Talk:List of people killed for being transgender/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of unlawfully killed transgender people. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:58, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of unlawfully killed transgender people. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100222014412/http://archive.salon.com/news/feature/2001/06/20/milan/index.html to http://archive.salon.com/news/feature/2001/06/20/milan/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:56, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Comment

Are there more cases? -- Tgwoman 15:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm nervous of this becoming a memorial, not an article

That is one of the reasons (because such a thing would conflict with WP:NOT) I have nominated it for deletion, and would like a consensus reached upon it. I am certainly not hostile to such an article, just very unsure of its place here.

But it seems to me that "every entry a cited entry" would go a long way to establishing the inherent notability of such a list and meet the criterion of verifiability, too, so I have added {{Dynamic list}} to the article and a place holder for references, and hope very much that such citing will go ahead. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Entries where the current sources don't support inclusion.

Brian McGlothin (died December 23, 2007) wore women's clothing and lived in Cincinnati, Ohio.[2] McGlothin was shot in the head with an automatic rifle.[2] Antonio Williams was convicted of the shooting but denies he did it; McGlothin was 25 years old.[2]

The source used says that the motive was unknown and that the two didn't know each other? I'll leave it in for the moment but is there a better source that makes the killing fit the criteria of this list? --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Same for Patricia Murphy and Ashley Sweeney - the sources don't link their murders with their transgender status. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:22, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Adolphus Simmons is a bit more complex, the police say it's not a hate crime because they don't have that offense on the books, however none of the source say it WAS a hate crime. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Your attention to criticism has been noted and addressed. -- Banjeboi 15:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Throwing your toys out of the pram isn't really the answer.. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Your involvement here is disruptive at best - please allow me to work on the article as the In Use template suggests. There is no rush for you to pick apart my work and dlete material you deem disposable. -- Banjeboi 15:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I haven't deleted anything - the only changes I made to the article are as follows:

1) I updated your reference on one to note the fact that the person you named as a suspect was cleared of involvement.

2) I changed the lead to reflect the name change you made.

If you feel that either of those actions are disruptive, then I suggest you get admin involvement. The fact that you moved the article to try and game the system and get around my questions is pretty sad. I'll leave you to get on with it for a while but you don't WP:OWN this article and your behaviour here does you no credit. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Calling me sad and accusing me of gaming actually reflects on you. i have done nothing but add content and sources to the article. While the article was {{in use}} you've stepped in to start picking at issues. I think this is along the lines of WP:DICKishness. The reference you're so keen to change doesn't name the accused here at all. It's a simply a source that states "a man". BLP is not an issue here. Please leave me alone. -- Banjeboi 15:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Em.. no it doesn't, it names him, if you are going to lecture me, you want to make sure you are actually reading the sources you want to use. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

If that source names him then he is welcome to sue them, not us. Our content here doesn't state his name, doesn't state he did anything and doesn't seem to address his needs of guilt or innocence at all. No, this is simply not a BLP issue. if we named him possibly; if we stated the attacker was arrested but released - likely. But we haven't even mentioned him, at all, in any way. -- Banjeboi 16:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Title

The discussion over at the AFD suggests that the current title is POV - any suggestions about what it could be renamed to ? or moved back to the old name ? --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

If suicide were eliminated, I would suggest List of unlawfully killed transgender people Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

That sounds better - What other articles are there of this type? any examples we could crib off? --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I suggest being bold because it can't get any worse than it is already. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Right I've done it - I've taken so much shit over a couple of minor edits on this article - what's one more? --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I suggest a dung heap. Nicely matured, sufficient shit is good for the roses. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:09, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

comments at the afd

looking at the afd - this article will be safe from future nominals if the inclusion criteria is made tighter. I propose that the format of the article (reflected in it's new new new new new new title) should be people who are/were transgendered and were murdered/killed/however you want to label it because of their transgendered status _{whc would pretty much take the article full circle.}. I don't think people who were murdered and *happen* to be transgendered cuts it. Otherwise we might as well have list of unlawfully killed supporters of liverpool FC.

Such a limitation is going to result in a far tighter stronger article. Comments? brickbats? --Cameron Scott (talk) 02:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

100% agreement Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:44, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, moving forward, I've commented out (not not removed) entries where the sources do not make a linkage between the person's transgendered status and their murder. If people can take a look at them, assess them and see sources exist that support that linkage that would be a great help. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:58, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

From my perspective the version at this permalink reflects a correction of all of the objections raised at the AfD to keeping the article. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

There are 10 or 11 other additions that are currently commented out, some with sources that support murder but no connection to their transgendered status and some that have no sources at all. I'm going to start at the top and work my way down - trying to establish a) a connection to their status and b) sources if they don't exist. If a+B don't exist then I will remove the entry - I think this is a rational and reasonable way to proceed. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:57, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I support this action. Is it just you and I who care now? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

it looks that way - arguing is easy, improvement is hard! :-) --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:10, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Suicide?

Suicide is unlawful killing in many areas; I think this needs a better name --NE2 07:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I see this has already been brought up... damn. --NE2 07:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

IMO, the reasons to include suicide are that (1) sometimes it is difficult to determine whether a death was suicide or murder and (2) some suicides occur after victimization by others. IMO, the article could cover incidents of apparent suicide by transgendered persons when the apparent suicide is identified by a reliable source as likely being due in some way to violence against that person because of the person's TG status. --Orlady (talk) 15:31, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

While taking your points on board I am wary of diluting any consensus of goodwill that exists towards this article by making it too broad. May I suggest that it stays for the present within stricter guidelines and that a discussion is held at a later date about widening its boundaries? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Post AfD Title discussion

This needs to be formalised and finalised (insofar as anything is final on WP!). I note the comment by the closing admin in the AfD: "The current article name has WP:NPOV issues". I thiknk onemight analyse the current title, whcih stands at "List of unlawfully killed transgender people ".

Unlawful killing is a term from English law which will not hold good globally, It was chosen as a quasi-stable title because:

Murder, while we all "know" what it means is actually a closely defined crime with different definitions in different jurisdictions
By no means all such deaths will be recorded technically as Murder.
Unlawful killing, if we divorce it from UK law, says (a) that the person was killed (ie that they did not just die), and (b) that such killing was unlawful.

Now one might say "But all killing is unlawful", but that is not so. Assisted suicide is lawful in parts of the world, and in others is unlawful. However the scope of the article is not intended to reflect suicides, that was just an example that "not all killing is unlawful." Accidents also kill people.

I am sure there is no objection to a better title if one can be found. Rather than moving the article so that it becomes a wandering article of no fixed title, let us reach a consensus before any such move. First and foremost we need to determine whether the current title is, as I believe, neutral within the context of the topic, or whether it is a POV based title. If it is judged to be neutral I would like to suggest that this title remains. If it is not neutral, please suggest neutral and suitable titles. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Your considerations are good ones, Tim. I would argue that in order to select a good title, we need to get a firm consensus as to the scope of the article. When considering that, I believe that the AFD showed that the scope of the article needs to be restricted to: 1)transgendered individuals, 2)who are now dead, 3)who became dead as a result of an act of personal violence, and 4)the individual perpetrating the act of personal violence deliberately targeted the transperson because they were a transperson, and not for some other mundane reason, like money, personal disagreement, etc.

All of those 4 criteria need to be firmly and demonstrably established by strong sources. By strong sources, I mean either primary sources (court documents, police documents, the words of the killer, etc.) or secondary sources which clearly cite primary sources in order to establish the motive behind the violence and do not engage in speculation. Any source that engages in speculation or does not cite strong, unequivocal evidence for the crime's motive must not be allowed on this page. LGBT advocacy groups may well seek to identify a murdered transgendered individual as a victim of a hate crime even in the absence of primary documentation asserting that this is the case. While it is certainly their right to compile a list of people they "believe" to have been murdered due to their trans-status, unless they can back up their beliefs with primary documentation then they absolutely, positively do not belong here and must be removed on sight.

That being said, in regards to the title choice, I would argue against the current title only because (maybe because I am unfamiliar with British law terms) it feels strangely worded.

But to be honest, the biggest step is establishing the scope of the article. Once we have agreed upon that, then we have a wide variety of good titles to choose from. So let's see if we can get a consensus on scope here. Bullzeye^{(Ring for Service)} 00:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I have no concerns whether the scope or the title is formalised first.

I am in favour of your four points:

restricted to transgendered individuals
who are now dead
who became dead as a result of an act of personal violence
the individual perpetrating the act of personal violence deliberately targeted the transperson because they were a transperson, and not for some other mundane reason, like money, personal disagreement, etc.

I've listed them out for my own clarity of thought. The singular in each includes the plural.

I have no problem with a new title, provided it reflects accurately those 4 items Fiddle Faddle (talk) 01:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Super. I figure we'll give this a week or so for people to weigh in. Bullzeye^{(Ring for Service)} 02:08, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

This list makes me a bit uncomfortable under any title, because the focus is on the individual people (like a memorial page, which does not belong in Wikipedia) rather than on the phenomenon of killings of transgendered people (which I think does belong in Wikipedia). Also, like Timtrent I find the name "unlawfully killed" to be a bit odd, and I fear that it may imply some sort of adjudication -- which is lacking in many of this cases.
I disagree with suggestions that the scope and title should indicate that the killings occurred because the victims were transgendered. Inevitably, the list will include cases where the motive is not known, although it may be assumed to have been related to the victim's TG status.
The focus on transgender people who are dead is a problem, for two reasons. First, it seems to me that the notable topic here is not the specific victims (who are individually nonnotable) but the incidents of violence, so I think the article and title should focus on the crimes, not the people. Second, the fact that the list includes only people who did not survive their attacks makes it seem like a memorial page. It is not necessary to restrict this to dead people. If the topic of interest is the pattern of crime (as I believe it is), a near-fatal attack on a TG person is of essentially the same importance as an attack that was fatal to the victim.
As I said in the AfD, I'd like to see this converted into a broader-scope article about Violence against transgender people, split out from Violence against LGBT people (as a more focused article). That other article is getting fairly long and it seems unfocused, so it might benefit from having this topic split off. Also, the other article contains an embedded list of killings and other incidents that seems to me to be a bit indiscriminate.
Possible templates to use as a starting point in constructing the article include School shootings (it includes sortable tables listing specific incidents; however, I think the TG article would need to include more detail about each incident because there would be fewer separate articles to link to) and List of postal killings (type of detail is more similar to this article). --Orlady (talk) 02:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I am wary of two things:

extending this list into "they were tripped over because they are transgender" (I am trivialising to make a point)
the creation of any form of memorial (interesting, though, that WP does have a memorial to dead Wikipedians)

With those concerns and your concept, are you able to suggest inclusion and exclusion criteria? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree - if we put in entries where we "assumed", then we will end up with a memorial type article where we spent all of our time playing internet gumshoe. If we move it to violence against trangender people - what are we planing to write about? surely it still has to be because of their status otherwise we might as well create Violence against ginger people --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The acid test for content should be based on WP:Verifiability and WP:Notability: that an independent reliable source has identified the incident (or series of incidents) as a confirmed or suspected case of violence directed at a transgendered person or transgendered people. Wikipedia contributors should not conduct original research, and TG-rights websites, blogs, memorial pages, etc., should not be relied upon as sources. --Orlady (talk) 15:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Verifiability and notability are not negotiable, I agree. It must also not synthesise original research from verifiable and notable facts. I am imagine sections "Proven to be" or "Assumed by reports" may be appropriate (with different names). Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Orlady, I agree with every word of this statement with the exception of "suspected". This is a politically-charged issue, and there is a major incentive for both the media and LGBT groups to run a little fast-and-loose with their "suspicions" in order to curry political capital or make for a more compelling story. This was the problem with the 8 listings that got removed; they all quoted POV individuals to establish "suspicion" and "assumption" when in reality no proof was presented that the transperson was murdered as a hate crime. In several cases the police explicitly stated that the case was not considered a hate crime, but an editor attempted to add it to the list anyway. Hence the problem of POV. If the court, the cops, or the suspect said it was a hate crime, that's proof. Likewise if a secondary sources quotes the above. But we don't run on suspicion and assumption. It'll likely be re-AFDed if the page starts filling up with "suspected" and "assumed" hate crimes. Bullzeye^{(Ring for Service)} 07:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I also believe very clearly that photographs are not required. To me a photograph means "memorial" in the context of a list. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 11:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Photographs absolutely should not be required. Furthermore, no non-free photos should be used here. Are you suggesting that no photos should be used at all? --Orlady (talk) 15:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm open to consensus as always. My feeling is that a photograph of a victim acts as a memorial. I am not against, for example, a blanket photograph of people attending a generic memorial service, but that is also "8illustration for its own sake," a thing I discourage anyway. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:37, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Recent additions

A number of names have been added on the back of a BBC list - which in turns seems to have been lifted straight from "remember our dead". Looking further into each of those cases:

James/Robyn Brown was killed in London in February 1997. - yes she was found murdered in her flat, nobody was caught - no motive was established - doesn't meet the criteria for this list. I have removed it. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Sissy "Charles" Bolden - found dead in some woods - as far I can find, no motive was established and nobody was caught.

Julia Carrizales - I can find next to nothing about this case - they were strangled and murdered - but there is record of a trial or any motive being established.

Kendrick/Cinnamon Perry - shot and killed while working as a sex worker - again nobody caught - no motive established.

Emonie Spaulding - hate crime established at trial - this one is fine and fits the criteria.

Erika Johana - Very little information - seems to have been beaten to death, no-one found for the crime, no motivation. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Larry King, meaning of "transgender" in this article

What definition of "transgender" are we using for this article? I ask because "transgender" has several diverging meanings, so labeling someone as transgender who does not self-identify (or is described in reliable sources) as transgender may be problematic.

Specifically I am concerned about the listing of Larry King. None of the sources cited describe him as transgender, only gay, effeminate, and as tending to wear women's clothes and makeup. The word "transgender" is absent.

If we go by how our article Transgender describes the term, King would be probably considered transgender. However, that Wikipedia article diverges significantly from how the term is understood (or misunderstood) by the general public, including some general-purpose dictionaries. To them, "transgender" typically is either a PC synonym for "transsexual" or "someone who wants to be the opposite gender but hasn't had the surgery yet". Yes, I realize that's not what it means to most in the LGBT community, but Wikipedia does not tailor its language to particular communities (even the "experts" on the subject). That's why labeling him as "transgender" is problematic: unless explicitly defined in this article, readers will misunderstand it.

Therefore, in the absence of a reliable source describing him as transgender, I feel that the section on him should be removed from this article (perhaps moved to an as-yet-absent List of unlawfully killed gay people article?). -kotra (talk) 04:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, as per the discussion about the use of the image - the reports I have read suggest that he was going to school dressed in female clothes and wearing makeup, and that the school had sanctioned this. His father is suing the school because they allowed him to do this, rather than enforcing strict (male) dress code, thus making him a target for bullying and ultimately murder. I can turn up the references if you like, but the information is already there either in the article refs, in Violence against LGBT people refs, or the Pink Paper (UK gay newspaper website). I'm not personally concerned about this being a location for his story, because he is included in the LGBT article anyway, and as suggested, he has been referred to as gay rather than transgender - but it does seem odd that he would be sanctioned to wear female clothes otherwise if he identified himself as gay rather than trans-something. Mish (talk) 01:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

On the term 'Transgender', it has two meanings usually, and it is contested primarily by transsexuals. There is the 'umbrella' term, which includes all trans-identified people (which some transsexual people object to be included under), so includes transsexual people, gender-queer, trangender, transvestite, cross-dresser, etc. (some would say intersex as well, but not many intersex people would go along with that); and there is the specific meaning, which is somebody who lives in the 'opposite' gender to their birth or assigned sex/gender but does not go in for the full hormones and surgery, and may mix certain aspects of treatments usually associated with transsexualism (i.e., 'trans' but not transsexual). This is documented in various sources, such as Whittle & Stryker's 'Transgender Reader' and Ekins & King's 'Transgender Phenomenon'. Whittle's own take on this that it would be more useful to have 'trans' as the umbrella term, and 'transgender' as the specific term for something similar to transsexualism, but different from both that and 'transvestism', but is an evolved usage. I'm not concerned to discuss the ins and outs of this issue, but I just wanted to throw into thering that there are sources that do document the usage. Mish (talk) 01:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

And I need to add - there is the Virginia Prince version, and she coined the term, but nobody uses it that way these days (apart from people who want to denigrate non-transsexual transgender people), and she is dead now. One way of trying to avoid possible contention is to refer to 'transsexual and transgender people' Mish (talk) 01:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

It is my understanding (from being friends with several trans people, including my current boyfriend) that "transsexual" is becoming a clinical term reserved for a physical condition of "transitioning", with an overtone of being used as a denigratory noun in mainstream culture and the media, much as "homosexual" is a clinical term for gay that has also become used as an insult when as a noun. "Transgender" or "trans" appears to be used much more frequently nowadays instead of "transsexual", except in some medical spheres. This is just my personal understanding, though, and I have no books to cite.

Regardless, crossdressing ("transvestism" is another one of those "clinical"/"denigratory" terms) does not equal transgender, which is what this article is about. And seeing as King never identified as transgender, and in fact I don't see any reliable sources that identify him as transgender, he should be removed from this article. -kotra (talk) 21:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

This is an unusual view, as I know plenty of transsexuals, and most of them do not appreciate being referred to as transgender, and see it as a medical condition, with transgender being a lifestyle choice. This is the problem with relying on anecdote and gossip rather than facts - one person has one experience, another different experience. This is why I referred you to verifiable sources. Schools do not give students dispensation to crossdress, even in this liberal country (the UK), unless they are dealing with gender issues. Period, end of discussion. If I wanted to use a medical term for transvestism, I would use autogynephilia, not transvestism. Given that even transvestite advocate groups use the term, I see no issue in using it. As I included the term 'cross-dresser' in my description, I think you are being contentious. Please do not try to police my words using some spurious form of political correctness that may well only apply in the context you move in, I have been engaging with these issues for many years now, probably at a far deeper level than you could probably imagine, and I gave up trying to conform my understanding and discourse to that demanded by others many years ago. If I were you, instead of relying on anecdote, I would look at something more verifiable - such as reliable sources. If you did this, then you might have an article with more than a handful of examples. I wouldn't bother responding to this, as I made the only point I care to make further up the page, and you can take it or leave it - I am not interested in discussing these issues here. Good luck with your page. Goodbye. Mish (talk) 21:58, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for questioning your terminology; I agree that there are many different views on these terms even within the trans/queer community, and it was wrong for me to oversimplify. The terms are not particularly important, so I won't try to continue that discussion, and I'm sorry for getting sidetracked on terminology.

The issue in my mind is if King was verifiably transgender or not. I do not see the school's allowing of dresses and makeup as an admission of "gender issues", but rather a liberal attitude toward self-expression. Regardless, even if the school thought King had "gender issues", and that translated to "transgender", that does not mean he was actually transgender. Only self-identification (or possibly a psychiatric evaluation, although that is a bit sketchy with an issue like gender dysphoria or GID) can determine that.

I am a bit confused by your assumption that this is "my page" or that I'm exerting ownership over it; to my recollection I've only made these three comments to the talk page and changed nothing in the actual article. Anyway, I would like to resolve the King issue, if you are still willing to discuss it. No worries if you're done though. -kotra (talk) 22:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, that's OK. Thanks. I'm sorry, by 'yours' I meant plural not singular, but I should have said 'this'. I assumed you were one of the editors. Look. I think that until all the details come out of this trial, and the father's action against the school is concluded, then we will not know many details. In fact, because we are talking about what may be confidential medical details, we may never know the truth. For that reason I agree it best to leave the question open - the case features on the LGBT page anyway. I am more concerned to focus my energies elsewhere, much as I would like to be more involved with this and other trans pages, simply because over the past ten years I have grown very weary of some of the discussions that accompany these matters. My interests are in ensuring that certain other matters are properly documented here, and documented in an unbiased way. If you do ever need help, let me know. Mish (talk) 22:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, no problem. Thanks for your reply. I'd rather not remove the section on King from this article until we get clearer consensus, so I'll hold off for now. (also, thank you for the offer of help, I may take you up on that in the future) -kotra (talk) 22:34, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Possible opposite list

I'm wondering if we should have an opposite list i.e. List of lawfully killed transgender people, covering executed criminals.--Auric (talk) 16:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Um, isn't dropping {{BLP}} on this page already a juxtaposition of opposites?

(Um, are they alive or are they dead? Beware the transgender zombies of doom!) --66.102.80.212 (talk) 01:21, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Somebody who is accused of killing a trans person is a living person, so BLP applies to what is said about them - for example, while a crime may be reported as a possible hate crime, we cannot say it is a hate crime unless the perpetrator is convicted of a hate crime. - MishMich - Talk - 22:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Removal of uncited folk

They have to go in order to meet editorial standards. Please do not add people hoping that someone else will cite them. Even if you don't quite know how to cite and just fling a URL in that will do for a start. People like me remove uncited material periodically. Other people seek citations. Each approach is valid because each maintains quality standards. A better article is produced if one has time to research citations. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:44, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Roy Antonio Jones, III

I think there is almost enough information and citations for a separate article on the Death of Roy Antonio Jones, III. What do you folks think? Bearian (talk) 21:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Do the people on this list have to be victims of anti-transgender violence?

If not, here's one that could be added: David Burgess (lawyer), who died after falling under a train in 2010. Another trans person has been charged with his murder. If someone wants to include it, there's a lengthy biography here: [1] Robofish (talk) 21:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Never mind, when I wrote the above I obviously didn't notice this bit in the lead: 'whose deaths are considered to have been attributable to their transgender status.' The one I listed above doesn't qualify. Carry on. Robofish (talk) 21:12, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposed new title: List of people murdered because they were transgender

I am proposing this new title because:

It expresses that the people were killed because they were trans
"Murdered" is a term that people will understand, regardless of its exact legal definition

The article used to be at a similar title, but got moved because of "naming conventions" - I'm not sure what conventions those are. Can someone enlighten me? --Alynna (talk) 01:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

See the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people killed because they were transgender. The title you suggest is unacceptable because it requires Wikipedians to judge that these people were murdered and it requires us to judge the motive for the murder. Sometimes there is no proof. --Orlady (talk) 02:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I thought the whole point of trimming down the list was to only include people "proven to have died at the hands of others" and "whose deaths are considered to have been attributable to their transgender status". In common language, those people were "murdered", "because they were transgender". Since this is the defined scope of the article, why is it a problem to name it according to that scope? --Alynna (talk) 23:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I also see no problem with that name change - is there some way we can "spilt the difference"? --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately "murder" is a technical term. The term ought to be "legal neutral" to allow "Manslaughter" etc in other jurisdictions to apply. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Hum I see. Are we stuck then? Alynna - are you happy with the explanation or do you have further questions/suggestions? --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so we can't say "murdered". What about going back to "List of people killed because they were transgender"? --Alynna (talk) 19:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

At present I see no problem with either the current title or with your suggestion. Does it matter all that much, though? (that sounds patronising, not intended that way, I guess you can read past that :) ) Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'll move it if noone objects within a few days. As to whether it matters "all that much" -- it matters at least as much as whether someone misplaced an apostrophe in the 10th paragraph of an article on some town in Brazil. Or any other edit I might make. I'm just that kind of editor. --Alynna (talk) 21:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I object. How do we know that these people were killed because they were transgender? Sometimes there a court judgment conclusively determines the motive for a murder, but often this isn't the case. The proposed name invites original research. --Orlady (talk) 21:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

A vast majority of these murders were excessively violent, suggesting a hate crime. unless a small percentage of them were killed for being gay I doubt they were murdered over something like their pocket change. Hate crimes are harder to identify. what you're asking for is impossible to be 100% accurate on this. as for the title, why not "list of transgender homicides"? --I dunno how to sign wiki articles....but I really wanted to put my 2 cents in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.244.68.147 (talk) 05:26, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Coat-racking

This article is being used for coat-racking - half of the new articles seem to be there because of problems with how the media described the victim rather than there is any proof they were murdered for being transgendered - that's not the criteria defined for this article. --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:24, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, I've been through and removed at least ten entries, this article is starting to get bloated in the way that resulted in it being sent to AFD last time. --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:40, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I reverted the wholesale deletions. We need to work on trimming more fat and not the well-sourced material. Bearian (talk) 15:01, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not actually disputed that they are sourced, simply that the sources provided does not support the criteria in the lede - this article does this dance every couple of years, it got bloated and went to AFD because people were simply adding people who were murdered and transgendered rather than people who were murdered *because* they are transgendered. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:03, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm letting the others to stay re-reverted and deleted by you, but I added back the bit on Roy Antonio Jones, III, because the sources called him "transgendered", "sissy" "Like a girl" and such phrases. The alleged killer even admitted that he killed the toddler because he was non-conforming to his gender - the very definition of being transgendered. That the child may not, or could not, have expressed in so many words, "Mommy, I'm a tranny" does not matter. Everyone else - the defendant, the sources, etc., consider him transgendered, and that that he was killed unlawfully for that reason. Bearian (talk) 15:28, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I just removed this individual because I don't think there's enough evidence for us to claim that he was transgender. Labelling a child in this manner, especially one not yet old enough to understand sexuality, is controversial at best and I don't think we should get in this practice unless the fact is beyond a reasonable doubt. Them From Space 15:40, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I guess reasonable people can disagree, and we can't always avoid controversy. The child's death was noted extensively in the media, and in at least two "rememberance days" in two continents. His killer appeared to think the toddler was transgendered, and attempted to "cure" the kid. I'll try to find other sources; if the defendant is convicted, it is ipso facto beyond a reasonable doubt. What do other editors think? Bearian (talk) 16:31, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Title?

I guess I'm a bit confused by the title; is there a such thing as "lawfully" killing someone? (Other than the death penalty, that is.) Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 17:38, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

See the section of this page entitled "Post AfD Title discussion" for background on the title. --Orlady (talk) 18:15, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Severely discriminating title

Yes, I can see that this has been discussed. But how!

The arguments for this title focus on justification by jurisdictional details, not on what it makes readers understand. Finding it so much more necessary to distinguish - already beginning with the titile's very first letter - between murder and assisted (and maybe also non-assisted) suicide (ignoring that assisted suicide still is mostly unlawful, and non-assisted suicide only not triable) than ignoring the misunderstanding there might be a remarkably large share of transgender people who were killed lawfully is an abysmal shame. This is an encyclopedia (and, by the way, also not US-pedia or Britpedia) - not some book on law and jurisdiction only experts and maybe students are expected to understand, but a source of information to be understood by as many readers as possible. Insisting on different priorities is just a clear proof for a lack of competence, ability or willingness to find proper words.

Or a lame excuse for implicitly criminalizing most transgender people.

If fairness is a value accepted as important by all the pseudo-formally arguing defenders of the current title List of unlawfully killed transgender people, it should be compulsory to address them formally - and not just with a username (or real name), but with "(name), user who acts lawfully or not". Consider: according to statistics, it has to be assumed that the share of criminals among them (like among most groups of people) is larger than that of lawful cases among all incidents in which transgender people were killed.

Oh, and then there still is the lack of definition of lawfulness. There are women who dared to show only a little bit of self-esteem, lesbians and gays who dared to not perfectly hide feelings of affection, aso. who even nowadays in some countries on this planet are stoned to death or hanged - yes, "lawfully". And from some sick formal point of view, also the Nazi concentration camps were "lawfully". Which makes this an extra helpful term, really.

Removing it from the title and instead adding a referring clarification to the first paragraph would be all too reasonable and too respectful, right? Apparently, it's far better to first insult people and then "explain" in the small-print - instead of avoiding misunderstandings in the first place and maybe add some additional thoughts, how perspicuous.

To be serious (and this truly is a most serious matter): whoever needs such a discussion to change a title like this hasn't understood the least of respect, equality and human rights. And to all who suffer from some allergy against that p.c., human rights and the likes: strictly formally, in some countries a title like this - as it allows to conclude that (under certain conditions) it may be regarded "lawful" to kill transgender people - can be seen as clearly unlawful. --212.17.89.244 (talk) 20:11, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Please tell us clearly what the points are that you are making. I got lost in your words. If you wish the title changed then ALL that has to happen is that a consensus has to agree an new title. Make a proposal with reasoned and brief arguments. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:59, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Can't this article simply be merged with one of the many articles on transgendered discrimination? user:Purplepox01 19:02, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Title suggestion

Why not use the title “List of killed transgender people”, like the article List of killed Euromaidan members (which redirects to List of people killed during Euromaidan)? The current title makes it sound like Wikipedia is making a stance on what’s “lawful” or “unlawful”…, but saying just “killed” doesn’t contradict the current title. 〜Britannic124 (talk) 04:22, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Killed or murdered would be better than the current title. But, what a thoroughly dreadful article. It should be deleted. 86.29.168.181 (talk) 21:39, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment

Can we change this to a List of transgender people murdered in general? In light of disproportionate levels of police violence against transgender people and the lack of accountability for police officers when they murder transgender people, it seems irrelevant whether or not the killing is lawful.-- Nicholas Segal-Wright 15:14, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I'm proposing a merge with Significant acts of violence against LGBT people. Even though the previous page contradicts the title, and specifies homophobic violence only, it contains several trans cases. I can't see any particular reason for this article to be kept separate from the LGBT page. TussilagoFanfara (talk) 10:31, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Agree - the topic is similar, and it's not always possible to divine whether the attacker's motives were homophobia or transphobia or some combination thereof. --Alynna (talk) 19:55, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Disagree - It is irrelevant if the transwoman is brutally murdered by a man for his homophobia or his religious beliefs, it is about transgender people not the killer. To add anything related to gender and Transgender to Gay and Lesbian is to diminish the issues Transgender people face that are also at the hands of some Gays and Lesbians. In fact, I have done observations in my collegiate work of Gays and Lesbians who openly expressed hate and Transphobia, mainly towards Transwomen looking different, but also to Transmen for assumption they have female parts and want to trick them into having sex with a woman. Ignorance from Cisgender people is ironic when it is from someone of a minority group that is doing the oppression, but it exists, such as many Black American men have been murdering Black American Transwomen. Violence against Gays and Lesbians are a separate issue, just as violence against Black people is a separate issue, and so merging will take away the purpose of showing Transgender people are specifically targeted for being Trans, and lose all visibility. There is great discussion of removal of the T from LGBT for reasons such as invisibility, and that gender is not equal to sexual orientation. If that were to occur, then it would need to be removed from that LGBT page anyways. Leave it alone. --DavidhohP (talk) 07:18, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Disagree - Absolutely not. The epidemic of hate crimes and murders of trans women, specifically Trans Women Of Color (TWOC), most be the focus of our attention separate from the rest of the LGB movement. The trans community must have this visibility. Our voices have been erased to often and we have been non-existent within the LGBT movement far too long. Don't throw us under the bus once again. Give us our unique voice at this time and join our struggle to end the epidemic of hate crime/murders against the trans community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:BC9D:E580:31DD:8D58:A802:DE35 (talk) 01:50, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a place for your activism, see WP:NOTADVOCATE. TussilagoFanfara (talk) 10:41, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Agree. There is nothing here about motive, and the homicide rate doesn't seem all that extraordinary. (120 trans people are murdered each year worldwide, out of about 480,000 worldwide. That means one trans people for every 4000. But the number of trans people in the U.S. has been estimated at 1 in every 300 people.) St Anselm (talk) 19:23, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Note that there has never been a census on the number of transgender people. Estimates on populations in verifiable sources vary so much so they can't be used in this way. Not to mention any uncertainty in the number of transgender killings would also be compounded by doing this sort of analysis, and all academic source I see say that number is an underestimate. Either way, you'd need to compare the murder rate to that of the general population to tell if it is significantly different. The homicide rate for the general population is about 6.2 out of 100,000 people a year, much lower than the transgender rate you gave. Anyway, this all smells of original research and all academic sources I find point towards a significantly higher rate of violence for transgender people than for the general population. Rab V (talk) 06:50, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Disagree This is a list about murdered people. The other list does not seem to limit itself to death-related incidents. Dimadick (talk) 20:16, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Disagree This list is different enough to justify existing separately from the LGBT violence section. Several major reliable sources in the article discuss transgender killings as their own topic separate from violence against LGB people, such as the New York Times and the Washington Post. Just because transgender killings constitute a subset of all violence against LGBT people, that is not necessarily a reason to merge. For example List of women writers and List of Austrian women writers both exist and overlap with each other. Rab V (talk) 05:32, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Disagree The areas are sufficiently distinct to warrant separate articles. Fiddle Faddle 15:55, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Agree Nothing is about the motive, and frankly I don't think this segment of the population is significant to warrant this much attention: 120 transgendered were murdered last year, but out of how many murders globally and out of only 400,000 transgendered people nationwide, that can't be a very large number. Solntsa90 (talk) 21:04, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Disagree - If the article is about specifying homophobia than that is obviously separate from transphobia... The gender you want to have sex with is a different concept than the sex are or want to transition to. Transgender people can be included in the article previous because they can be LGB. But people killed for being T is a different topic than people killed for being LGB.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8d:602:a110:99aa:33ef:f658:162a (talk) 15:29, January 29, 2018

Confusing Opening Lead

The opening lead of the article links to a study that says "Every 3rd day the murder of a trans person is reported. Preliminary results of a new Trans Murder Monitoring Project show more than 200 reported cases of murdered trans people from January 2008 to June 2009." However the article itself omits the timescale that this study was taking place. Could this potentially be misleading to any readers? It gives the impression that the tragic event of a murder where a transgendered individual is occurring as regularly as a clock movement.

Furthermore, the study indicates that these are preliminary figures, are there more up to date ones than this study? It was published over five years ago. Surely there is more up-to-date information than this. DigitalAnalogueBR (talk) 23:56, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

New articles

Going through this to remove list bloat - some of these could likely be broken out into their own articles (similar to how some at the top end of the list are - with a slightly longer summAry here. Anyone a problem with this? --Cameron Scott (talk) 07:21, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Question

I read some of the death description, and they are not very well explained. If a trans is found dead, where is the evidence it was because she/he was a trans person? For some case, it's not obvious according to the description. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:8A8D:FE80:D4A1:9137:160A:19F4 (talk) 10:31, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes since the last time I went through this article the sort of blot discussed above has occurred Again, I'll go through later and see what meets the criteria, --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:20, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

After spending some time on it this morning - this article is a mess again - it's turned back into the WP:Memorial that it was a few years ago. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:24, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Cameron, if you want to change the scope of the article, that is something to discuss in the talk page but the article as written doesn't only include people killed for being trans. There has been discussion on what the scope should be just further above in the talk page. Rab V (talk) 20:17, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

em.. I was involved in that discussion - the consensus was that transgender people killed *because* they were transgendered is the scope of this article - a list of people who were unlawfully killed and are transgendered is indiscriminate and make as much sense as WP: list of unlawfully killed ginger haired people. By your logic, a transgendered person killed by a drink driver should be on this list.

For example the person who was killed because it was though that they were involved in a terrorist act - what does their transgendered status have to do with that? If we go down that route, this will go back to afd. --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:44, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

And now I think about it rather Than get into the mass revert game - which *specific* have I removed am I incorrect about? --Cameron Scott (talk) 22:02, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

The last comment of yours I see before announcing you are going to make mass changes to the article is from 5 years ago. The scope of the article, as stated in the beginning of the list, seems to have changed since then and conversations have happened since about the purpose of this page. Unilaterally reverting it back to a prior definition from years ago is something that should take discussion first. Rab V (talk) 22:20, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I do agree that the one specific case of suspected terrorism wouldn't meet the criteria of the list, but only because the list is about people who have been unlawfully killed and that may have been a lawful killing. Many articles from prestigious sources cover killings of trans people as a phenomenon in it's own right. Several of those articles are cited by the list. This establishes this list as something noteworthy as opposed to a list of unlawfully killed ginger people. Most of these articles talk about multiple issues that put the trans people at high risk of violence, like poverty and police harassment (see this Guardian article .) They generally discuss multiple, often intersecting issues that lead to these killings as opposed reducing the cause to one issue, being trans. The list should be doing a better job in the header though discussing what leads to these killings, what leads to them and how different groups have reacted to them (as in protests, new legislation, etc.) so that this discussion is more clearly about a sociological issue. Rab V (talk) 22:53, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

That is a dodge of the question - answer the actual question - if we list every transgendered person killed unlawful *regardless* of reason - how is that not an indiscriminate list. I see an attempt here by you to own this page and turn it into a memorial. --Cameron Scott (talk) 07:00, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

The scope of the list has come up before in the talk and recent afd, where the mass consensus was keep and not that the page was a memorial. As to who is trying to own this list, I am not the one unilaterally redefining the scope of the list or removing edits from multiple editors without any attempt to form consensus. This not an indiscriminate list as it does have a clearly defined scope. The scope as is reflects news and scholarly literature, these sources talk about killings as a phenomenon to be studied in their own right and acknowledge there are multiple causes leading to these deaths. Saying someone died because they are trans often misses intersecting issues that led to these deaths. Many of the women listed are black or hispanic and sex workers, saying they solely died for being trans is not really supported by news and research that views these as all interconnected issues that put them at risk for violence. You still have not done any work to define the scope you would have (what does it mean for someone to be killed for being trans, what criteria would we want for an entry to be included) or show this scope better supported by sources discussing these killings. Rab V (talk) 11:46, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

As to the specific memorial issue, WP:MEMORIAL just states that articles on deceased people need to meet notability requirements. This list does, as the unlawful killing of trans people is a topic widely covered in notable sources, irrespective to specific causes. As stated earlier, many source instead are looking at what are the multiple causes that put trans women at high risk of violence instead of trying to claim trans women are killed only because they are trans. Besides this, several news articles even explicitly list names of trans people killed in a year with a similar criterion that we have in this article. Please explain how this article fails to pass WP:MEMORIAL, since none of your arguments seem to deal with the notability of the list and notability is the sole requirement here. Rab V (talk) 12:10, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I am doing individual edits - each has an edit summary and a rational - your massive revertions not only don't engage with those edits and rationale, it also removed any improvements I've made to the page. There was no discussion on this page to randomly redefine the list to cover *any* death where the person was transgendered, none. If you can point to where a discussion was had to make that radical change, I'd love to see it. I'm going to ask for an Admin to look at this and maybe block you because you cannot WP:OWN this page and use massive reversion to have your way. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:04, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Your edits are so numerous and include large deletions and changes to the defined scope of the article that it is easier to just remove the ones that can be agreed don't belong here after returning the article to a state that was stable beforehand. I agree with some of your deletions, but it is hard to just remove the ones that should be deleted in the middle of all of these edits. Rab V (talk) 12:15, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

So the nonsense of your massive reversions is you've re-added someone who committed suicide - you think that person should be condemned for taking their own life? Shame on you. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:07, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

My suggestion is first we start removing articles that don't belong under the scope that was up before these recent edits. Deal with that first, instead of simultaneously trying to change the entire scope of the article. Rab V (talk) 12:20, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Point out on this talkpage and the associated AFD's where the consensus was that this article should be as broad as you suggest - link to the diffs where that is agreed. You cannot, because it wasn't. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:22, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

The change to the lede was made in a single edit by a single editor - who only edited one - there was no consensus for that change. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:26, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

The issue of scope was brought up as the sole reason for the most recent AFD by StAnselm here. Still the vast consensus was keep with one dissenting delete. One of the keeps spoke of a list focused on specifically hate crimes, but the 7 others voted keep without suggesting such a change. Several of the editors noted the article clearly passes notability, which is the requirement necessary to not just be a memorial. One of the editors, bearian, also stated "I don't know of anywhere else on the web that you can find such useful, obviously important and notable information about a hot topic like this. To state that trans people are not killed because they are trans is not even wrong." Rab V (talk) 13:06, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Maybe my AfD vote was not explicit, but I said we needed to clean up the article. I think trans people whose deaths were unrelated to being trans shouldn't be on this list. I think that some of the removals were maybe a little overzealous, but if a person dies for reasons that are completely unrelated to transphobia, they probably shouldn't be here. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:06, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

feel free to check any of my individual edits... Rather than just mass reverting them... --Cameron Scott (talk) 07:03, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Whether it was added by a throwaway account or not, I think "list of all transgender people who had their deaths investigated as murders" is the right scope for this article to have. Every such murder has a nonzero probability of involving transphobia so including them should not detract from notability. All it does is make the article longer. Plenty of lists are much longer than this one, so I think we are still several years away from a serious bloat problem. Claiming to know what the killer was thinking is the main problem with the current proposal. Hateful motivations are unlikely to be revealed whenever that person has a good lawyer. Conversely, hate crime convictions might be achieved solely because the case has a good prosecutor. I don't want us to be in a position of crossing our fingers and hoping that a publication bends its own editorial rules so that we can say a certain theory of the crime technically appears in a reliable source. Connor Behan (talk) 19:05, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

"Every such murder has a nonzero probability of involving transphobia" - even the one where the person killed was a passenger in a car that was shoot up as it crashed the gates of a miltary bases? That was due to transphobia? --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:28, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

No, I should've removed that one. It was not an "unlawful killing" because she was shot by police and charges against those police were never brought. Connor Behan (talk) 20:16, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

There has to be a better title for this article

We need a title that encompasses the fact that those slain were Trans, and that their deaths were unlawful. The simple word "murder" is tempting but not appropriate. Not all unlawful killings are through murder.

Equally, the objective of this article is not to list all those Trans folk who have died by accident, nor form illness or old age, nor from any other "not unlawful" mechanism.

This discussion has been prompted by a good faith attempt, now reverted, to move the article to a better title. As it stands today "List of unlawfully killed transgender people" is clunky, and can really only be considered to be a working title. I was involved in the discussion that chose it, and I think none of those in that discussion were actually happy with the one we arrived at. I hope we can do much better this time around. Fiddle Faddle 16:27, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Before rehashing a lot of old points please view the original discussion further up the page, but please be sure to place any new material in this new section. Fiddle Faddle 16:32, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, there is more than one place where the title has been discussed above ^^^^. Each is valuable background reading, though I have not linked to them. So far we have failed to find a better title. That does not mean we will fail this time. Fiddle Faddle 16:57, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Are there any suggestions? Personally, I'd think 'List of killed transgender people' would be more appropriate. Unlawful killing is a term specifically from English law without a clear parallel in other jurisdictions, and most of the people in this list are not English. The distinction between lawful and unlawful killings also may be mute; are there even any cases that one would add to this list that would be a lawful killing? Anyway, several of the citations used by the article refer to killings, such as this and this but I don't see any that use the term unlawful killings. I'll also note that list of people killed during Euromaidan is already a established well-edited list, showing that the word unlawful in the name may be unnecessary. Rab V (talk) 06:12, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

The previous arguments regarding the title of the page seem to, implicitly, be about the mission statement of the page. I don't think we can settle on an acceptable title until that underlying dispute is resolved. Fundamentally, is this page about violence against trans people specifically, or about the disproportionately high murder rate experienced by trans people as a marginalized group? If it's the former, then a title along the lines of "List of people killed because they are transgender" is more appropriate. If it's the latter "List of extra-legally killed transgender people" fits better. I'm in the favor of the former, because it ties into the previously mentioned identifications of "violence against trans people because they're trans" as a standalone phenomenon that meets the notability standards. It's worth being aware that being trans has indirect effects on other variables that contribute to the violence against the population, but because it is harder to categorize and identify the full range of racial and socioeconomic factors in play w/r/t that trend, I think it is better off being noted in the context of another page (History of/Violence against LGBT people, maybe) rather than being the focus of this list. Laenan Kite (talk) 03:42, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I would second a title such as "List of people killed because they were transgender", or even "List of people killed for their gender identity". The current title implies that the list could contain people who were murdered for reasons unrelated to their gender identity, and this is not the case. 5.151.174.115 (talk) 18:21, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Ordering geographic areas within each year?

Hi all! The geographic areas in this article are not standardized from one section to the next, except that they always start with the U.S.A., which seems a little biased. I think that going by continent makes sense, but perhaps we should order them alphabetically (like this list) rather than randomly. What do you think? -- Sandbergja (talk) 14:59, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I made this change; feel free to modify if it doesn't work for you. :-) -- Sandbergja (talk) 18:45, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on List of unlawfully killed transgender people. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:10, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of unlawfully killed transgender people. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160211015056/http://gaynewsnetwork.com.au/news/new-south-wales/trans-activist-nadine-stransen-found-dead-20292.html to http://gaynewsnetwork.com.au/news/new-south-wales/trans-activist-nadine-stransen-found-dead-20292.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:28, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

White or person of color change?

Why are the people of color listed as such and the white people the 'default'? I'd like to edit the info of the white folks to say they're white so the language isn't using caucasian as a default.

Juniperthree (talk) 03:30, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

It would seem there is not a 'default' in here, but in the RS upon which Wikipedia relies, so your question is better directed at them. Here is compiled a list based on what RS say, nothing more or less. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:21, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Inclusion standards

What should be the standard for being included on this article? The current standard appears to simply be that any reference exists; no claim of importance or significance of the person or their death is necessary. Not even the decedent's name need be known. This is too low a standard; all deaths are tragic, but not all deaths are suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. How can this be improved? power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:34, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

This should probably have the same criteria as most list articles, which is that the list entry must be notable enough to have its own article, whether or not it currently does. Natureium (talk) 01:54, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that's the criteria for most list articles? Rab V (talk) 08:23, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

It is. See WP:CSC. Natureium (talk) 21:40, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Actually that guide discusses using lists that primarily contain items without their own wikipedia page. "These lists are created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles: for example, List of Dilbert characters or List of paracetamol brand names." It doesn't say that such a list shouldn't be made but that it would be better if it referred to a parent article such as maybe violence against LGBT people or transphobia.Rab V (talk) 23:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're trying to say. The page gives 3 general types of inclusion criteria:

Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Wikipedia
Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria. These lists are created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles
Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group. These should only be created if a complete list is reasonably short (less than 32K) and could be useful (e.g., for navigation) or interesting to readers.

This list falls into the first category. Natureium (talk) 23:24, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm referring to the list as it was before most of the entries were removed, which I just undid. In this case the list would fall under the second criteria. Sorry for the confusion.Rab V (talk) 23:36, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Aha, I was about to ask Natureium what the basis was for the assertion that this list was under the first category. This list does seem to be one of the second type, created when "most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles" that could be gathered into a category. -sche (talk) 23:42, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Because these entries don't belong to any specific group. This is currently a list that could include thousands of people. Every death is tragic, but not all are notable. The fact that they were transgender may or may not even be a factor in their death. This list is useless in it's current form. Some of these entries don't even have a name associated with them. There need to be defined inclusion criteria. There are enough articles on notable transgender people's deaths, that it doesn't really fit in the second category. Natureium (talk) 23:46, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I see Natureium's point but obviously this is an issue about which people feel passionately and accusations of discrimination can and likely will ignite cyberspace warfare among some particularly vocal and influential vested interests which may result in attempts to question Wikipedia or try to bring it into disrepute. On the other hand, if the list is to include the unexplained or suspect death of every transgender, gender-fluid, non-normative, etc. individual world-wide it would seem to lose encyclopaediac value and eventually become unmanageable, IMHO. That is the outline as I see it. But I am not sure what the solution is. Quis separabit? 00:01, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Does anyone care to make further policy-based arguments about whether or not this should be an indiscriminate list? Natureium (talk) 13:56, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

An indiscriminate list would mean a list without a criteria for inclusion. There is a criteria given at the top of the page (though I think more effort can and should be made discussing RS that give context for why a wikipedia list of this kind exists.) Wikipedia list policy requires that every item be verifiable by RS but not that every item be it's own wikipedia page. In general a lack of wikipedia page doesn't necessarily prove a lack of notability so I'd prefer something less stringent than requiring every entry to have a wikipedia page. Rab V (talk) 22:57, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Are you talking about where it says "This is a list of transgender people who were murdered. Worldwide, as of 2009, at least one transgender person is murdered every three days on average."? Because if those are what you are considering to be inclusion criteria, that pretty much an indiscriminate list. You aren't even limiting it to people that are killed for being transgender. A transgender person can be killed in the course of a robbery, and would qualify for this list. This list starts in the 1980, which was almost 40 years ago. There is no purpose for a list with 4800 people on it (365/3*40, per the statement). Natureium (talk) 00:45, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Obviously this does not include people who are not verifiable by RS so I don't think the claim this would include thousands of people is justified. There are other lists on Wikipedia large enough to span multiple articles, we are nowhere near being so unwieldy. Academic articles about murders against trans people typically talk about multiple factors that lead to high murder rates but don't delineate or try to define what it means to be killed because you are transgender. The usual method is to look at multiple factors that contribute to high murder rates against trans people, like lower employment pushing trans people into more dangerous lines of work like prostitution. On top of this usually newspapers don't directly say a person was killed for being trans even in cases where that may seem obvious since that would be editorializing and reporting around murders is usually more fact-based. Making "killed because they are trans" a criteria could lead to OR issues since it is somewhat subjective. Even when the killer admits to killing a person because they are trans, say like in the Jennifer Laude case, the sources themselves typically just describe his statements and don't make pronounciations in their own voice about why this person was killed. Rab V (talk) 01:38, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Inclusion standards

What should be the standard for being included on this article? The current standard appears to simply be that any reference exists; no claim of importance or significance of the person or their death is necessary. Not even the decedent's name need be known. This is too low a standard; all deaths are tragic, but not all deaths are suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. How can this be improved? power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:34, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

This should probably have the same criteria as most list articles, which is that the list entry must be notable enough to have its own article, whether or not it currently does. Natureium (talk) 01:54, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that's the criteria for most list articles? Rab V (talk) 08:23, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

It is. See WP:CSC. Natureium (talk) 21:40, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Actually that guide discusses using lists that primarily contain items without their own wikipedia page. "These lists are created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles: for example, List of Dilbert characters or List of paracetamol brand names." It doesn't say that such a list shouldn't be made but that it would be better if it referred to a parent article such as maybe violence against LGBT people or transphobia.Rab V (talk) 23:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're trying to say. The page gives 3 general types of inclusion criteria:

Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Wikipedia
Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria. These lists are created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles
Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group. These should only be created if a complete list is reasonably short (less than 32K) and could be useful (e.g., for navigation) or interesting to readers.