Jump to content

Talk:Margot (activist)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

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)

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:

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

Misgendering is homophobic violence.[1] Hanging a nice rainbow flag on a statue is a decoration.--Plunging (talk) 05:48, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Notability

Hmmm, how does the subject meet WP:ANYBIO? [2] 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.[3] 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)(blocked sockpuppet)

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)

She's a famous non-binary icon, notable for herself.--Plunging (talk) 05:50, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

icon? this is worthless person doing the circus. Even in Polish Wikipedia (Margot is Pole) recognized as not notable/noteworthy/encyclopedical person. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 09:13, 23 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 [4] replaced the transphobic sources with good sources that discuss the transphobia again Margot. Juliett Tango Papa (talk) 05:25, 8 September 2020 (UTC)(blocked sockpuppet)

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)

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)(blocked sockpuppet)

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[5] ---> 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)

(blocked sockpuppet)(blocked sockpuppet)

- "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)(blocked sockpuppet)

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 [6] 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)(blocked sockpuppet)

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)
Gleeanon409, if you have any questions then quote exactly - as GizzyCatBella wrote, it is not enough to write a link like MOS:DEADNAME. You must identify exactly which sentence you are referring to, give a quote. Anyone can act like you, deleted data and describe it as break BLP or similar. This is against Wikipedia rules. If the data is supported by sources and you want to delete it, you have to prove!!! that the data deleted is incorrect. I want to remove 90% of articles on Wikipedia, I can't remove them - I have to prove that they need to be removed first - this is simply and clear. You haven't proved anything yet. You writing something about BLP or deadname, without exact quotes. These are not arguments. Writing word of "conservative" is not an argument. In the case of Margot, this person has no problem to used the name of Michał. Even, in a video interview (in Polish), she spoke of herself in the sense of a man (male). Well, your all theories are nonsense. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 09:44, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
It's not causing harm, though. One of Margot's partners said that Margot is not offended by being referred to as their birth name Michał (source). Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 13:46, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Misgendering is homophobic violence.[7] It is not encyclopedic, it is homophobic violence towards a living, breathing person with real feelings.--Plunging (talk) 05:46, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

the encyclopedia is supposed to present the facts. It doesn't matter if someone doesn't like them. Date, place and name of birth is just dry data, nothing more. You're not in kindergarten. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 09:18, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
No. Encyclopaedias don't present 'the facts'. They present what is covered in reliable sources. When it comes to gender, because reliable sources are often tainted by ideology (more than with other 'facts'), WP policy steps in to regulate things. We go with the person's preferred gender and you are disingenuous if you claim Margot hasn't shown a clear preference. She has also been using her preferred name for a time period which predates her fame, so her old name was not preferred by her when she hit the headlines. Ergo, we shouldn't use her old name. BLP backs this up by asking us to favour her wishes. Malick78 (talk) 10:47, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
You wrote: "No. Encyclopaedias don't present 'the facts'. They present what is covered in reliable sources" - nonsense, not everything contained in the sources is encyclopedical. Second case: first sources in Pland wrote about the arrest of Michał Sz., later they wrote about Margot. Third case: the preferred first name (Małgorzata) is used in the article, title of article is "Małgorzata Szutowicz", no one removes her preferred name. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 12:18, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Subtropical-man, Plunging, I'm not going to get involved in this, but I would advise that you two be careful as you are both nearing the WP:3RR. I would advise you leave the page how it was before the debate started or how it is now. and wait for consensus to be formed here. LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 12:40, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
As Gbear already said: MOS:DEADNAME. You should not be editing this page after you attacked Margot here. Subtropical-man is adding libelous sources like nczas.com and radiomaryja.pl. --Plunging (talk) 12:42, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Plunging, case of MOS:DEADNAME was explained. I'not attacked Margot, I expressed my opinion - this person has no achievement, she was arrested for assault and vandalism. He/she is a low-ranking criminal, that's all. PS. Please stop breaking phillar of Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Articles should have various sources, and not only favorable Margot. I even compromised and replaced the source of radiomaryja with several others. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 13:05, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Please provide a source stating that Margot does not wish to be referred to as their birth name. Because, this source has one of Margot's partners saying being referred to as Michał does not offend Margot. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 13:46, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Isn't Margot non-binary? I thought non-binary people used they/them pronouns, but this article uses she/her. Is that not misgendering because Margot does not identify as a woman? Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 14:04, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Abbyjjjj96, non-binary people can use they/them pronouns, she/her pronouns, he/him pronouns, or something else entirely depending on the person's preferences. Non-binary gender#Pronouns and titles has more information about this. In this case, it seems that Margot prefers to use she/her pronouns, so that's what the article uses. My source for that are RSes like the BBC, that are known to use the same policy as Wikipedia, using she/her pronouns for Margot. Gbear605 (talk) 14:42, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Edit war

Subtropical has readded essentially the same info 6 times over the last 25 hours, overruling multiple editors. Can we block him??? He has also added 3 'vandalism' warnings to talkpages of editors here; a clear attempt at bullying. Malick78 (talk) 12:57, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

This is debatable topic. The discussion is still ongoing. Nobody has the right to delete data with reliable sources without consensus if there are objections by other users. It doesn't matter that you have your opinion - you have the right to own opinion, you have the right to express your opinion in the discussion but no have any rights to delete data with reliable sources without consensus if there are objections by other users.
the rule is simple: there will be consensus, this section will be deleted. So far - your editions are vandalism: deleting data with sources, deleting entire sections, deleting new sources... without consensus. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 13:02, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

The article should be protection to allow time for discussion. Some here are trying to push their opinion without consensus. The problem is that this is a large amount content + more sources, there is no chance of removing it without consensus, especially if there are objections by other. Page has been submitted for protection by user Genericusername57. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 13:20, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

The Subtropical male is adding libelous material and slandering Margot on this page.--Plunging (talk) 13:48, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Their username is Subtropical-man, not Subtropical male. Aren't sex and gender identity not always aligned? Why are you assuming their sex based on their gender? Your comment is offensive. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 13:55, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Plunging, these are facts. Margot has committed a crime, you forget where you are. This is encyclopedia, this is not portal for the oppressed and poor LGBT. The encyclopedia presents facts and sources, not just those that write well about Margot. Must be!!!! all sources for both sides. This is phillar of Wikiepadia, please read WP:NPOV. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 14:25, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
This is slander of the worst sort. Margot placed flags, and she was never convicted of any crime. Using hate sources is against Wikipedia ethics.--Plunging (talk) 14:39, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

What's going on here? User:Plunging remove whole section of Naming controversies with 18 sources. He refers to MOS:DEADNAME, DEADNAME it applies only to the intro of article, not the entire section (last section in article). User:Plunging writes that some sources in article attack Margot because they write his real name - I have never seen such stupidity. Someone stop this troll. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 14:42, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

The section used hate material. Slander. Misgendering is violence against Margot and does not belong anymore, Polityka calls it violence.--Plunging (talk) 14:48, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
are you normal? I have not seen greater stupidity on Wikipedia. The section used hate material? Why? Because used real name of Michał? Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 14:51, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

@Plunging: - quick question: how section wit the sorces break the MOS:DEADNAME? Please quote from MOS:DEADNAME telling your theories. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 14:54, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Also, the account of Plunging was created for vandalism[8]. 95% of all edits by this users is edit-wars, remove data with sources from article. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 14:51, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
So not only slander against Margot, but slander against me? misgendering is violence and against Wikipedia ethics.--Plunging (talk) 14:54, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia ethics? Where is "Wikipedia ethics", please link. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 14:55, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Plunging, Subtropical-man, please stop your edit warring. At this point, at least Subtropical-man is blatantly in violation of WP:3RR and Plunging might be as well, although they were acting in the belief of WP:3RRBLP, which allows Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to our biographies of living persons (BLP) policy. What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Neither of you are going to reach a conclusion by edit warring, and a request about this has already been posted at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring. Gbear605 (talk) 15:01, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Gbear605 I will stop, even though WP:3RRBLP applies. I await for someone else to remove this slanderous libel and violent misgendering attack against Margot from the page.--Plunging (talk) 15:06, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Plunging clearly understands WP policies; Subtropical does not. He has reverted multiple other editors: it's him alone causing a problem. Malick78 (talk) 15:27, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
I also reverted Plunging removing the information (here), so it's not Subtropical-man alone against multiple other editors. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 15:52, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

@Plunging: Can you please stop falsely claiming that listing Margot's birth name is violence? Łania Madej, one of Margot's partners, has said that Margot is not offended at being called Michał (source). Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 15:52, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

  • red-outlined triangle containing exclamation point Warning I have reverted the page to what looks like its last good version. I am now handing out blocks. If the edit warring resumes, there will be additional blocks. This stops, right now. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:56, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Sources

Can someone familiar with reliable sourcing rules please look at removing poor and unreliable sources per BLP? We should only be using reliable sources but in a zeal to prove her birth name is or isn’t notable I’m convinced some less than ideal sources have been added.

If needed we can ask at the WP:RSNB to affirm their use. Gleeanon409 (talk) 22:30, 23 September 2020 (UTC)(blocked sockpuppet)

Stop Bzdurom - translation is wrong

Bzdura in Polish means nonsense [9] (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[10] 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". [11] 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)(blocked sockpuppet)

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

While it literally means 'nonsense' the way ti's used is closer to how 'bullshit' is used in english albeit less rude. Either way we have to go based off of reliable sources. blindlynx (talk) 07:36, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

"stop with the bullshit/nonsense" is probably more accurate come to think of it blindlynx (talk) 11:33, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 2 October 2020

File:Stop Bzdurom (cropped).jpg was deleted from commons 2 October 2020. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 18:49, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:46, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 5 October 2020

Hi, In the article there is a many places where is used 'she', this person is non-binary, what means that if you use 'she' you discriminate her/his mental gender that is fluid. You should use 'she/he' and 'his/her' instead to respect his/her mental gender. 2A02:A31A:A040:3600:C453:9391:729F:EFB7 (talk) 12:38, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

According to the sources, Margot prefers to use she/her pronouns, which is a common preference of non-binary people. Other people who are nonbinary might prefer they/them pronouns, he/him pronouns, a neopronoun (such as xir), or a mixture (like you are suggesting). Given that sources report that Margot prefers she/her pronouns and very reliable sources like Time and BBC use she/her pronouns for Margot, we should continue to use she/her pronouns for Margot in the article. However, if you have a source that Margot prefers to use multiple pronouns (some nonbinary people do!), then the situation is different. Gbear605 (talk) 12:57, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

: Not done, until Margot expresses a change from what we have. Gleeanon409 (talk) 13:59, 5 October 2020 (UTC)(blocked sockpuppet)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Margot_(activist)/Archive_1&oldid=1022061075"