Talk:Margot (activist)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

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: [1]). 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 [2]. 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"[3]. 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) (blocked sockpuppet) <--- — Juliett Tango Papa (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• 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) (Not watching this page)
• 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 [4] - 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)

I said 'interviewed'. Now unless they read her thoughts, they probably had to interview her to quote her. Simples. Malick78 (talk) 10:41, 23 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)

You also need to learn the English verb 'to interview'. Polish doesn't have a standalone verb for it, so I understand your confusion, but please try harder to keep up and perhaps invest in a better dictionary. Malick78 (talk) 10:41, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

• Keep. She's a famous non-binary icon.--Plunging (talk) 05:49, 23 September 2020 (UTC) <--- — Plunging (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• her pseudo-fame comes to an end. ----> (removed by GCB)<---. Even in Polish Wikipedia (Margot is Pole) recognized as not notable/noteworthy/encyclopedical person. It is a pity that people with a child's mentality vote on Wikipedia, they confuse temporary fame in the press with being encyclopedical. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 10:01, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Subtropical, I spayed your comment above. (WP:BLP issues) Please mind this. - GizzyCatBella🍁 15:10, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

*Oppose, Margot is notable on her own and a good article is possible with reliable sources per the AfD. Gleeanon409 (talk) 22:24, 23 September 2020 (UTC) - (blocked sockpuppet)

• Keep, a notable activist, who's been active not just during the recent protests. Ausir (talk) 21:27, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
• Keep as is There are three lines in this article about the the August 2020 protests. Clearly they are more notable outside of thier involvement in those protests. blindlynx (talk) 21:39, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
• Keep Margot is well-known in international reliable sources - BBC, Human Rights Watch, Time magazine - and she co-founded a well-known Polish human rights organisation according to multiple reliable sources. There is no thematic justification for merging. See Gbear605's detailed policy-based points above too. Boud (talk) 16:52, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 15 October 2020

Grammar - please change the second sentence of the lead from "the consequences of disinformation about LGBT community" to "the consequences of disinformation about the LGBT community". Thanks! TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 00:01, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:38, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

RFC about the ways to discuss Margot's gender identity

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion is that there appears to be clear concensus in favour of removing her deadname from both the lead and infobox. There is no clear consensus regarding the controversy section and whether it should be kept or removed. This close has no prejudice towards another RfC being filed to resolve the second question. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:20, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

---

Should the article include her deadname in the lead sentence and how should it discuss the controversy around her name? Gbear605 (talk) 16:07, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

note: a link to this RFC has been posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poland and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies

To summarize the issue for those who are new to the page, there is currently a question about whether the lead should include Margot's dead name (the masculine name that she was born under) or not. The relevant policy here is 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.

The argument in favor of including it in the lead sentence:

• a number of sources refer to her with that name, indicating that she is notable under that name,
• Margot has not changed her legal name or had Sex reassignment surgery
• according to a quote of one of Margot's partners, using Margot's deadname doesn't offend her (this source is paywalled and in Polish, so I have not been able to verify this, but Abbyjjjj96 asserts it and the source appears to be an RS)

The argument against including it in the lead sentence:

• those sources are primarily (only?) in Polish, many have a bias and are not RSes (I can't quantify this, since I don't have familiarity with Polish news sources, but at least some of them are not RS)
• MOS:DEADNAME's meaning of "the person was notable under that name" implies that the person was previously notable under the deadname but changed their name after becoming notable, as is the case for Wendy Carlos and Caitlyn Jenner, but as is not the case here, since Margot only became notable after preferring the name Margot. This second interpretation is backed by WP:TRANSNAME, an essay in WP:WikiProject LGBT studies

There is also the related question of which names should be shown in the infobox.

In addition, there is a section on "Naming controversies" that discusses the issue. Wikipedia does not seem to have policy about this, with MOS:GENDERID being the closest. There is a question about what is WP:DUE here, but I don't think either side has presented meaningful arguments about this.

Gbear605 (talk) 16:20, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Comment: This is a misrepresentation, IMO. It isn't just about the lead sentence, which would go against MOS:DEADNAME. That guideline does not extend to the rest of the article. People have also been removing the birth name from the infobox, so the dispute seems to be more about whether or not it should be included in the article at all. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 17:01, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Abbyjjjj96, I believe the three places that the deadname has been used are the lead sentence, the infobox, and the "naming controversies" section (which was at one point broken up into a couple of sections), all three of which I mention in my argument note above. I would also welcome discussion on whether it should be mentioned at all, but I believe that the case of the lead sentence was the main issue. Gbear605 (talk) 17:10, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I meant the RfC question, not your comment underneath it. But there you list reasons for and against "including it in the lead sentence" and mention my username with the source I have been using as an argument, except I haven't been arguing for it to be included in the lead sentence. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 17:26, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Ah, I see I messed up there. Sorry, my bad. Gbear605 (talk) 17:30, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Also, while this source is behind a paywall, the information is right at the top of the article so you don't need a subscription to see it. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 17:29, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

• Exclude deadname, mention that homophobic media and such use it. Following Gazeta Wyborcza in [5] and Polityka in [6], the violent use of the masculine form of the name has attracted attention, and is considered by Polityka and Gazeta Wyborcza to be a form of violence. So mentioning this homophobia is okay, but misgendering Margot on Wikipedia is not okay.--Plunging (talk) 16:24, 23 September 2020 (UTC) <--- — Plunging (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. GizzyCatBella🍁 17:59, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
• Include birth name in article: Margot's partner has said that Margot isn't offended by being referred to as Michał (source), so the reasoning that editors have given for removing it—that it's harmful or violent—is invalid. MOS:DEADNAME only covers the lead sentence and doesn't say to exclude it elsewhere in the article, so I think it should be included in the infobox birth name parameter. As for the "Naming controversies" section, I don't think it really needs to be there, but I'm not against it being there. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 17:01, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

• While her partner is quoted as saying she's not offended, that's not the same as Margot saying it. To give up a right WP gives her, she should be the one waiving it. Malick78 (talk) 17:05, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Even if Margot herself said it, that would make no difference. She was never notable under her birth name, which makes MOS:DEADNAME completely clear that we should exclude it. --Aquillion (talk) 03:16, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I'd remove "Michał" from lead and infobox, simply on the basis that what slim notability she has is as "Margot". Any other name is scarcely relevant. Not sure if MOS:DEADNAME is applicable, as that rather depends if the person has renounced/changed their name, or simply goes by two names. Anyone know what the score is here? What does Szutowicz say? Their opinion is what counts, not one or other Wikipedia editor.

The "Naming controversies" section should definitely go, simply as original synthesis. Editors do not get to collate resources, point out where they disagree, and therefore pronounce it "controversy". For there to be "controversy", we need a reliable source actually discussing the "controversy". Similarly for the psychologists references. Unless they are discussing the article subject, suggesting that their observations apply is original research.

Lastly, editors labelling contents as "violence" is not a helpful for discussion . --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:14, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

• Remove from lede and Infobox per MOS:DEADNAME. Nothing in the article indicates she was notable before changing her name, so there is no reason to leave it on the lede and in the infobox. I'm neutral on its usage on the "Naming controversies" section. Isabelle ^🔔 17:46, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
• Remove from lead and infobox Whether or not someone has had gender affirmation surgery should be quite irrelevant to which name Wikipedia calls them. Whether or not to have surgery is a highly personal decision that can be influenced, not only by personal philosophy, but also by lack of availability of surgeons, medical issues that make safe surgery more complex if not downright impossible, or not being to afford the surgery. In a lot of areas, it can be difficult to legally change someones' name. Otherwise reliable sources can sometimes be insensitive to trans and/or non-binary people. Unless Margot herself notices the Wikipedia article and give us permission to use her deadname in the lead and infobox (unlikely!), let's remove it from those places. (Summoned by bot) I dream of horses (Contribs) Please notify me after replying off my talk page. Thank you. 20:15, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Politics and government. I dream of horses (Contribs) Please notify me after replying off my talk page. Thank you. 20:19, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

• Include the legal name still used by her, and referred to by RS, as necessary encyclopedic information, per my prior comments above (see this talk page for more) - GizzyCatBella🍁 21:11, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
• Remove from lead and Infobox per MOS:DEADNAME. The naming controversy section is also suspect, since it is synthesis essentially. Malick78 (talk) 21:41, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
• Remove from lead and Infobox per MOS:DEADNAME. The naming controversy section should also be removed as it’s a magnet for misgendering trolling. Gleeanon409 (talk) 22:36, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: Is everyone who says to also remove from the infobox per MOS:DEADNAME actually reading it? The guideline 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. Lead sentence, no mention of the infobox. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 23:05, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

• In spirit and in practice it means the entire lead, which includes the infobox, and extends to all article space, just like BLP covers all of Wikipedia even though it’s not tediously spelled out. It should be rewritten to spell it out better. Gleeanon409 (talk) 23:22, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
• Agree; the infobox is as eye-catching and influential/harmful as putting the info in the lead.............Malick78 (talk) 08:19, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
• Keep reading. It says If such a subject was not notable under their former name, it usually should not be included in the article, even if some reliable sourcing exists for it. The infobox is part of the article, meaning WP:DEADNAME says we should exclusion the name from it. --Aquillion (talk) 03:16, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

• Remove from lead and Infobox per above discussions. Idealigic (talk) 17:31, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Remove from lead and Infobox Not notable under deadname, no encyclopedic value to having it. Antisymmetricnoise (talk) 22:35, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

• Remove from lead & infobox, per MOS:DEADNAME. Also lose the "Naming controversy" section as WP:OR based on, in part, questionable outlets such as Radio Maryja and Najwyższy Czas!. The latter is described as "anti-gay" in its article, per the SPLC. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:18, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
• Remove from lead, infobox, and naming controversy section per MOS:DEADNAME. She was never notable under her birth name, so policy is clear and there's no obvious benefit to including it. MOS:DEADNAME requires removal from the entire article, which includes the naming controversy section; the name has no particular value or benefit even in that section. However, I'm not against retaining the section itself, without it actually using the name, as long as we review the sources and make sure they're all solid - we can note existence of media that uses her former name without including the name itself (again, it's not clear what benefit it provides when she was never notable under it and has never been significantly referred to using it in English-language media.) --Aquillion (talk) 03:16, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.