Talk:Sarah Hegazi/Archive 1
Queer not lesbian
[edit]Dear User:Lugnuts, User:Howserman, User:New Zeus, User:Boredintheevening, User:AngryHarpy, User:Prahlad balaji
We have to make this really clear that there was no where the subject ever claimed to be a lesbian activist. She was a queer activist who had also gone on to advocate against crimes against humanity, journalists and capitalism. She was arrested and tortured for LGBT advocacy not lesbian advocacy. Don't you think we should choose 'queer activist' since there are no foundational references to point otherwise. Wikipedia should not change the narrative. Others will come here to pick the wrong thing. She was never reported a lesbian activist. Danidamiobi (talk) 12:23, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
- Ok, let's change it to queer. ◊PRAHLADbalaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 12:25, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
- I'll keep an eye on the page. Unfortunately anticipating that there will be some vandalism/trolling/edit wars as the news of her death spreads, I've already read upsetting content on some Arabic language websites.Boredintheevening (talk) 12:27, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
- User:2A02:C7F:1833:A100:74A0:7DA5:365F:E1C8 and User:139.179.205.245 have been editing this too. I propose that we write the intro as something like "Sarah Hegazi (1990 – June 14, 2020), also spelled Hegazy, was an Egyptian Lesbian who advocated for LGBTQ+ rights" because that may stop this constant back and forth editing. It's also frustrating that editors are doing this through IP accounts. Clearly there are strong feelings on this issue and dialogue so we can resolve it would be great. Otherwise, we need to make this article at least semi-protected until the edit-warring stops.Boredintheevening (talk) 16:31, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
There is also no evidence she fought for ‘queer’ rights. I agree that LGBT activist is probably best. I don’t think a homophobic slur that not all of us in the community want to reclaim is best for someone who suffered at the hand of homophobia. Goldmurate (talk) 18:13, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
- I see where you're coming from, definitely a good point. At the moment I'm trying to find what terms she used in her own activism in case that can help guide and finalize answering this question. Any input on this would be much appreciated.Boredintheevening (talk) 18:58, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Her name is sara and we remember her as a poetess, militant and brave intellectual. القاسم موسي محمد (talk) 03:03, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
A martyr to the eternity remembered القاسم موسي محمد (talk) 03:03, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion
[edit]The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion:
.jpg){kind=link}
You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:22, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Relevance....
[edit]In the German Wikipedia there is a discussion about "relevance" of an article about Sarah Hegazi. Is there any notable discussion in the English Wikipedia? 78.48.118.133 (talk) 08:09, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- By relevance, do you mean notability? Flycatchr 10:38, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- I mean: Is an article about Sarah Hegazi relevant or not? In Germany, there is a discussion about the question, if to keep an article about her...78.48.118.133 (talk) 12:36, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- There hasn't been a discussion on the English Wikipedia about this, however the Arabic version of the article has been deleted (not necessarily because of lack of notability) and the French one has also been recently nominated for deletion too. Flycatchr 14:21, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Cause of death not confirmed
[edit]The suicide note alone doesn't prove she really committed suicide, nor her past life traumas do, the news reports lack any evidence confirming her cause of death, or method of her claimed suicide. القاسم موسي محمد (talk) 10:40, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
The public rage over the news between two extremes, her progressive friends and lgbt+ supporters on one hands and the islamist/Conservative circles on the other hand, has made a shallow story of a cliche suicide, but all the published news lack the evidence that confirms she was not really murdered and suicided (an international well known assassination method and the Egyptian intelligence were previously pointed out in several mysterious deaths aka suicide of prominent Egyptian figures in exile) القاسم موسي محمد (talk) 10:46, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
- Her lawyer has confirmed her death as suicide.I hope this concludes this discussion. We can revisit it if contradictory information arises.Boredintheevening(talk) 14:29, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi القاسم موسي محمد, I just wanted to reach out and say that I've seen your recent edits regarding a belief that Hegazi may have been murdered. You seem very insistent on that belief, and even though I do not agree I recognize your concern and why you are questioning the situation. I think it would be best to discuss this here on the Talk page rather than descending into an editing war. I promise that if I come across any reliable sources which give more substance to this concern, I will make every effort to incorporate this topic. If you continue to make edits which suggest her cause of death as a murder, they will very likely be reverted by other editors because the consensus from available sources (including those close to Hegazi) at the moment is suicide. If you do continue pushing this claim, please try to find reliable sources which address this theory and cite them in your edits.Boredintheevening (talk) 12:03, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Ok, but hee lawyer who lives in Egypt isn't legally accustomed to announce her cause of death even before an official death report is made, I contacted some of her friends and contacts both in Egypt and in Canada they all believe she committed suicide, I just found the early media feverish campaigns about such tragic incident, were neither professional nor sensible regarding her life and experiences, even from posts that intended to glorify those experiences, indeed she was a special person, literally and metaphorically she was killed by cruelty and injustice of decaying monsters, so as lot of beautiful young people were killed or exhausted to death in recent times, it is cruel to think of death as political so is our world. القاسم موسي محمد (talk) 06:02, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
I have to add that I don't trust neither most of her gay friends nor lawyers القاسم موسي محمد (talk) 10:18, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Not Wikipedia of course القاسم موسي محمد (talk) 02:52, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
It's about challenging the ugly narrative القاسم موسي محمد (talk) 02:52, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Arabic Language Deletion
[edit]It is my understanding that the deletion of the Arabic language page is part of a long term and co-ordinated pattern of erasure of LGBT persons, history, and culture from Arabic language Wikipedia. This is a flagrant misuse of a platform that is meant to be about providing free education and information to all. To the editors who are working on the Arabic language page, thank you so much for your efforts and I hope that the page can be restored soon. Boredintheevening (talk) 10:36, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- It's not a documented and well-covered fact, however there's evidence of this pattern. There's a virtual town hall tonight to talk about the deletion of the article, if you're interested to join let me know! Flycatchr 14:06, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- I'm pondering rephrasing this sentence as it does appear like an opinion rather than a statement of fact, however I'm not sure how:
The virtual response to Hegazi's death reflects what Laura DeNardis and Andrea M. Hackl identify as the use of the internet as 'control point' through which LGBT rights are mediated and LGBT identities are suppressed - particularly in an Egyptian context.
- Flycatchr have you seen this recently published article, would you consider it a viable source for referencing the deletion controversy?
All the best, Boredintheevening (talk) 23:31, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Correcting Translation of شواذ - Queer not Homosexual
[edit]Hello, Thank you for all the editors putting this together. I am not familiar with Wikipedia so forgive my ignorance about the platform. Hopefully it's ok to raise an issue here. In this article, in the section containing "شواذ - Arabic pejorative for homosexuals":
1. This quote isn't from a ministry spokesman, but from an unaffiliated journalist https://www.eremnews.com/entertainment/society/2267772 https://twitter.com/olso_82?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1274613502456496128&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eremnews.com%2Fentertainment%2Fsociety%2F2267772
2. I think the gloss for شواذ is inappropriate. Shawadh can be used as a pejorative, but against people of all non-normative sexualities, not just homosexuality. Furthermore, it isn't entirely negative, it can also a neutral or positive term for queer people in the Arabic language. Like queer in English it can have negative associations, but also like English, using "شواذ" for "queer" is partly about reclaiming the word by the community, and also plainly affirming the term's dictionary definition & premise (of being different, non-conforming, exceptional). Some queer people prefer كوير to شاذ because they think the later is too negative, but in my opinion that means they don't understand the English and/or Arabic languages & their parallel histories. That's an argument for another time, but at the very least the other interpretation by Arab queers should be accounted for in your gloss. And these larger issues should also be in the back of our minds as we edit please, especially given the context of some Arabic Wikipedia editors trying to erase our history. Calling the Arabic term pejorative (as opposed to Western/English-derived vocabulary) indirectly supports these critics, and their frequent arguments about authenticity/particularity/universality/etc . Thank you again and all my solidarity! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qenc (talk • contribs) 14:10, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you kind editor, I fixed point number 1. Regarding point number 2, can you provide a reference? I want to add the other interpretation you mention. Flycatchr 14:18, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Flycatcher, here are a few examples I found:
1. "الاغتراب باللغة – ثورات أجندات وتابوهات لغوية / نسرين مزاوي" https://www.qadita.net/featured/nisreen3/
2. "The Words to Say It" https://www.mashallahnews.com/language/words-to-say.html
3. Lebanon Support's Gender Dictionary entry for queer https://civilsociety-centre.org/gen-dictionary/q/34588
4. And there's lots of random/spontaneous discourse you can find on twitter by trying different search terms. Here's just one recent example: https://twitter.com/CartoOony/status/1273412372116488192
Point About Erasure of LGBT in MENA region
[edit]I'm pondering rephrasing this sentence as it does appear like an opinion rather than a statement of fact, however I'm not sure how:
The virtual response to Hegazi's death reflects what Laura DeNardis and Andrea M. Hackl identify as the use of the internet as 'control point' through which LGBT rights are mediated and LGBT identities are suppressed - particularly in an Egyptian context.
Flycatchr 14:11, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- I deleted it - It's WP:OR and Novel synthesis - eg however you write it, it is saying that X fits the theoretical perspective of Y - the source itself does not make that claim. Cameron Scott (talk) 07:25, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Suppression of Grieving
[edit]There are reports that people in LGBT communities feel suppressed from being able to grieve. This is contextually important for the emerging topic of erasure. Unfortunately, this is only being expressed in social media pages and through self-published blogs for instance: https://queerswhocantgriefinpublic.wordpress.com/about is there a way of finding more appropriate sources for this? Wiki does not generally accept self-published sources like these. There is also a language issue in that available sources are largely non-English. Appreciate that this is a developing issue so there may be some lag on resolving this. Thoughts? Boredintheevening (talk) 14:44, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
[edit]The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
_%D8%B3%D8%A7%D8%B1%D8%A9_%D8%AD%D8%AC%D8%A7%D8%B2%D9%8A.jpg){kind=link}
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:24, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Coat-racking
[edit]This article is in dangerous of being a coat-rack for a general discussion of LGBTQ+ rights in the middle east and Egypt specifically. The article should be about Sarah Hegazi specifically. Cameron Scott (talk) 14:42, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
- I think the more dangerous trend in this article is that information is being rapidly deleted and minimized with little debate as a result of potentially over-zealous deletionism. If you want to encourage better editing it should be done through dialogue and engagement with other editors and collaborating to improve the article. I think we'll have a much better page if we try to bring editors together and work through our different approaches.Boredintheevening (talk) 22:57, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
- What different approaches? If it is OR or attempts to create novel synthesis it should be deleted. Cameron Scott (talk) 07:19, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
This does not appear to be WP:RS - looking at it - anyone who emails in any article can be published (lack of editorial control) and I noticed two editors here discussing that an article was written because they needed one written as a source for this article. If anyone thinks it is WP:RS could they outline how it means the criteria? Cameron Scott (talk) 07:22, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
- Additional refs added. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 08:46, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
- That's great (the BBC for example is an RS) but it's nothing to do with the question I've posed in this section. Unless you are saying in a round-about way it is NOT a RS? Cameron Scott (talk) 12:25, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
- It's more circular than meets the eye; The BBC piece itself is citing the Raseef22 post, and a tweet. --Ahmed M Farrag (talk) 14:47, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
- That in itself would not make the original a RS - the BBC is generally considered RS in most if not all circumstances so using the BBC as a reference seems pretty uncontroversial? As for Raseef22 - the website is a bit oblique on all sorts of thing that we'd expect to see - now I'm mindful that this is partly for the protection of the people working on it but we still have to consider if overall if something is WP:RS. As it stands I'm convinced it is. Cameron Scott (talk) 14:54, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
It's all bullshit citing one another القاسم موسي محمد (talk) 02:57, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Deletions
[edit]There's a pattern of toxic deletions when enough RS are available for anyone to check. I'd greatly appreciate if the editors who are engaging in this act to review the cited articles and refrain from deleting and wastinge everyone's time. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 09:45, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
There are two elements to an edit - RS + how it is used. Cameron Scott (talk) 12:22, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Cameron Scott: I agree. An admin from the Arabic Wikipedia removed the section about the deletion of the article about Sara Hegazy in the Arabic Wikipedia. Maybe this article should have more restricted editing? I.Elgamal (talk) 14:50, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
- Actually, I just noticed that the mentioned admin has actually deleted the same section twice, despite his involvement in the issue at hand.
Arwiki article deletion
[edit]Arwiki deleted the article after (AFD) due to lack of notability and it is doesn't meet criteria and WP:BIO1E, it was objective and moderate discussion about Wikipedia standards only (regardless of Sarah's affiliation) and all "Off topic" or "extremist" comments from right or left are not count), this was a normal process like any biographies AFDs in Wikipedia, French version also make AFD and German version discuss it, some people are angry about that and that is expected because not all people accept your decisions, if English Wikipedia delete an article about African person, is that mean Enwiki is racist or xenophobic? of course not.
we also don't prevent/erase all information about Sarah Hegazi, we merged the content of the article with (LGBT rights in Egypt).
so deletion the article is not "a homophobic responses in the MENA region" and this is prejudiced and unilateral allegations and coming from people who don't know anything about Wikipedia system, second: in Arwiki we are not against LGBT articles absolutely, we have ~1k Articles and LGBTQ portal, and this is a false accusation, third: this is not facts and shouldn't add this because it it against WP:NPOV.
I think many users misunderstood the BBC link, because it's not an article or news or report, just " BBC live" small news and share some stories from social media or other websites, the translation (you can use google translator to check that):
So, BBC delivered the opinions and thoughts of some people, they don't investigate or confirm anything, they also depend on Raseef22 article and it is an opinion article and use some tweets as references! (WP:QS), is that "Reliable sources"? there are also "conflict of interest" because Raseef22 are a Liberal magazine (as their description) and they consider any actions against their beliefs are unacceptable and assuming bad faith, any wikipedian reads this article he will find a lot of misconceptions about Wikipedia. --Ibrahim.ID ✪ 05:43, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
- ping to @Cameron Scott: --Ibrahim.ID ✪ 05:48, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
- this is a tweet from (Ahmed Maher) the BBC editor who write the piece in BBC Arabic live and he praise (Majdal) who later use his tweet as source! and (Majdal) thanks him! clearly, this is a "conflict of interest" and reason to refuse BBC link as source. BTW: (Majdal) is against Arwiki since 2018 because we delete his organization page (SMEX) --Ibrahim.ID ✪ 06:23, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
To clarify, weren't you (Ibrahim.ID ✪ )the user who initiated the deletion on Arabic Wikipedia in the first place? You wrote on June 15th 2020 at 3:15pm (and forgive the Google Translate): "The reason for requesting the deletion is the lack of sufficient notice, as she has no achievements, prizes or works, just a girl who raised a sign in a party and was arrested (along with other people) and became forgotten for years and then committed suicide a few days ago influentially, there are tens of thousands of people arrested for cases Certainly there are millions who committed suicide, and there are those who died as a result of torture. Why is this person specifically highlighted or excluded? If the article was about an activity in the "climate issue" or "refugee issue" it would become a very ordinary person in the eyes of the one who created the article and will not receive the same importance or support. As for media coverage, this thing we noticed has also been repeated with many before and just a media bubble or trend and it ends , And Wikipedia is not intended for Trinidy and Notice is not provisional and this is stipulated in Politics" Original Arabic: "سبب طلب الحذف هو عدم توفر الملحوظية الكافية، فليس لها إنجازات أو جوائز أو أعمال، مجرد فتاة رفعت لافتة في حفل وتم القبض عليها (مع أشخاص أخرون) وصارت منسية لسنوات ثم أنتحرت منذ أيام بشكل مؤثر، هناك عشرات الالاف من الأشخاص قبض عليهم بسبب قضايا معينة وهناك ملايين أنتحروا وهناك من ماتوا بسبب التعذيب، لماذا يتم إبراز هذه الشخصية بالتحديد أو إخضاعها للإستثناء؟ لو كانت المقالة عن نشاط في "قضية المناخ" أو "قضية اللاجئين" ستصبح شخصية عادية جداً في نظر من أنشأ المقالة ولن تحظى بنفس الأهمية أو الدعم، أما بالنسبة للتغطية الإعلامية فهذا الشيء لاحظناه أيضاً يتكرر مع الكثيرين من قبل ومجرد فقاعة إعلامية أو تريند وينتهي، وويكبيديا ليست مخصصة للتريندات والملحوظية ليست مؤقتة وهذا منصوص عليه في السياسة " Source: (Deletion discussion: https://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/ويكيبيديا:نقاش_الحذف/سارة_حجازي) I am concerned that as a result of this you are potentially too close to this issue, and you seem to be taking the coverage of the deletion discussion personally. Effectively, you are now editing about a topic that directly concerns you. It might have been helpful to disclose that as a potential conflict of interest in your comment here. It is a fact that the article was deleted, and that there has been popular discussion both on and off Wikipedia about the implications of that deletion. I think it's important that we find a way of representing that in the article in a neutral and informative manner. The BBC source is enough to substantiate that this discussion has received popular attention, but it shouldn't be used to determine the political/ideological implications of that discussion. I think that it would be best if we worked together to find a way to represent this issue somewhere in the article in a way that reports the facts a neutral and informative way.Boredintheevening (talk) 13:54, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Boredintheevening: thank you, first: the discussion closed after 7 days (like enwiki rules), yeah I think we should give it more time but I think the result will not change, this like (WP:SNOWBALL) and 90% say "delete", even the moderate, liberal and high trusted users also say delete, actually her shocking death make a lot of people sympathize with her and stupid reactions from far-right people make her case exaggerated, but after 2 weeks nobody talks about her now (in social media or news) and I'm sure after one year nobody remember her and that the point, no one asked: if she was a real activist and symbol why nobody wrote article about her since Sep 2018 - Jun 2020?, there are objective reasons to nominate it for deletion (same thing in French an German versions) and I did not mean to delete the article on purpose, just discuss about the article according to Wikipedia standards, I say this words because some users have double standards, if any article (like Sarah's article situation) but he/she is activist in (climate issue - refugees - etc.) nobody care and they may say "no notability" but with case like Sarah they want to make it "exception" from policies and that is unfair, we should treat all articles in the same way and make impartial decision without any emotions impact.
- anyway, I concern about (Arabic Wikipedia) information because it's prejudiced, biased and unilateral allegations, and lead to discredit our project, Mr (Majdal) in his twitter say: he want to force admins in Arwiki to restore the article! he use his journalists friend to spread his tweets (the evidence in my second comment), he tried to contact (Katherine Maher) and people in Wikimedia, he clearly make a campaign against us and unfortunately some users here - with good faith - help him by published his opinions as facts! is that acceptable? I have provided proofs and you can check it. --Ibrahim.ID ✪ 12:27, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Ibrahim.ID: Don't you think you have biased opinions when stating things like "[...] the moderate, liberal and high trusted users also say delete" and "I'm sure after one year nobody remember her"? And in regards to your latest edit (on July 1st), in removing the section about the ArWiki article removal, you cited the neutral point of view rule. Do you believe that you, the person who initiated the very action reported in the section, have a neutral point of view and no conflict of interest in the matter? I agree with @Boredintheevening:'s concern that you are too close to the topic. I think that this issue is too significant and well covered to not be mentioned here. I.Elgamal (talk) 15:06, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
- There's a new BBC article (https://www.bbc.com/arabic/trending-53272162) about this now, it does its own research and contacted people itself instead of relying on others like Raseef22 for information. I don't have much time right now to translate and add to the page, but I might do a bit later; or anyone else can if you have time. I think we can all agree BBC is a reliable source, especially since this time they did their own research instead of relying on others there is no reason not to include it. I hope this solves the whole issue and nobody tries to delete it again. Azarqa (talk) 03:43, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Ibrahim.ID: I think your points about relevance and popularity are clearly failing, you can easily check google news to see all the articles some were published a couple of days back. I think the article deletion deserves a mention in the English Page. It's worth noting that the requests for deletion in the german, english and french wikis have all lead to the decision to keep the page. So it's only the Arabic wiki that decided to go with a deletion, which shows some bias against the article and its content. Alongtimehome (talk) 18:03, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
I knew she hanged herself
[edit]What else can you add to that debate القاسم موسي محمد (talk) 02:59, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi القاسم موسي محمد, I hope you're doing well. Personally, when I'm writing I try to avoid referring to methods of self-harm/suicide. Samaritans (a charity in the UK which supports people going through difficult periods) has some guidelines on reporting on suicide that might be worth reading. https://www.samaritans.org/about-samaritans/media-guidelines/best-practice-suicide-reporting-tips/ . I wouldn't include the method of suicide in the article but I respect that others' opinions might differ on that. If it is included, it should have a link to a reliable source and maybe not described in too much detail. All the best, Boredintheevening (talk) 18:32, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Suicide is nurder at the end, if you report a crime you must include convincing and/or skeptic details القاسم موسي محمد (talk) 21:33, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
- القاسم موسي محمد, Suicide is not murder, murder is perpetrated by another person. If you happen to find reliable sources discussing differing details of the event, feel free to share them here.I.Elgamal (talk) 15:10, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
I will like to share a small piece of prose
[edit]Written by sara in Arabic in 2017 and it's a love poem القاسم موسي محمد (talk) 03:11, 2 July 2020 (UTC)