Talk:LGBT-free zone/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Work required indeed

Per my note to User:Piotrus [1] the main issue is that the concept of the 'LGBT-free zone' is verifiably an activist construct by an artist [2] rather than a reality. The stated local government policy was verifiably to make a district 'free of LGBT ideology' which was about de-funding and de-legitimizing LGBT activism. Therefore the article title is misleading and leads readers to assume there was an actual apartheid of sexuality in the country, which was indeed a common misconception. The title would need a change, perhaps a rare use of shock quotes. The intro would need the clarification to be made. Sorry I can't help further for now. Chumchum7 (talk) 06:23, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

What matters is what RS say not your opinion or even how the term originated. (t · c) buidhe 06:58, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

+1. Mathglot (talk) 07:15, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Steady on, User:Buidhe. You may have got the wrong impression, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. I've been working on Wikipedia for 13 years without sanction, contributing mainly on areas where discretionary sanctions apply. This has especially been on topics attracting Polish nationalism that have seen horrendous trolls and socks, several of whom are now blocked. So FYI am well aware of what matters and no, I am not pushing my opinion. I am citing what I see as an RS: [3] For the record: That an activist publicized the problem of homophobia in no way diminishes the problem of the homophobia. -Chumchum7 (talk) 09:41, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

The vast majority of English language sources use the term "LGBT free zone" so editors decided by consensus to make that the title. It's my understanding that proponents of the zones believe that LGBT is an ideology rather than a set of people. Anyway the article never claims that no LGBT people live in the zones so I don't know why it would be considered misleading. (t · c) buidhe 12:22, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm now able to make some time for this. Note I'm less concerned about the title and more concerned about the article lacking important RS-verifiable content, which it appears some other users may have also had concerns about. Worth noticing the difference in German and Polish language versions. Now WP:BOLD adding to show everyone what I mean. -Chumchum7 (talk) 15:55, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

You've been editing for a long time, Chumchum7, but so has Buidhe, and so has Mathglot, and they have each racked up more than 10 times as many edits as you. I'm not saying that you are an incompetent nnweb, but compared to them you are quite inexperienced. If I were you, I would take their comments seriously, and tread carefully in this topic area. Buidhe is correct, by the way - if English-language news sources use the phrase to refer to the subject without feeling the need to apply scare quotes, then so must we, regardless of the origin of the phrase. Girth Summit _(blether) 16:11, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

My last edit on this article was a WP:CWW that was going to be the first in a round of edits to rework the added text to incorporate the RS I started this thread with. It was an omission not to include an edit summary link back to the original article content over at [4]. After User:Girth Summit pointed out the WP:CV I removed it from that article and it still needs to be erased from the diffs in the edit history there. -Chumchum7 (talk) 06:53, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

I identified the diff that added it, and revdelled everything since that diff (there were three entire sentences lifted from the cited source without attribution). If anyone wants to use the source in question to write stuff in their own words, it's here. Girth Summit _(blether) 08:18, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Girth Summit, thank you. I've begun additions of sourced content on a key element of this article that was seriously lacking, per the RS I brought at the start of this thread [5]. Note I've already stated am less concerned about the article title, so let's leave that for the time being. On the matter of WP:V, it's not accurate to say that English language sources don't feel the need to use scare quotes around "LGBT-fee zone". Maybe some don't, and it appears the majority do. For info the Guardian does [6], BBC does [7], Associated Press does [8], CNN does [9], New York Times does [10] and most recently, Reuters goes as far as in the first instance feeling the need to refer to so-called "LGBT-free zones" [11], a formulation which already has precedent in another piece in the Guardian [12]. -Chumchum7 (talk) 14:25, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

That's why I said 'if...' - I don't have a view on whether it's the case or not. Your initial post above, you suggested using scare quotes based on arguments about the origin of the term, and the effect our use of it might have on our readers' understanding of the subject; those arguments didn't align well with policy, as far as I can see, so I pointed out to you that the way we use the term should reflect how it is used in English-language sources. If most sources use it without quotes, then so must we; the inverse is also true. One could probably get Google to do an NGram charting use of the term with and without scare quotes to get some metrics. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:49, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Actually, MOS:SCAREQUOTES does not contain an exception for scare quotes used by sources. I think that regardless it is poor style that undermines Wp:Impartial (t · c) buidhe 15:22, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Having an article that names a concept one way, followed by immediately disparaging that name, is very poor form. If there is an issue with "LGBT-free zone", and that is reflected by the sources, then there are two obvious courses of action.

• Rename the article appropriately. In this case I don't see this working. Some sources may criticise the name, but they're still using it, so it is the common name.
• Explain the issue to the reader, with sources.

But leading the article with "So called" without any explanation is not on. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 15:55, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the excellent point, User:Escape_Orbit. Do you have an idea about how to explain the issue to the reader? -Chumchum7 (talk) 16:08, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

What do sources that discuss the naming say? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:16, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

As it's a very recently coined term the naming of it is not widely discussed, and usually shows up in news articles in scare quotes, recently with "so-called", without much explanation. The closest we've got to a discussion of the naming is in this RS [13] saying an activist-artist named the municipalities "LGBT-free zones" by putting his own street signs up which named them exactly that; this was after the municipalities had announced that they are "free from LGBT ideology". I've just added a pic of one of the signs to the article. -Chumchum7 (talk) 16:46, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

I think the best approach is simply explain what the zones are according to reliable sources without excessive focus on the terminology. Never assume that the article title is the most important aspect of the topic. Anyway if we were consistent in adding quote marks to every phrase that sometimes shows up with quote marks in news articles, we would also have to retitle our article Armenian genocide to Armenian "genocide". (t · c) buidhe 04:50, 16 August 2022 (UTC)