Talk:Margot (activist)

Identity

This person appears as a man in the identity document, so writing about him as her would be biased and ideologically oriented. We try to avoid such bias on Wikipedia

• No, we use preferred pronouns here on WP. Please respect Margot's preference. Malick78 (talk) 17:08, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia so we call things as they are and not as we would like them to be. We can write that He defines himself as a woman but the facts are that he's a man. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prince1882 (talk • contribs) 17:44, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

• • I'm sorry, could you give a link to the policy you are referring to? Here it clearly says we give preference to the person's latest preferred gender identity. I will revert your edits accordingly. Malick78 (talk) 22:51, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia so we call things as they are. We could write about him as "her" if he underwent an actual gender reassignment, and he had it in the papers. Polish police call him a man so we should also do same thing. https://twitter.com/PolskaPolicja/status/1292089658659217415 Wikipedia is also not a place for activists to express their views. Policy can't change the facts, for example, we cannot write about someone that He was a professor because he he personified himself as professor, the facts are the facts. Its not right to modify basic biology rules and his ID documents because he's got something different in this mind. Wikipedia articles should be impartial. I don't know if you're familiar with that policy but you can read it here. We obviously can say that he claims that he's a woman but nothing more. Changing male form into female form in this arcticle is an act of vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prince1882 (talk • contribs) 23:24, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

What was her previous name prior to “Malgorzata”? Do you know? - GizzyCatBella🍁 08:39, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Never mind, I got it - “Michał”. Is this her legal name? - GizzyCatBella🍁 08:40, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, this is her legal name and her legal gender is male. This article from Wyborcza, which appears as a citation in the article, confirms her legal name. Kubi718 (talk) 08:25, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Prince1882, per English Wikipedia guidelines (MOS:GENDERID), we should use the pronouns preferred by an individual, regardless of what their legal id says. Certainly we shouldn't defer to the Polish police. Gbear605 (talk) 15:49, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

This is a man!! Bartek384848 (talk) 09:36, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Not only it is a legal name, but she does not mind being called Michal. Quote from the ref: " bo jej to wcale nie obraża - mówi Łania, partnerka słynnej Margot" https://warszawa.wyborcza.pl/warszawa/7,54420,26204578,przed-aresztowaniem-poprosila-o-biblie-kim-jest-slynna-margot.html Zezen (talk) 11:57, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Zezen, per Wikipedia policy (MOS:MULTINAMES), we should still use her preferred name of Margot or Małgorzata, since that's her preferred name even if she doesn't mind being called other names. She is not notable under those names in English sources, so that is what we should use on English Wikipedia. Gbear605 (talk) 15:47, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

"formerly known as Michał Szutowicz" - not formerly, but officially and legally. There are no information or even claims the person has ever changed that name or made any attempt to do so.178.43.39.172 (talk) 12:43, 23 August 2020 (UTC)Bartłomiej Andrzejewski

Not formely/officialy/legally, just "known". Except of her close friends and fellow activists, she is widely known as Michal Szutowicz, and she is widely recognizable by her legal and official name. First and foremost Wikipedia should be written for regular people, who may not be interested in left-wing activism, but saw the name in a newspaper and want to find a biogram of that person. People who refer to Margot as Malgorzata will already know more about her than they could learn from this article. Dinth (talk) 15:29, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

She did, in fact, call herself Małgorzata, as far as I could read from her own publications: https://archive.is/ZZtrU

Zezen (talk) 17:04, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Zezen, Margot and Margo are nicknames that she is referred to in reliable English sources, such as the Time article, so we should include those to help English users find the article. Meanwhile, her birthname is not notable in English sources, so there isn't a reason to include it. Gbear605 (talk) 17:06, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

1. You may be answering the wrong person. I agree she is calling herself Małgorzata, by now, see above.

2. In fact, for the record only, her birthname is notable, and mentioned as such verbatim: https://www.womenarehuman.com/anger-as-transgender-identifying-activist-is-held-in-male-detention/

and

https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/lgbt-protesters-decry-rising-homophobia-arrests-in-poland/story-s4oVLmcWsbywTBnRKiaL1I.html

Life is too short for more Google searches tho, especially on mobile.

Bows to all,

Zezen (talk) 17:19, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

The first source seems to be biased and shouldn't count as a RS, see [1]

The second source mentions her birthname, but only in passing, not enough to make it notable.

Gbear605 (talk) 17:23, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I actually agree re 1. I am thus removing the first source from the current version of the article. Zezen (talk) 18:19, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Oh, you have removed it already! Thanks. Zezen (talk) 18:21, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I think we should mention that person legal (male) name, no objections to any note or clarification that the subject prefers another name. But generally we do mentions alt names, old names and so on in our biographies. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:32, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

User @Gbear605: repeatedly reverts changes introducing Margot's official name into the article, saying that Wikipedia uses the name preferred by the subjects of articles. Maybe true. But the article should also contain other names referring to the subject, otherwise it's not fully informative. BasileusAutokratorPL (talk) 12:05, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

• Sorry, there is no need to include her previous name. That is WP's policy and if you want to change it, take it up on the appropriate page. Not here. Malick78 (talk) 12:26, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Recheck these policies Malick, do you need links? - GizzyCatBella🍁 12:50, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Zuzanna "Łania" Madej

"Łania" is an alias. The first name of the person is "Zuzanna". It has been verified by the crowdfunding platform [1] using both her ID and bank transfer. BTW - both "Łania" and "Zuzanna" are feminine in Polish. [1] https://zrzutka.pl/wedaxx 178.43.39.172 (talk) 12:52, 23 August 2020 (UTC)Bartłomiej Andrzejewski

Hi! Per Wikipedia policy (WP:BLPNAME), we should attempt to avoid using names that are intentionally hidden by the person, especially if they are not the primary subject of the article. In addition, this is a primary source (and finding information on the page that is not intentionally mentioned is original research), so we shouldn't use this information. Thanks! Gbear605 (talk) 15:54, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Is there any particular reason for the assumption the real name was "intentionally" hidden? It seemed to me it was just an omission based on the single, primary source not mentioning this name. After all the real last name was revealed, so the privacy of the person is not the case anymore, especially under the circumstances given in the crowdfunding event, which directly and intentionally linked Zuzanna Madej with her LGBTQ-activism platform "Stop Bzdurom".178.43.39.172 (talk) 17:07, 23 August 2020 (UTC)Bartłomiej Andrzejewski

To quote the policy, The names of any immediate, former, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject.

From this, I'd say that the real name of Łania isn't relevant to the reader, so it has no reason to be included. Generally, we want to lean on the side of including less information rather than more information, since this avoids potential problems for living people. In addition, it's original research (and a primary source), which is exactly what we want to avoid in Wikipedia articles, both about living people and generally. The truthfulness of the information is not relevant. Gbear605 (talk) 17:12, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Agree, real name isn't relevant. Malick78 (talk) 10:42, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Stop Bzdurom - translation is wrong

Bzdura in Polish means nonsense [2] (not bull-shit). Stop bzdurom means - Stop nonsense. I understand Polish (I know it doesn't matter so, please don’t repeat it yourself), and I can confirm that Stop bzdurom = Stop nonsense, not rude Stop bullshit. So remove entirely the wrong translation that is sourced here[3] or translate it correctly, but don’t consciously replicate the mistake.GizzyCatBella🍁 07:02, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I concur with the translation, bzdura is colloquial but not a curseword. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:31, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

@Zezen - I'll give you yet another illustration. Ready?

So, To talk bull shit in Polish means "pierdolić". [4] Do you know what pierdolić means in Polish? Look it up. It means "fuck". So literally Stop bullshit means in Polish Stop the fuck, or maaaaaybe Stop the crap - at best. So now you know. I'll now live you with this dilemma. Should you follow the Cambridge dictionary and trust the editor who understands Polish or deliberately repeat a mistake of some fellow who wrote an article to the paper and didn't even take the time to translate things correctly. (that puts in questions actually reliability of that source too) - GizzyCatBella🍁 07:46, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Oni tak się nazywają sami. Zbadaj, jak pisałem. Zezen (talk) 07:54, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Are you using google translate Zezen? because you are writing “bzdury” - GizzyCatBella🍁 07:58, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Copying my comment from the diff, for the context:

Fixing WP:OR. Us, contributors are not experts. Do your research in original primary source if in doubt.

-> Do it, in their pre 2020 materials.

Bullshit is not a translation. It is how they call themselves. See the Margot/Malgorzata debacle hereinabove that we should follow their wishes. Zezen (talk) 08:08, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

OMG Zezen and you keep going... Look, people in Poland use the English word "bull-shit" too, everyone knows what it means as they understand what Okay means, and they occasionally use it also. Still, they never replace Polish word bzdura with English bull-shit if they don't want to sound vulgar. I showed you the correct translation of "stop bzdurom"; you know that the translation in the article is wrong, and the source made a mistake; now do with this information what you want. PS Would you purposely write the wrong age of the person too if the paper made a mistake as far as the age goes? I think you wouldn't, so why you keep arguing with the Cambridge dictionary? I don't get that.GizzyCatBella🍁 08:23, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

While 'bullshit' is stronger than 'bzdury', it does seem to be their self-chosen translation and therefore should be used it seems to me. See here. Malick78 (talk) 10:51, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Yea, looks that they use more powerful words for the English speaking public. I'll try to note both perhaps.GizzyCatBella🍁 12:49, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Reuters says "Stop the Bullshit". Juliett Tango Papa (talk) 03:39, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Notability

Hmmm, how does the subject meet WP:ANYBIO? [5] is good but WP:ONEEVENT is an issue. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:28, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

She is not :) Margot is as notable as the husband of this lady who was arrested about at the same time and papers write about.[6] Why is there no article about that fellow? Hua? :) Margot doesn't even have a dedicated article on the Polish Wikipedia. That was a puzzle to me from the beginning; if we start writing essays about every person arrested in Poland that newspapers write about, whats is going to happen to Wikipedia? - — Preceding unsigned comment added by GizzyCatBella (talk • contribs) 16:59, August 24, 2020 (UTC)

Everyone in Poland knows her name. She has become a cause celebre, and is discussed in articles in the popular press that are solely about her. Malick78 (talk) 10:49, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Everyone in Poland knows her name - according to whom? Everyone? Come on Malick - GizzyCatBella🍁 00:21, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

And different wikipedia have different policy. It would be weird to limit what the biggest and most active wikipedia can write because a smaller one decided to not write about a controversial topic, especially one where the government is actively trying to censor some voices. --Misc (talk) 10:53, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

The only thing that comes to my mind is that she gets a lot of international attention NOW, and I'm not sure what will happen next. I know that "stop bzdurom" collected like almost 50 grand (US) on the go fund me for Margot's defence, so numerous people in Poland are pissed off that she is confined. If they give her some serious jail time after the trial, that will be a big scandal. She might be notable then, but she is not unique yet. A lot of people are pre-trial detained in Poland; I mean A LOT. Nothing unusual about her yet, except some articles in the Polish press (later picked up by the foreign media) that cover the attack on that Pro-life fellow and Jesus's statue profanity. If they release her without charges, she will be forgotten quickly.GizzyCatBella🍁 14:08, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

The article doesn't look to meet WP:ANYBIO, but it could be merged with Polish Stonewall. Centyja (talk) 15:23, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

She has been covered by Polish press for ages, and also by international press like Reuters. Juliett Tango Papa (talk) 03:38, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Merge

• Merge/redirect. Not meet WP:ANYBIO and any other notability guidelines. Also, break Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_newspaper. Article to delete. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 18:13, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

  What bad timing! The deletion debate ended yesterday. The result was keep. Malick78 (talk) 22:48, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

  It does not change the fact that the article does not meet the requirements of notability guidelines. The article will be re-submitted to AfD, in a while. It doesn't matter how many sources you add to the article, this person is not encyclopedic and there are no achievements! Being LGBT and be arrested for assault is good for newspaper, not for encycklopedia. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Besides, please read administrator description in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Margot (activist): "A merge or a rename can be discussed at the article". So, the discussion may continue for integrate the article with August 2020 LGBTQIA Protests in Poland. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 23:05, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

  Even the notability of the article of Polish Stonewall is disputed. There are thousands of larger manifestations that do not have their own Wikipedia article. In addition, there is a separate article about the reason of this manifestation: Margot (activist). This is very debatable. This is completely noncyclopedical person, no achievements, he/she got publicity only because there were small manifestations after her arrest. That's all. Both articles should be integrated (merged). Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 01:54, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

• MEGRE/DELTE Experienced user on PLwiki who participated at pl:Wikipedia:Poczekalnia/artykuły/2020:08:26:Stop Bzdurom (deletion policy for Stop Bzdurom) and pl:Dyskusja:Stop Bzdurom (talk page for stop bzdurom) all have agreed each other that those particular people are not notable, while these particular events around LGBT in Poland MAYBE. Margot has NO article on PLwiki but pageviews of Stop Bzdurom in main space were recently (soon after creating the article) comparable with talk pages around because of everyone find that as questionable, yet, look: [7]). For now must be redirect. There is NO reason why we have to go WP:OR on pair with WP:recent events and WP:Crystall ball. I think WP:BEFORE speak for itself. I think we should appreciate Occam's razor, if LGBT ideology was changed for the redirect there is really no particular reason to create article about person for which we even can not werify current/new? name. Dawid2009 (talk) 12:51, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

So I readded notablity tag. Dawid2009 (talk) 13:26, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Dawid2009, rightly you readded notablity tag. Leaving an article in AfD and encyclopedicism are sometimes two different things. This person is still not encyclopedic, not meets of any notability guidelines. And, you're right. I'm from Poland and Polish Wikipedia, consensus in Polish Wikipedia shows that Margot as person is not encyclopedic. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 14:20, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

English Wikipedia doesn't necessarily follow what other language Wikipedias do; instead it reaches its own conclusions. If you want to reach consensus, look at English Wikipedia policies. Gbear605 (talk) 02:55, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

This is not based on „Consensus from Polish Wikipedia” but just based on „English Wikipedia’s policy”, actually based on „’’’ENwiki’s experience and philosophy’’’” because of in the past on ENwiki there have been removed various biographies which are historically much more vital than Margot in term of Biographies’ notablity guideline on ENwiki's policy. For example, Yanet Gracia is just one of many examples of non-very recent (six years stage) low-profile biographies/redirects which gotseveral times more hits than Margot’’’ (this page was delted not one time but two times delted after quite well estabilished consensuses on ENwiki. Not mention to fact PLWiki has far more prefelable inclusionism/non-deletionism than ENwiki, RUwiki, ES wiki and even far more articles than canonical languages like ARwiki, ZHwiki, JAwiki etc., so your statement below Persons who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile, regardless of whether or not they are notable is not true for ENwiki) . FWIHW we already explained more than enough why English Wikipedia should create redirect to another article and someone at AfD even said there are more notable LGBT people from Poland who do not have article on enwiki. Your futher analyse of WP:BASICS which covers 3000 bytes essey ( 1One evnt (...) 2 Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and REDIRECT the person's name to the event article. (...) 3individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented) is simply nothing other than showing why this is constructive to we speedy redirect for now, because of we HAVE TO properly building WP:ENCY (not to contradict too fresh recentism WP:Notnews). Come down to Earth: due to recentism this person even does not pass general WP:Common name guideline (everything is WP:Weasel for now what usually is very strong argument of ENwiki’s policy because of we need WP:VER), if we would know established name of this person and Margot as pseudonim was at least way older name than ONE MONTH; that maybe could be diffrent.. Activists are not automatically ency if they are notable for one event, in such cases they are "just famous for their 5 minutes" and are "subject for redirect".

Also, creating redirect is not disqualifing of chances for the article in future but very important antirecentism and NPOV ENwiki's rule so I do not understand your point against "redirect instead deletion" (if you want create GA for 2020 LGBT protests then let do redirect for now just as LGBT ideology in Poland has been redirectee for encyclopedic tone and we will wait what will be later, this is OK even if you argue this person could be high profile in future)

Finally: while this article has 34 references, about 35% is generally about name’s controversies (in sense 13 separate references out of 34 all - is this so wiedly neccesary?), 50% is for the more notable matter which had Afd on PLwiki and has been temporary closed as no consensus (this is about one event from duet/collective which is currently redirect to 2020 LGBT community’s protsests in Poland and reached hardly 38 000 Polish followers on FB, more notable than Margot but still questionable and maybe will be redirect on PLwiki soon), and only handful references are attributed biography on its own/Peersonal life. Authors of this page on ENwiki in general also ignored fact this person got more hits on ENwiki just soon after YouTube’s post of Radio Zet’s interview on 2 September which now has about 200 000 views, not after 24France publication in August 2020 (just see the hits again that page got more hits on 2 september 2020). This interview is not mentioned in the article even though we have just 3 references in Margot (activist)#Personal life. Increasing of hits after this 2 september POLISH interview is not only evidence for low profile biography in light of encyclpedia but evidence that this is countryspecific person with NO international attention at all. Beyond that there there is no evidence what will be in Poland soon after 2 september. So now I will ask WP:third opinion, and I will ping 1@Eddie891:(who closed Afd deletion with describtion ‘’ A merge or a rename can be discussed at the article’’) and two currently most experienced users fr Wikipedia:redirect for discussion: 2@BDD:, 3@Tavix: . Dawid2009 (talk) 21:24, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

• Merge: does not meet notability guidelines. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 22:26, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
• Keep, don't merge. There are dozens of articles titled "Kto jest Margot?" ("Who is Margot?") in Polish (see here) on notable sites such as Fakt.pl and Wiadomosci.pl. This extensive coverage of WHO she is clearly establishes independent notability. Furtheremore, here on France24.com it says: "Dunja Mijatovic, the human rights commissioner for the Council of Europe, the continent’s top human rights body, called for Margot’s immediate release on Saturday. Mijatovic tweeted that the activist was detained "for blocking an anti-LGBT hate van and putting rainbow flags on Warsaw monuments", saying that an order for Margot's two-month detention sends a "very chilling signal" for freedom of speech and LGBT rights in Poland." Hence, with SOOOO much attention on her, clearly Margot has become worthy of coverage in her own right. The fact that some of you don't think she has done anything notable (yet you admit it's newsworthy) is just bizarre. Malick78 (talk) 23:14, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

  And she's been interviewed by Polish Vogue too. How is a non-notable person in Vogue??? Malick78 (talk) 23:16, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Even is Margot would not be not temporary then vogue is still not near to easy pass Wikipedia:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. Redirect is not delte whole article, and you can not create encyclopedic peace based on WP:Weasel. Dawid2009 (talk) 23:42, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

• Merge Per Malick78 : "There are dozens articles Who is Margot" (indeed, WP:NOTNEWSPAPER). There is discussion at talk:Polish Stonewall#merge? and either of Stop Bzdurom (about 38 000) and Polish Stonewall (about 96 000) are funpages on facebook which has less followers than 100 000 now. Would you argue to every new youtuber active for one month (notable for notoriety or not - really does not matter), can pass WP:Before and not be redirect first? Not mention to fact this is not legal unit (source Twór nie ma osobowości prawnej) Dawid2009 (talk) 23:33, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

  Malick78, you don't understand a simple thing. It's just temporary publicity, nothing more. Being LGBT and be "loud" arrested for assault is good for newspaper, not for encycklopedia. Please read: Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_newspaper. Please understand, this is an encyclopedia - person must to be encyclopedical. Margot there are no achievements. Second case: about this case there are two articles: Margot (activist) and August 2020 LGBTQIA Protests in Poland. There is no need to keep two articles. Article of August 2020 LGBTQIA Protests in Poland it's enough, data abour Margot should be integrated with this article. I understand that you are the author of the article, however, you made the mistake creating this article. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 23:39, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

• Merge - As I stated before and several editors also noticed that this subject is not notable based on our notability policies such as WP:ANYBIO for example. I will further note that the subject is known ONLY for a single even, that is her arrest ( WP:ONEEVENT ) - news blown out of proportion here. We generally avoid the promotion of news. This article could be merged to Polish Stonewall thou. - GizzyCatBella🍁 23:41, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
• Keep, do not merge

WP:ANYBIO is specifically not relevant to the discussion because it is criteria showing 'if this is met, then the person is likely notable,' while the question we're asking is whether the person is notable when it isn't met. Lots of people that Wikipedia covers don't meet those criteria, and that's okay. Look at two lines about that link to see People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included. In addition, if you look just a bit higher up the page at WP:BASIC, you will see that People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. The exclusion to that is if the person falls afoul of the not news policy. I don't think that anyone disagrees that Margot meets those basic criteria, so let's consider the not news policy.

As others have said, Wikipedia has a not news policy, which has a brief summary of the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy and says that you should refer to the BLP policy for more details. That relevant BLP policy is WP:BLP1E, which says We generally should avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met, and then goes on to describe those conditions.

1. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.
2. If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article.
3. If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. John Hinckley Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant and his role was both substantial and well documented.

Both the second and third condition are not met. The second condition is not met because Margot is not low-profile, which is a question about how the person acts, not about the coverage of them - Persons who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile, regardless of whether or not they are notable. The third condition is also clearly not met, because the event is obviously significant, and Margot's involvement is plainly both substantial and well-documented. I agree that Wikipedia is not a newspaper, but that doesn't mean that an article doesn't belong in Wikipedia just because it is interesting to the news. In this case, Wikipedia policy says to keep the two articles - this article and Polish Stonewall - separate.

Finally, English Wikipedia of course should not simply follow Polish Wikipedia's decision on this matter, but rather should decide based on English Wikipedia policy and consensus.

Gbear605 (talk) 02:55, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Neutral (changed). While I support Gbear605's arguments here, Margot claims not to be a leader, now or in future: https://krytykapolityczna.pl/kraj/margot-lania-rozmowa-jas-kapela/ Zezen (talk) 08:35, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Gbear605. Your comparisons to other articles are nonsense. In particular, a comparison to John Hinckley Jr.. It was an international scandal, article about John Hinckley Jr. has 23 interwiki [8]. Margot? Who is Margot? Total zero. This person attacked the driver and damage the truck, for this reason he/she was arrested. This is LGBT, so - other activists (and later press) considers it a violation of minority rights. That's all. An ordinary circus. This person is not encyclopedical, she/he is nobody. The existence of two articles (Margot (activist) and August 2020 LGBTQIA Protests in Poland) is just... stupid. This is an encyclopedia and you are making a circus out of it. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 13:42, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Subtropical-man, the question is not comparisons to other articles, the question is whether it meets the Wikipedia guidelines. Obviously she isn't as well known as John Hinckley Jr., but that's an example, not a limiter. In this case, I think that this article clearly does meet the policies. It doesn't matter why she became notable - there are people who are notable for much smaller things than this - but whether she *is* notable now. Gbear605 (talk) 14:28, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Gbear605 - again, your comparisons to other, I quote: "there are people who are notable for much smaller things than this". Your arguments are pointless. You might as well say: why catch thieves when many of this walk on the street. It doesn't matter that something exists. If "there are people who are notable for much smaller things than this", should be removed. Simply. Coming back to the point: momentary noise is not synonymous of word of "encyclopedical". If somebody to poop on the Statue of Liberty, and the press will write about it, does not mean that you should create an article in encyclopedia about this person. It's logical. You also forgot about the most important, get it into your head: Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_newspaper, start thinking and stop making a trash from the encyclopedia. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 14:48, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

@Subtropical-man: there are people who are notable for much smaller things than this . Honestly I highly doubt how many less notable biographies has article on its own on (especially that Margot is the freshest possible possible matter + Enwiki does not have articles about some recent Polish activists who at least are not notable for one event but have article on PLwiki) but I am 100% sure are plenty who are redirects for years due to the best option for WP:Ency. I really not see why we would have to change all of them for own article now. Beyond that I am 100% sure WP:recentism#Debate over recentism requires POV and WP:Notindiscriminate. So I agree this is very silly create two separate articles for that things. PLwiki would certainly have earlier an article if deserves if this has about another LGBT people. How you explain fact Polish edition has more articles on Wikipedia than Japanese community? The debate for Ronaldo's primary topic was estabilished based on Poortogese wiki consensus so I guess then valuable would be also consider PL's wiki view on event and particular people for the event. I will repeat again: creating redirect is not disqualifing of chances for the article in future but very important antirecentism and NPOV ENwiki's rule. Dawid2009 (talk) 21:24, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Subtropical-man, please reference that policy and the pages it links to. Wikipedia has detailed policies of what makes a person notable for Wikipedia, and Margot meets those policies. Gbear605 (talk) 14:50, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Gbear605 - you're wrong here. I haven't noticed any point of notability that Margot meets 100%. I have noticed a few points that Margot does not meet. Not only that, even if (I repeat: if) Margot meets the requirements on one point, it does not mean that you should create two articles. A few sentences about Margot can be written in the article of August 2020 LGBTQIA Protests in Poland, article closely related to Margot. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 15:04, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

• Merge This person is not notable by any means per other merge rationale.--Toby284 (talk) 18:30, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
• The AfD closed only 2 days ago as "Keep". That should have settled the argument as to whether it is notable; relitigation outside of AfD or Deletion review can therefore be considered disruptive editing. My attempts to close this discussion have been reverted in violation of WP:TPO. (t · c) buidhe 22:03, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

  the notability of the article of Polish Stonewall is disputed. There are thousands of larger manifestations that do not have their own Wikipedia article. In addition, there is a separate article about the reason of this manifestation: Margot (activist). This is very debatable. This is completely noncyclopedical person, no achievements, he/she got publicity only because there were small manifestations after her arrest. That's all. Both articles should be integrated, or even delected (topic for discussion). The AfD has been closed, and as the topic is still active, new people appear who did not have time to vote earlier. Besides, the AfD's (Articles for Delete) result concerns the removal of the article, even is result is keep, the article still must to meet Wikipedia requirements. If the article does not meet the requirements, users can debate to merged or for some time, the AfD may be reopened (second AfD) to delete whole article. A broader discussion is needed. Even administrator wrote in AfD, I quote: "A merge or a rename can be discussed at the article"[9]. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 22:26, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

  Subtropical-man, please nominate the other article for deletion if you don't think it's notable. (t · c) buidhe 00:36, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

The AFD also closed with the content is notable, while the only arguments used here are that the content is not notable. In addition, it isn't a voting process but rather a reaching of consensus. No one has added anything here that wasn't said in the AFD, and hence a second AFD is definitely not needed (which should be obvious, given that only four days have passed since the AFD was closed). Gbear605 (talk) 23:00, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

At present, the discussion here is mainly about 'merge' article Margot (activist) with Polish Stonewall. Such discussions may be conducted independently of the AfD. Even metadata of AfD say, I quote:

Welcome to the deletion discussion for the selected article. (...) When discussing an article, remember to consider alternatives to deletion. If you think the article could be a disambiguation page, redirected or merged to another article, then consider recommending "Disambiguate", "Redirect" or "Merge" instead of deletion.

So let's discuss merge/redirect. If there will not compromise to merge, for some time (30 days), the new AfD may be created to delete article, and Wikipedia rules allow it. So. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 23:19, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

The consensus is that the article is notable and the content should be kept. Merging into another article for editorial reasons is allowed (only if the content is kept), deletion by the back door is not. (t · c) buidhe 00:37, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Two issues, briefly: 1) the new consensus can replace the old one - this is the standard on Wikipedia 2) merge means integration. This discuss is about merge, it means data from article of "Margot (activist)" can be transferred to article of "Polish Stonewall". The data would not be deleted, but transferred. If there will not reach compromise to merge (moved data to main article), for some time (30 days), the new AfD may be created to delete article and data from Wikipedia. Simply. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 01:22, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

• Keep, no merge. Margot is a very notable person. Polish press is all over it, and her release last week from political prison was covered by Balkan Insight and Reuters. Juliett Tango Papa (talk) 03:37, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

About the Third Opinion request: The Third Opinion request has been removed (i.e. declined). Third Opinions are only for content disputes. A dispute over whether or not a discussion should or should not be closed is a process dispute not within the scope of Third Opinion (or Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, which is also limited to content disputes). Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:56, 7 September 2020 (UTC) This is an informational posting only and I am not watching this page; contact me on my user talk page if you wish to communicate with me about this.

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:

• Stop Bzdurom (cropped).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:35, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Transphobia

This article performed a novel analysis of transphobic sources from twitter and Radio Maryja and misgendered Margot. Misgendering is a form of violence, this article was hurtful. I [10] replaced the transphobic sources with good sources that discuss the transphobia again Margot. Juliett Tango Papa (talk) 05:25, 8 September 2020 (UTC)