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)

Hello, I went through the talk page before and I have seen that no rational argumentation of other users did suceed before with this issue. Still, I will write my opinion. I strongly oppose unscientific prioritizing of personal own feelings over the biological and legal reality. As you have seen, I did not change the he/she pronouns in the text. I only assume that legally he is a man named Michal Szutowicz, he did not changed his sex/gender from male to female, neither did he change his name from Michal to Malgorzata. It is erroneus to prioritise any fluctuating personal statements when there is real evidence about these characteristics of person that opposes the feelings. Wikipedia should bring real knowledge and full information, this approach is absurd and goes totally against the scientific purpose of description of the world. Tomorrow he can decide that he is a man again, next week he might be a dolphin named Rudolph, and so on. By that time, de iure he still will be a man Michal Szutowicz and this should be definitely included in the very first sentence of the article, as it is his real name and real sex/gender. As soon as he undergoes the needed surgery or legally changes his gender to female and legally changes his name, then it will be ok to include female Malgorzata into the first sentence. All these information about his current personal feelings of self-identification should be included in the article as well, but not in the heading. Heading should be brief and accurate and should not misinform. If you will follow the heading and look for some Malgorzata Szutowicz, you won't find any, as there is no one with such a name (who would correspond to activist Margot) living in Poland, just ask the authorities. Thus, I see no point currently in edit warring, the only solution that makes sense is to change this absurd Wikipedia rules. I will campaign for it firstly in our national level, then globally. I hope that now you understand the reasons of my actions. Best regards--Belisarius~skwiki (talk) 05:36, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Belisarius~skwiki, it seems that your disagreement here is with Wikipedia policy generally, not with this article. Wikipedia policy is MOS:GENDERID, which says Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the pronouns, possessive adjectives, and gendered nouns (for example "man/woman", "waiter/waitress", "chairman/chairwoman") that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification, along with MOS:DEADNAME, which says In the case of transgender and non-binary people, birth names should be included in the lead sentence only when the person was notable under that name (which we are debatable not correctly following here, depending on whether we define Margot as being notable under her masculine name). Obviously, Margot's latest expressed gender self-identification is the name "Malgorzata" and she/her pronouns, so per Wikipedia policy, we should use those. Do you disagree that that's what Wikipedia policy says or implies here?

If you don't disagree that that is what Wikipedia policy says and implies for this page, then you likely want to bring this discussion to Wikipedia talk:Manual_of_Style, where you can discuss changes to the Manual of Style (which is where those policies are defined). I doubt you'll find much traction here on English Wikipedia (and personally I think you're completely wrong), but you're free to attempt to change this.

Gbear605 (talk) 13:33, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Of course, we can respect the guidelines of MOS:GENDERID "Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the pronouns, possessive adjectives, and gendered nouns (...)". However, information for Malik78 in connection with its edition [2]:

1. name of "Michał" did not replace the name of "Małgorzata", name of Michał is mainly added near the "born" informations. Does not break the MOS:GENDERID in any way.
2. official, this is Michał Szutowicz, this person did not change their name, gender or any other! This is not the same situation like the person who changed their gender (sex reassignment surgery) and changed first name to female.
3. moreover, you broke the idea/pillar/genesis of encyclopedia. The encyclopedia should not hide the official facts because someone doesn't like them.
4. very many sources show name "Michał" referring to the Margot. In Poland, very many peoples know this person as Michał Sz. pseudonym Margot. This is meets the requirements of MOS:GENDERID.

PS. In many coutries, including Poland (Margot is Pole) pseudonym of "Margo" is not known at all. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 18:27, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

1. That doesn't break MOS:GENDERID, but it could break MOS:DEADNAME, depending on whether or not Margot "was notable under that name" of "Michał". The past tense here indicates that this is a scenario where a person used to be notable under a previous name and then the name was changed, such as Wendy Carlos. This is not relevant here, since Margot only became notable after identifying as "Małgorzata" and not as "Michał."

2. the key phrase is latest expressed gender self-identification, indicating that undergoing gender affirming surgery or changing legal name isn't important.

3. There are many facts that Wikipedia doesn't include. WP:BLP specifically says Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively.

4. MOS:GENDERID specifically is about referring to a person by their self-identification, which means that we should ignore what name people know Margot as and go with Margot's self-identified name.

And yes, "Margo" doesn't seem to be used in many sources, but it isn't a detriment in any way to *also* have it, since it doesn't disagree with MOS:GENDERID or with MOS:DEADNAME and it is used in some sources.

Gbear605 (talk) 18:46, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

1. Your wrote: "That doesn't break MOS:GENDERID, but it could break MOS:DEADNAME" - you wrong. Not break also MOS:DEADNAME. Michał is still active name, everywhere - not only in documentation, but also in sources.

2. latest expressed gender self-identification? Ok, does not mean that the encyclopedia is supposed to hide the facts.

3. It's not an argument. This is a moot point, this is debatable who or what, what can be shown and what not.

4. Please read my point #1: name of "Michał" did not replace the name of "Małgorzata", name of Michał is mainly added near the "born" informations.

"Margo" is used in some sources and it's good? 100 more sources used name of Michał. You pseudo-interpret the guelines for own opinion. Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. Summary: information about Michał in article not breaking any rules of Wikipedia and it is supported by many sources. The name of Michał is still active, everywhere - not only in official documents, but also everywhere else, in these sources the same type as they use the names Małgorzata and Margot. In article, name of "Michał" did not replace the name of "Małgorzata", name of Michał is mainly added near the "born" informations. So, you want to delete correct data (name), name in common use in everywhere, name supported by many sources. For me, this is trolling. And I repeat for the tenth time: in article name of "Michał" did not replace the name of "Małgorzata", name of Michał is mainly added near the "born" informations. So, stop trolling. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 19:26, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Subtropical-man, by my understanding MOS:DEADNAME is meant to refer to when a person was notable under the birth name BEFORE the person changed their name. Since Margot changed her name (and the preferred name is relevant here, not the legal name) before becoming notable, MOS:DEADNAME says that we should not include her birth name in the lead sentence, since birth names should be included in the lead sentence only when the person was notable under that name. That doesn't mean we should exclude it from the rest of the article, but just from the lead sentence.

As for "Margo" being included, it is different since it isn't against any policies while including "Michał" would be. I'm sure that you understand that different policies can apply to different names.

Gbear605 (talk) 19:39, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I understand what you are writing about. However, I found the crux of the problem. You wrote: "by my understanding MOS:DEADNAME (...)" - yes, by your understanding, just your understanding. You misunderstood the MOS:DEADNAME. Your text above is a funny interpretation. No offence. I'll explain it differently: there is a person (born in 1995 as Michał), in 2015 called himself as Malgorzata and Margot, in 2020 press made a stupid scandal. If (I repeat IF) the name of Michał ended "career" in 2010 and this person was famous only with the name Małgorzata or Margot - MOS:DEADNAME works here. However, it's different. In 2020, all names of this person (Małgorzata, Michał, Margot, eventually Margo) are used by the sources. This is not DEADNAME. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 20:05, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Well, it seems that our disagreement is around the specific wording of MOS:DEADNAME, which I don't think we'll reach an agreement on. I'll give other people some time to add their thoughts, but we might want to make an RFC about this. Gbear605 (talk) 20:21, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Clearly Subtropical-man is not a native speaker and has not understood the WP policy. The policy is quite clear. Also, Margot's preference for Malgorzata/Margot is clear too. Subtropical just doesn't seem to care. Malick78 (talk) 22:01, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

He says "In 2020, all names of this person (Małgorzata, Michał, Margot, eventually Margo) are used by the sources." It's not whether they use them, it's what RS say she prefers. Malick78 (talk) 22:03, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Do you understand what the discussion is about? The discussion is no longer about whether to use Michał instead of Małgorzata. The current discussion concerns the issue of entering the commonly used name of Michał near birth informations. There are no guidelines or rules that prohibit this. User:Gbear605 thing, I quote: "That doesn't break MOS:GENDERID, but it could break MOS:DEADNAME". It's just his opinion and interpretation. Always, you can create an RfC's topic, but I think before the RFC is done, the article will be integrated/merge or removed (new AfD). So. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 22:10, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Malik, if you are going to make the change like this [3] please also make change to the “other names” and change it to “Michał” in other names. Saying all that, I still think that Subtropical-man is right in this dispute with you. - GizzyCatBella🍁 22:15, 22 September 2020 (UTC) PS. I also requested page protection, so you fellows can cool off a bit. - GizzyCatBella🍁 22:15, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

GizzyCatBella, your "make the change like this" it is extremely poor wording. Malik have no right to delete data with sources without consensus. The data complies with Wikipedia policy. If Malik have a different opinion then present arguments + evidences and wait for consensus. Deleting data with sources without consensus and based on your own opinion is vandalism. Especially when there is an active discussion about this. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 22:22, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Summary:

• I'll explain it differently: there is a person (born in 1995 as Michał), in 2015 called himself as Malgorzata and Margot, in 2020 press made a stupid scandal. If (I repeat IF) the name of Michał ended "career" in 2010 and this person from 2020 was famous only with the name Małgorzata or Margot - MOS:DEADNAME works here. However, it's different. This person was known as Michał from the very beginning.
• The interpretation of MOS:DEADNAME may be debatable. If someone have a different opinion then present arguments + evidences and wait for consensus. Or even can create RfC, but I think before the RFC is done, the article will be integrated/merge or removed (new AfD). So. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 22:39, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP we are to edit *conservatively* and misgendering is a no go option. Her birth name is not notable nor in any way instrumental in understanding her. It’s not needed, and may cause harm. Gleeanon409 (talk) 01:31, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Her birth name is notable, according to the many sources. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 02:02, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

That’s far cry from actual notability by Wikipedia standards. Perhaps others agree with you though. Gleeanon409 (talk) 02:37, 23 September 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 [4] (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[5] 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". [6] 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)

Yeah, wow, Router can't translate correctly...such shoddy journalism. - GizzyCatBella🍁 12:07, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Notability

Hmmm, how does the subject meet WP:ANYBIO? [7] 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.[8] 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)

That’s from September 3, 2020. I thought ages are a little longer than that. - GizzyCatBella🍁 12:02, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I think that everything that she has done that would make her notable was under "Stop Bzdurom". So instead of merging with "polish stonewall" we could rename it "stop bzdurom" and expand it to include other things done by that organization. We could translate what's already in the polish article about Stop Bzdurom. I could do that (since I'm polish/english bilingual, polish being my native one). Matinee71 (talk) 21:59, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Agree - GizzyCatBella🍁 22:11, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

• I am against. Sorry. I think that article about Margot should be integrated with August 2020 LGBT protests in Poland (as section). Yes, can also add 1-2 sentences about StopBzdurom to August 2020 LGBT protests in Poland. OR, I could support this idea but only if there is one article "StupBzdurom" and... articles of Margot (activist) and August 2020 LGBT protests in Poland would be integrated to "StupBzdurom", according to the Polish Wikipedia. In short: I endorse one article covering the whole topic (Margo, StopBzdurom and August 2020 LGBT protests in Poland). Simply. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 22:44, 22 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: [9]). 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 [10]. 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) — Toby284 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• 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"[11]. 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) ( <---new account) - GizzyCatBella🍁 13:52, 20 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.
• Note: Also User:Opłotek support merge in Talk:Margot_(activist)#A_lot_of_problems. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 23:51, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Note to the note: User:Opłotek also said there needed to be more info about Margot herself. A view inconsistent with 'merge'. Malick78 (talk) 14:22, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

So Malik78, what do you overhear about the person identified by papers for being arrested as of today? (September) Hua?GizzyCatBella🍁 14:59, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

What's your point? If someone isn't in the papers for a month we delete their bio? Well, then we would have deleted Hillary Clinton's when she lost the 2016 election because she disappeared for at least 2 months. As it is, this month Margot was interviewed by Radiozet, one of Poland's most popular radio stations. Or do I now have to show something from this week? Malick78 (talk) 09:12, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Malick78, you mistook the encyclopedia for a blog or newspaper. You are trying to defend the garbages from newspapers in the encyclpedia. You also forget that the discussion is not about deleting all information about Margot, but discussion is about move/merge these informations with main article: August 2020 LGBT protests in Poland. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 10:00, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Are you comparing a person “famous" for being detained (once) to Hillary Clinton now Malik? Look! This fellow was also arrested once and gave an interview to the paper [12] - GizzyCatBella🍁 13:41, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Today the BBC interviewed Margot. Doesn't get bigger than that! Malick78 (talk) 21:41, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Please don't manipulate. This is BBC's article about "Inside Poland’s 'LGBT-free zones' ", this is not article about Margot. The article shows last several issues of LGBT situation in Poland, one of them is Margot. Simply. BBC's article about "Inside Poland’s 'LGBT-free zones' " can be helpful into the main article about LGBT situation in Poland, there is no need to create separate articles about people with no achievements. Encyclopedia is not kindergarten. We can even be said that Margot deserves only a mention in the main article about LGBT situation in Poland, just like the BBC did. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 21:46, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

@Malik, that BBC article is about Inside Poland’s LGBT-free zones, not about Margot. Explore the google harder. :) - GizzyCatBella🍁 23:39, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

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 misgender Margot. Misgendering is a form of violence, this article was hurtful. I [13] replaced the transphobic sources with good sources that discuss the transphobia again Margot. Juliett Tango Papa (talk) 05:25, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I reverted you. Seek consensus before and not after. Read above first.

Also Pink News is POV and thus NON:RS for the purposes here. Zezen (talk) 09:48, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Notability tag

I removed the notability tag in this edit; my rationale was: "not suitable after a recent deletion discussion resulted in a 'keep'". --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:59, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

A lot of problems

There can be found many language mistakes in the article such as left wing instead of "left-wing". "Politicians of the Law and Justice" instead of "Politicians of the Law and Justice PARTY". There are also a few factual errors. In article it is said that Margot was accused by the police when in fact she was accused by the prosecutors Office. And Margot's partner - Lu is not a trans man, he is non-binary. The author focused on media outlets' and public people reaction to Margot's activism more than on the activism itself. The author also paid too much attention to the Margot's name controversy. What is more the lead section is poorly structured. It does not mention all the most important facts about Margot. For example it does not mention the fact that Margot has been arrested. The part about personal life doesn't say anything about her relationship with her family And why she put rainbow flags on the statues in Warsaw. In fact most of the article is not about Margot, but about the controversy surrounding her. It is said that she only decorated the statues when in fact she has been accused of profaning a Jesus monument. It was also not mentioned that Margot has not changed her name and gender in her personal documents. To sum up, the article is poorly written. And it would be really hard job to correct it. In fact it should be written again not just corrected. It does not even look like an encyclopedia article. It has been suggested that this article be merged into August 2020 LGBT protests in Poland. And that's probably the best solution. --Opłotek (talk) 08:29, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

• There are problems, sure, but saying 'we need more personal info' hardly makes sense if you want to 'merge it with August 2020 LGBT protests'. Let's keep it separate and improve it. Malick78 (talk) 12:15, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

• Views section added. You're welcome. Malick78 (talk) 21:49, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Misgendering

According to WP:BLP we are to edit conservatively and with specific concern to misgendering I see zero reasons to include her birth name or draw extra attention to any other dead names. Gleeanon409 (talk) 01:06, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Gleeanon409, I agree, but there is active discussion in the Identity section above, so you might want to respond there. Gbear605 (talk) 01:07, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

• I dont agree. Nonsense. Her birth name is notable, according to the many sources. Why are you creating a new section in talk page? this topic is discussed in Talk:Margot_(activist)#Identity. Typical spamming. Gleeanon409, congratulations on vandalism in article (delete data with sources without consensus) and spamming (creating new discussion about the same topic). Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 02:02, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

@Gbear605 - How on earth her legal and born name is not up to general standards and misgendering? You are removing (entering into edit war) public data despite RS covering that in-depth. This is an encyclopedia, mind me reminding it to you. - GizzyCatBella🍁 03:03, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

GizzyCatBella, what's the context here? I haven't edited the page (about this issue) in at least the last two weeks (I can't remember what specific changes I made before then), and my arguments regarding MOS:DEADNAME are pretty clear above in the Identity section. Are you confusing me and Gleeanon409? Gbear605 (talk) 03:07, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I think you should have studied the article before jumping into the edit war. Margot's legal name is now entirely removed from the lead/infobox and reported only in the name controversies section. So you can notice that the legal name that she is also using up to today, and publicly stated she doesn't mind being called by her legal name, is notable. We established that I hope. But if the legal name is notable, then it should be stated in the lead of the article as well, per lead patterns. At least in the infobox. But take a look at how an infobox looks like now after your revert[14] ---> Other names - Małgorzata, Margot or Margo. So what you produced is a mess, with encyclopedic data eliminated for "misgendering" reasons that are purely an opinion. I didn't see her being misgendered here other than by some trolls who did precisely what you did but in the reverse direction. They removed her preferred name and were trying to insert a legal name only. I'll remind you all fellows again; this is an encyclopedia (or it suppose to be) GizzyCatBella🍁 03:38, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Margot became notable under Margot, not before under her birth name, or any other name. And this encyclopedia is to be edited *conservatively* especially respecting gender identity on BLPs.

The names controversy feels like an end-run to get around our restrictions from using her birth name.Gleeanon409 (talk) 03:48, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

- "our restrictions from using her birth name" - what restrictions? Cite it please - GizzyCatBella🍁 03:55, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

MOS:DEADNAME. Gleeanon409 (talk) 04:19, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

That’s the link, I know that. Please cite where it says that legal and still in use by subject herself name is restricted to use by us, please - "our restrictions from using her birth name"GizzyCatBella🍁 04:26, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

It’s at the core spirit of BLP, do no harm. Edit *conservatively* in regards to private and possibly embarrassing details about living people. It’s alarming this has to be explained. Gleeanon409 (talk) 04:37, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

No, what's alarming is that you entered an edit war without reviewing the article first and then claimed restrictions that don't exist, dear friend. - GizzyCatBella🍁 04:47, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

@Gleeanon409 Do me a favour, please, since you messed up an info box with your edit [15] Take a look now at "other names" in the infobox, think about it and fix it, please. There are two options to fix it, but since you messed it up, I'll let you decide how to correct it. - GizzyCatBella🍁 05:02, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

The infobox has no other birth names or male names. Gleeanon409 (talk) 05:09, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

It seems to me that you are not paying full attention to what you edit. So let me explain it to you. You eliminated her legal name from the infobox, but you haven't removed her preferred name from "other names" in the infobox. So her adopted name (Małgorzata) doesn't belong to "other names" anymore. Her legal name (Michał) does. So now, you have to either record her legal name (Michał) into the infobox in "other names" or remove her preferred name (Małgorzata) since it is not her "other names" anymore. Is this explained? - GizzyCatBella🍁 05:39, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Misgendering is homophobic violence.[16] It is not encyclopedic, it is homophobic violence towards a living, breathing person with real feelings.--Plunging (talk) 05:46, 23 September 2020 (UTC)