Talk:LGBT ideology: Difference between revisions

LGBT studies Redirect‑class

This redirect is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles Redirect This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

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)[reply]

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:

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

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)[reply]

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[1] that connect "gay ideology" with "LGBT ideology", or equate the two, so that aspect is not OR. (t · c) buidhe 08:35, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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 <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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The lead as of rev. 973791292 (just before my edits removing extraneous bolding) was:

"LGBT ideology", "gay ideology"^[1] and "gender ideology",^[2] are anti-feminist and/or anti-LGBT phrases used by opponents of LGBT rights.^[3][4]

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:

• 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, 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(edit conflict)The issue of the definition was taken up once before at Talk:LGBT-free zone#What is 'LGBT ideology'? 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)[reply]

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. Chrisdevelop (talk) 12:00, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Refs

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":

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.

• Talk:LGBT-free zone#What is 'LGBT ideology'? (no resolution to the question)

other sections at that article discussed the definition as well, and pretty much came up blank:

• Talk:LGBT-free zone#LGBT-free zone

and these proposals:

• Talk:LGBT-free zone#Proposal to rename as 'LGBT-free zones'
• Talk:LGBT-free zone#Merger proposal
• Talk:LGBT-free zone#Requested move 5 August 2020 (LGBT ideology-free zone → LGBT-free zones; result: Moved.)

Other possibly related discussions:

• Talk:Anti-gender movement – a merge discussion at #Merge from LGBT ideology
• Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#"LGBT ideology-free zones" in Poland

Mathglot (talk) 10:56, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]