Template:Did you know nominations/LGBT history in Poland

{{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|Talk| 
 * The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by SL93 (talk) 09:09, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Issues unresolved. No response. {{DYK conditions}}

LGBT history in Poland

 * ... that despite its long history, Polish LGBT people started organizing only in the 80s?

Created by KamillaŚ (talk). Self-nominated at 20:04, 20 April 2019 (UTC).


 * Symbol possible vote.svg I would love to get this through, but the article is lacking citations for a lot of text, and needs a copyedit. I'll wait for a response and see if there are significant updates. Kingsif (talk) 21:23, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I added the citations in place of all "citation neededs" and clarified few parts. but I would love to see someone help me with writing style, copyedit etc, as its not my strongest side in english. KamillaŚ (talk) 19:36, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You can ask for a copyedit at the Guild of Copyeditors. There might also be someone willing to help at WikiProject Poland. Kingsif (talk) 19:38, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

I made some corrections and added something. And maybe we should consider a more eye-catching DYK question - e.g. ''... that throughout its history homosexuality has never been criminalized by the Polish law? ''(However, we would have to make sure whether it's really true.). BasileusAutokratorPL (talk) 13:22, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

It looks mostly OK, but there are some serious concerns in the article. Firstly, it seems to contradict itself in the lead by saying that there have never been any Polish laws that persecute LGBT people, and then also says homosexuality was decriminalized in 1932 so this requires some clarification. Secondly, there are some POV issues. The statement in the lead that "Homophobia has been a common public attitude in Poland, thanks to the influence of Catholic Church in Polish public life, and the widespread conservatism of Polish society." is a clear POV indictment of the Catholic Church and perpetuates the misconception that the Church's opposition to homosexuality is based in homophobia (I am not saying there are no homophobic Catholics, but it is factually false to claim this is the reason the Catholic Church as an institution has historically opposed LGBT rights). Similarly, in the Second Polish Republic section, the article attributes the Catholic cultural taboo on homosexuality to ignorance. I do not see how that cannot be construed as a POV violation. (Keep in mind WP:OUTRAGE: Even perspectives you find morally offensive must be accurately portrayed). As another point, it should be mentioned in the main text that there is significant controversy over the sexual/asexual nature of adelphopoiesis, relegating that mention to a footnote makes this paragraph, in its context, seem to imply that these relationships were definitively sexual. Ashorocetus (talk &#124;  contribs) 21:09, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Seeing as it is a DYK and not a GA, I think it would be sufficient to fix the lead. The POV and bias and such of claims in the main body can be discussed on the article's talk. Through the fact that the nominator has not joined this discussion in two months suggests this may soon be failed due to this, unless someone else wants to take a stab at the lead, at least? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:37, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: if there are POV issues and bias in the body of the article, then just fixing the lead won't fly: the entire article needs to be free of these issues per DYK rules. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:00, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. I left a note on the creators/nomintators page about input needed here. They have been active since on en wiki but chose to ignore it (or didn't see it). Not much we can do outside yet another ping (User:KamillaŚ). If they don't reply in a week or so this probably should be closed, as nobody seems to be interested in addressing issues raised in the review. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:45, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: sorry for not replying earlier, but i can work on making the article npov and address your concerns soon! KamillaŚ (talk) 14:56, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Great to hear back from you, looking fwd to rescuing this! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 19:39, 11 July 2019 (UTC)


 * KamillaŚ, Piotrus, it has been nearly a month since KamillaŚ replied above, and I see no subsequent edits to the article to address the POV issues. This is now the oldest outstanding DYK. Allowing seven more days for action to be taken; if significant progress is not made in that time, or we don't hear from the nominator that it will occur very soon, the nomination will be marked for closure. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:02, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I can only concur. If someone is too busy to edit Wikipedia, they can't very well expect to see their content on the front page :( Shame, it's an interesting topic, but there's not much we can do. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 21:18, 6 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Symbol delete vote.svg There has been no response on the issues in over a week since the most recent posts. Marking for closure as unsuccessful. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:34, 14 August 2019 (UTC) |}}