely about Poland's use of the term, then it should be merged with LGBT-free zone which gave birth to this article in the first place, and 'in Poland' should be appended to that title instead. Chrisdevelop (talk) 15:04, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose while the usage is almost entirely Polish for now, it is quite possible in the future the phrase will be picked up in other countries. There is no other "LGBT ideology" to distinguish from, so I think it's best to keep the current title and therefore if Lithuanian or Hungarian politicians start talking about "LGBT ideology", it can be added to this article. There is also no need to move to Homosexual agenda in the United States, because there is no other homosexual agenda to confuse with (and occasional usages in UK, other countries). (t &#183; c)  buidhe  15:18, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * What is 'LGBT ideology' per se, and why do sources have to include that exact sequence of letters to be able to be cited? Chrisdevelop (talk) 15:23, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Buidhe, here's the main problem that I have. This is the current version of the article. The lede has currently been trimmed of cruft, but from this version (and all previous versions I've looked at), one would think that LGBT ideology is a term that applies universally, but somehow mysteriously the key examples in the lede and the article are from Poland. This is because, according to the available reliable sources,  the term currently only applies to the conspiracy theory in Poland.
 * While it would be possible to specify the scope of the topic in the lede without changing the title, my concern about that is that people would continue to do what they are doing already, namely, to add content that is not relevant to the actual, RSed topic of this article, because they want to talk about LGBT ideology as a general phenomenon - which no reliable source up to now has suggested that it is. Newimpartial (talk) 15:30, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , I've now added examples from Indonesia, Malaysia, Czech Republic, and Italy. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  23:57, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Buidhe, I appreciate that the examples have been added in the body, not the lede, and even in chronological order. ;) However, they are currently two sentences in a fairly long article and do not clearly contribute to its coherence or focus. Newimpartial (talk) 00:41, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , it's not just the examples; there's a concern that due to Wikipedia's outsize influence on the internet, that an article about a nascent concept or ideology or term, could have undue influence in the RW if our article is not ready for prime time. Call it the Wikipedia observer effect. More on this above. Mathglot (talk) 00:07, 21 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Support Vast amounts of time have been wasted editing this article to broaden its scope, only to then have all this work reverted by the author and others citing 'consensus', when there was none asked for, and none expressed, either for or against. There is now no text to clarify what LGBT ideology actually is, or what people believe it to be. The author should have made it clear in the Talk page from the very beginning that its focus was to be only about Poland's use of the title term. With such a limited scope, this article should be repatriated with the article that spawned it, viz. LGBT-free zone in a merge. Outta here for good, and best of luck with it. Chrisdevelop (talk) 16:37, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , I understand your reaction, and maybe a brief article break would help while you tend to your other interests, but your viewpoint is needed here, and helpful. Please come back after whatever cooling off you need. You've obviously given this topic a lot of thought, and not having your experience with it would be a loss. Just because it's contentious, doesn't mean it's not worth it; in fact, it may mean it's worth it more than ever. Mathglot (talk) 00:26, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – per WP:PRECISION: "... but should be no more precise than that." And that's even when it was *only* about Poland, it still wouldn't need to be moved. Whether or not the content ends up being entirely about Poland, or not, it wouldn't need renaming.  (Once the article reached 100k and merited a WP:SIZESPLIT, you could raise it again for that reason.) Note that I'm opposing strictly for the policy-based reasons at WP:AT; the argument that "it is quite possible in the future the phrase will be picked up in other countries" is totally bogus, and not a reason to oppose, as it is WP:CRYSTAL.  If that were the only reason for it, I would change my vote to "Support". Mathglot (talk) 00:17, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The problem I have with this is that "LGBT ideology in Poland" is a notable topic with reliable secondary sources, but "LGBT ideology outside Poland" cannot even be described without SYNTH, as far as I can tell. I understand the legalistic argument for not restricting the topic in the title, but would rather IAR than see an article develop that will be so well-constructed as a target for OR and for POV crusading. Newimpartial (talk) 00:41, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I see your point; I need to think about that a little while; but IAR should be used sparingly. Mathglot (talk) 06:30, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * An article titled 'LGBT ideology' should either define what it is from reliable sources, or if it cannot be defined, to show what is perceived to be, from reliable sources, in the minds of those who make the term notable by passing laws against it. Poland is miles away from being the only country politically engendering belief that children are being indoctrinated with normalisation of LGBT relationships, and are being groomed to be gay. Reliable sources I adduced and bullet-pointed to illustrate this have all been reverted. Moreover a notable psychologist who used the term 'sexual ideology', surely a clear comparator with 'LGBT ideology' in an interview with the Irish Times, likewise was reverted as "failed". As it stands, this entire article fails to define what LGBT ideology actually is. Moreover, by limiting it to Poland, it is masking the fact that similar beliefs and laws exist in dozens of other countries, some criminalised at law with Draconian punishments. There are many acceptable synonyms for 'LGBT' and for 'ideology'. It is absurd to restrict this topic to Poland, and equally absurd to insist on this precise alphabetic sequence of characters. Chrisdevelop (talk) 09:51, 22 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The proposed title would imply that LGBT ideology, rather than the phrase "LGBT ideology", is the subject of articles. Opposition to LGBT rights in X could be appropriate if the content is too large to contain in the regular LGBT rights in X articles, surely? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 02:40, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * This Oppose rationale seems mistaken; Mathglot has recently cited WP:WAW as the governing policy, whereby the phrase should be presented in italics rather than quotation marks. I have no problem with an Opposition to LGBT rights in ... article, but the current article is more specific in placing its focus on the conspiracy theory concerning "LGBT ideology" rather than the broader topic of Opposition to LGBT rights (which, in the case of Poland, would also include the LGBT-free zones, thus implying a merge. Newimpartial (talk) 03:40, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * MOS:WAW governs the style (italics or not) of a word used in an article; but that is so often misunderstood or ignored, and is tricky wrt to the title even when explained, that I didn't want to go into much detail about style here. In the end, since WAW is purely about style, and whether an article title is italicized or not, it's only about #99 in importance, compared to whether the topic is notable or not, and whether the references are valid or not. Once there is solid consensus on all the rest of that, we can circle back and deal with styling, but this isn't the right moment for that. Having said all that, Roscelese is right, but we should come at it from the other way round, and both the WP:LEADSENTENCE, the rest of the WP:LEAD, and the article body should be in agreement about whether this is an article about the concept or the phrase, and once that is established, style it correctly. See section  above.  Mathglot (talk) 06:05, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Notability, standalone articles, and Mexican rapists
Notability is a minimum bar for having an article, but regardless whether something is notable or not, there are other considerations about whether it should be a standalone article or not.

Here's an analogy: is "Mexican rapists" (or, "Mexican rapists (campaign phrase)") a notable topic? And if it is, should it have its own article at Wikipedia?

Mexican rapists is a slur, which then caught media attention, and had numerous articles written about it in news and other media. As far as that goes, it's somewhat analogous to what happened in Poland with President Duda and "LGBT ideology". The phrase "Mexican rapists" has significant MSM attention, and not just trivial mentions, but signficant treatment. It's easy to come up with articles about this as the main topic, such as The Guardian, WaPo, Politico, Vice, Rolling Stone, NY Post, Bloomberg, Nat Geo, CNN; and on and on. There are many, many more, where Mexican rapists has significant coverage in the article, such as a whole section or many paragraphs, without being the central point of the article.

All of these sources contribute to establishing notability for the topic "Mexican rapists". Yet there is no article. Perhaps no one has gotten around to it. Perhaps it was decided that this slur, although notable, wasn't significant enough for its own article and the content would be better at one of the other related articles. Or perhaps it doesn't meet WP:SUSTAINED, and can be expected to wither away and disappear, and in retrospect it will appear to be more of a vogue word.

So given all that, how is "LGBT ideology" any different from "Mexican rapists", a derogatory phrase attached to a phobic attitude towards a minority group? And does WP:PAGEDECIDE argue for including "Mexican rapists" as a standalone article because it's so essential, or different from related articles, or so likely to expand, that it shouldn't be part of some larger article about anti-LGBT rhetoric? In my opinion, I don't see a lot of difference in the calculations about whether "Mexican rapists" should be a standalone article, and whether "LGBT ideology" should be a standalone article.

If it were up to me, given the current state of the article, I think I'd vote for merging its content into Anti-LGBT rhetoric. Mathglot (talk) 07:56, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Agree entirely with this, and all your other points in this Talk thread. In its present state, this article should not be standalone, and Anti-LGBT rhetoric would be a good target. However, if it is to remain solely about Poland (with only a Polish translation of the term in the lede), then the article that spawned it, LGBT-free zone could be where it belongs. That was been renamed twice, and should perhaps be renamed again, to 'LGBT-free zones in Poland'. Chrisdevelop (talk) 08:13, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , actually, renamed eight times(!); (see ), although a couple of them probably don't count. Mathglot (talk) 09:58, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Since this so-called 'LGBT ideology' article has now been forced to be solely about Poland, and there is only a Polish translation offered in the lede, then it should be moved to LGBT-free zone, and since that too has been determined to be only about Poland, and all other instances reverted every time they are added, that article should be renamed (for the 9th time) to LGBT-free zones in Poland.Chrisdevelop (talk) 08:15, 22 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose. This would unbalance the anti-LGBT rhetoric article. Although, if the proposal is to merge this and homosexual agenda, gay mafia to Anti-LGBT rhetoric, I would support that, because then it would be more balanced.
 * Also oppose merging with LGBT-free zones because it is about a wider phenomenon and would introduce unfocused information to that article. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  08:59, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * See formal proposal at Talk:Anti-LGBT_rhetoric. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  09:14, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Regarding the oppose per "unbalanced": this isn't actually a problem. You don't have to merge everything when you merge; there are various other approaches: condense or summarize to maintain balance, drop the least important or least well sourced, move details to long footnotes, or cache content on the Talk page while waiting for other sections to expand. You can even merge all of it into a momentarily highly unbalanced article, followed by an immediate second edit using one of the alternative approaches, thus preserving the pristine, long original in the history. And finally, there's the one you found, merging other articles in as well and maintaining balance that way. At first blush, that sounds fine to me. I'll look at it and respond tomorrow at the discussion. Mathglot (talk) 10:29, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Responded there, in support. In my view, that discussion is now the proper venue for continuing this, so I'm adding the following "moved" link, but if anyone believes there's a benefit for having two separate discussions, feel free to remove it. Mathglot (talk) 20:09, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Responded there, in support. In my view, that discussion is now the proper venue for continuing this, so I'm adding the following "moved" link, but if anyone believes there's a benefit for having two separate discussions, feel free to remove it. Mathglot (talk) 20:09, 22 August 2020 (UTC)