Talk:Murder of Amanda Milan

Notability

With no disrespect intended to Amanda Milan, her family and friends, and the LGBT community I would like to ask whether this person is notable. The guidelines for victims under Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts) says the following, "Victims of high-profile crimes do not automatically qualify as notable enough to have a stand-alone article solely based on their status as victims. Notability with regards to this is defined as satisfying some other aspect of the notability of persons guideline that does not relate to the crime in question. As such, a victim of a crime should normally only be the subject of an article where an article that satisfied notability criteria existed, or could have properly been created prior to the crime's commission. Thus, attempts at inclusion prompted by appearance in the press should not be excluded if notability can be otherwise asserted." In this case I don't think Amanda Milan meets the notability requirements outside of the context of her murder. Even if the crime itself is notable the article should be about the murder and not a biography of the victim. An example would be Murder of Kathryn Faughey. Note that in order for the crime to be notable, it must be covered on a national or global scope; a fact that is not necessarily established here by the cited references. I am refraining from taking this to an AFD for the moment in the hopes that my concerns will be addressed by someone more familiar with the topic and another solution found. Nrswanson (talk) 15:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

So rename it Murder of Amanda Milan. Problem solved. Rebecca (talk) 09:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll do the move, but I am not asserting the notability of the crime, just the non-notability of the victim. --Damiens.rf 12:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

After some (minor) research, I'm less convicted about the notability of this crime. It seems it had some regional coverage, and is trivially listed on LGBT activism sites, but that's all for now. For instance, the only 2 news articles used as reference are from the same author. --Damiens.rf 12:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

There are lgbt related deaths seem to make it here as seperate article. One can tack them onto phobia against the l/g/b/t but they don't see notable here. Just because it is murder doesn't make it notable either. Under what pretense is this notable? What precedent does this set?

See Murder of Gwen Araujo and then this one. Going around one can perhaps find more, though I didn't bother looking at this point.

Wikipedia is WP:NOTMEMORIAL Lihaas (talk) 13:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Was the accused muderer charged?

I have temporally removed the passage saying "Dwayne McCuller was charged with homicide. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to seventeen and a half years to life in prison", because I could not easly find a reliable source supporting that. It used to have a website called "Gender Public Advocacy Coalition" (http://www.gpac.org/) as a reference, but I don't think it's good enough for Wikipedia standards (special in regard to BLP concerns over Mr. McCuller).

A quick google search for "Dwayne McCuller" brings only 17 results, mostly from LGBT activists sites, some few of them talking about the sentence. I'll take some time so see if one of the really cited some newspaper or maybe the case proceedings themselves, and use it as a reference here. In the meanwhile, per BLP, we can't say the man is a confessed homicide. --Damiens.rf 13:13, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, this article had grave BLP issues regarding the accused men. The article stated all the murder details as facts, while all the referenced sources were careful enough to distinguish what was witness accounts, Amanda's friends accounts, police reports and prosecutor's accusations.

I've tried to fix that a bit, but I would welcome review of my prose. --Damiens.rf 14:12, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you cannot remove the sentence from an article about a pretty prominent murder case because you can't be bothered doing more than looking on the first page of Google to find a reference. This is not seriously disputed, and if you want to find a better source, go and find one - don't make the article factually inaccurate in the meantime. Rebecca (talk) 08:41, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, if you're so concerned about BLP issues, you might want to start with your version of the events leading up to the murder, which goes to amazing effort to skirt around anything that might maybe make the murderer look bad, and to include anything that could be twisted to make the victim look bad. Rebecca (talk) 08:42, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, per BLP, I can remove that sentence from the article. That I did a google search, in this case, is a demonstration of effort, since the burden of the proof is undoubtedly on those adding potentially libelous statements to the article. --Damiens.rf 12:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really as concerned about BLP as Damiens. Although all the information in the article really should have reliable sources cited, I agree with Rebecca that the statement, "He subsequently plead guilty and was sentenced to seventeen and a half years to life in prison.", is most likely accurate and should remain with a fact tag rather than being deleted. What I'm more concerned about is establishing that this crime had national coverage and is more than "local news". In your search Damiens, have you found anything establishing that. I have had no luck as of right now. The only articles appear to be from media in NYC. Even the LGBT community doesn't seem to have written much on the murder beyond New York based groups as well.Nrswanson (talk) 15:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

As I say in the #Notability section above, I couldn't find much things about that. But again, as Rebecca pointed out, my "research" was just a handful of google searchs.

About the BLP issue, I insist that we need very good sources to state that someone plead guilty of stabbing someone to death. The {{fact}} tag is simply not used in BLP cases. I personally have no reason to believe that isn't truth. But I will revert any attempt of such BLP violation.

One of the references I found for the article (the only one not from writer "Nina Siegal") is a dispatch from the New York Count district attorney about the indictment of the perpetrators. It mentions a (then upcoming) hearing at January 4, 2001. Do some of you know where to get whatever public records exists about this hearing? --Damiens.rf 15:48, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I found sources for the fact, so BLP is no longer an issue.Nrswanson (talk) 17:48, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the effort. But that's not a reliable reputable source. I've seen lots of LGBT activism "news" sites like this in my research. Simply not good enough for BLP issues. --Damiens.rf 18:18, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I see you silently reverted to your version. I'll ask for a 3rd part input here about that source. I'll let you know. --Damiens.rf 20:42, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Asked for opinions here: Wikipedia:Biographies of living_persons/Noticeboard#Murder of Amanda Milan --Damiens.rf 20:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Here's from the New York Post:

• ... a Bronx man [Dwayne McCuller, 22] pleaded guilty yesterday to stabbing a transsexual [Amanda Dyer] to death outside of the Port Authority. ... In return for the guilty plea, McCuller was promised a sentence of 17 years in prison, plus five years supervised release.
  • Gregorian, Dareh (2002-11-09). "BX. MAN GUILTY IN SLAYING OF TRANSSEXUAL". New York Post. p. 014. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)

Is that what folks were looking for? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

• • • It seems ok. I can't really say because I don't have this copy of NYP here with me (is it available online?), but I understand this is still verifiable information. --Damiens.rf 15:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
      • Yes, I retrieved this from Proquest. Many libraries have subscriptions, so you should check with your local system. However this is the verbatim copy of the entire article (For copyright reasons, I probably shouldn't posted it entirely but I can delete it once this discussion is over). Interestingly, the article combines the two names into "Amanda Dyer". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
        • There's no need to post the article content. The references, as you put above, is reasonably verifiable.
        • The NY Attorney also calls the victim the way (see reference on the article). --Damiens.rf 20:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
          • I trimmed the text just to be proper. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:51, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

FYI, there were also articles in the Village Voice (923 words) and the New York Amsterdam News (944 words) in July 2000, just after the murder, in addition to the NY Times article already cited. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Lead

Please stop adding irrelevant information to the lead.

Spot the irrelevant fact in all of these sentences:

Barack Hussein Obama II is the President-elect of the United States and the junior United States Senator from Illinois, and he has a penis.

Maurice Greene is an American former sprinter in athletics, who holds several world records and Olympic medals, and he has a penis.

Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton is the junior United States Senator from New York, and was a candidate for the Democratic nomination in the 2008 presidential election, and she has a vagina.

Mohamed Nasheed is the current President of the Maldives, and he has a penis.

Amanda Milan was a woman who was stabbed to death on the street, and she had a penis.

The genitalia of all of these figures is totally irrelevant, which is why it isn't in the leads of the other four, and it shouldn't be here. The only possible purpose of including it in the lead is to mark her as other, which is a violation of both NPOV and BLP. Rebecca (talk) 22:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The differences between the above and Amanda Milan are that none of the above are prostitutes (I would imagine having a penis would be pretty relevant if you are a prostitute) none of the above make any attempt to hide their penis (or lack of one in Hilary's case) and none of the above were killed by someone who stated "I know what you have between your legs."

Following your logic, perhaps you would like the lead to state "Amanda Milan was a person""I know what you have between your legs."

By the way, Obama's article mentions that he is black in the lead, would you like that removed?

It seems obvious, in an article which is about the murder of a transsexual prostitute, killed by someone who commented on the fact that she had a penis - the penis is highly relevant - infact if Amanda Milan had be born a she (obviously without a cock) then this article would not exist, the penis is what makes this article notable. Sennen goroshi (talk) 12:52, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Had to agree with Sennen here. It should be obvious why is that information specially relevant here, while not so much in other articles. --Damiens.rf 17:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I remind you of Wikipedia's guidelines on identity. It would seem to me that this is more about your own biases here than anything else. Milan was stabbed to death for being transsexual; that she was a sex worker, and the status of her genitalia, are subsidiary matters; the second so subsidiary that no one would comprehend adding it to the articles of any of the above, or virtually any other on Wikipedia. The sole reason of adding it here, as I said, appears to be to mark her as other; Sennen's comments above bely that as much as anything else here. The comment about removing "black" from Obama's article is nonsense - as no one is disputing removing "transsexual" from this article. What I'm disputing is that just because the article concerns a transsexual person, their genitalia is instantly of massive relevance to the article, when that contradicts both BLP and NPOV. Rebecca (talk) 21:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I see several aspects of this issue and point to gay panic defense as part of the culture that promotes killing people based on their sexuality and gender. There are ways to encyclopedicly address the concerns that Milan was a gender minority without sensationalizing it. We're not a tabloid here. -- Banjeboi 22:41, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Or, what he said. Well put. Rebecca (talk) 23:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Move it back

The real story here is how Milan's friends started a wave of activism because of the killing - not the killing itself. I think the article would be better if moved back to Amanda Milan. -- Banjeboi 23:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

• I disagree. The whole reason for not naming it Amanda Milan is because Milan herself doesn't meet the notability guidelines for people here at wikipedia. Victims of a crime are only notable if they were notable before the crime and not as a result of the crime. See conversation above.Nrswanson (talk) 23:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with Nrswanson on this one. The murder of Milan touched off the wave off activism; this is probably the better title. Rebecca (talk) 23:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

• Well by that logic the death itself is also not that notable; to me it makes more sense to organize it around the person than the resulting effects because of who she was. Seems a bit more encyclopedic, IMHO, to be more dignified. If the article is about the murder then we drill down into each aspect of the crime which would seen undue. Instead she was high-class escort brutally murdered whose murder helped galvanize the trans communities. Usually with these articles there is an issue f not having enough content to write a proper bio but that's not an issue here as I've already seen a few sources that discus her life in a bio context. -- Banjeboi 23:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

• Please read the the notability conversation above. It clearly lays out why a biography of Amanda Milan would not be encyclopedic and would not be in keeping with wikipedia policy.Nrswanson (talk) 23:25, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

• It was also clearly misinformed. The murder happened in a magical transition time of news outlets. Before every scrap of news was put online. Plenty of news articles was written about her, her murder, the many protests and the resulting changes in legislation tied to this case similar to Matthew Shephard. -- Banjeboi 00:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

• I formed my opinion based on the current evidence. Your above assertion is not supported by the sources to this article. Prove your point with evidence (i.e. legal doccuments, news coverage outside of New York, etc.) and then I will get on board. As it is, the sources show coverage limmited to New York and don't suggest any lasting impact/ changes in legislation. Show me proof for your above assetion and then add the relevent material to the article. If you do that then we can remove the tag.Nrswanson (talk) 00:53, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

A further note, you recently have added info which may establish notability but it may not. I need to go through it.Nrswanson (talk) 01:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

2 editors disagreeing in this thread along with but one more posting an opinion is no consensus for calling this article Murder of Amanda Milan, much less the lack of heed to WP:Title. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

If we name the title after the person then the article is a biography. Wikipedia does not do biographies of victims. Therefore the article should be named after the crime because that is the topic of the article. Otherwise, articles named after victims tend to focus on the life of the victim, often adding inappropriate or extranious details from their lives that are unconected to the crime and may invade the privacy of the victims and their families. The articles become either tabloidish, unencyclopedic, or a memorial.Nrswanson (talk) 12:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

As I said elsewhere, WP:Title doesn't support your take on the naming of articles about crime victims and moreover, an article's content, structure, weight and sourcing is what sways it towards or away from meeting other policies. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

And as I said before, I think you are choosing not to understand me. Articles named after people are biographies. These articles can not and should not be biographies. They are about crimes not people. They should be named after crimes and not people. Titles should be about the main subject of the article. Fundamentally these articles are not about people. They are not biographies. We shouldn't title them like they are biographies.Nrswanson (talk) 12:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I understand you. Either way though, there is no consensus on this page for a Murder of X title and WP:Title does not support it. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't not support it either. The page doesn't address the issue of articles related to victims (probably because there aren't supposed to be any. the articles are supposed to be about the crime).Nrswanson (talk) 13:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:Title is clear. Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts) says nothing about titles, hence I think WP:Title has sway. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid it does. See here: Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts)#Article title.Nrswanson (talk) 05:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually that's a proposed and contentious policy under construction. -- Banjeboi 22:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it serves our readers to have it at "Murder of ___" at all. People search for the person who was the center of the murder investigation. I find the "murder of" title dehumazing and unhelpful. This article isn't about her murder per se but the reaction and aftermath. Smarter and simply to put it a s a biography and clean it up from there. -- Banjeboi 02:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Banjeboi. Also, as I mentioned on the [[Matthew Shepard talk page virtually every other hate crimes victim is biographical, not event-subject. Often victims of hate crimes in particular take on a symbolic significance that elevates them as individuals to noteworthy status. Queerudite (talk) 05:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

In the case of Matthew Shepard I agree. In this case I don't. Milan was not the subject of any major legal changes in hate crime legislation and her murder was not covered by press outside of New York. I never even heard of her until I stumbled across this article. I don't think she has reached an iconic status. I also suggest everyone read the recommended titling for articles like these at Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts)#Article title. I think the benefits of the "Murder of..." titling outway any negatives. First of all, articles titled after victims tend to turn into biographies which is not acceptable for an encyclopedia or by wikipedia's guidelines regarding victims which says, "Victims of high-profile crimes do not automatically qualify as notable enough to have a stand-alone article solely based on their status as victims. Notability with regards to this is defined as satisfying some other aspect of the notability of persons guideline that does not relate to the crime in question. As such, a victim of a crime should normally only be the subject of an article where an article that satisfied notability criteria existed, or could have properly been created prior to the crime's commission. Thus, attempts at inclusion prompted by appearance in the press should not be excluded if notability can be otherwise asserted." Second, articles entitled after victims tends to attract a lot of personal information about the victim's personal life which can be tasteless, disrespectful, and an invasion of the privacy of the victim and their family. Third, articles entitled after victims can tend to memorialize the person and wikipedia is not a memorial. Those are just a few of many reasons that I prefer the "Murder of..." titling.Nrswanson (talk) 05:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

• Please see Talk:Matthew_Shepard#Renaming_of_anti-LGBT_victims. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually her case did elevate beyond her city, which to me doesn't matter that much. And her case became a rallying point for transgender inclusion in onging gay and lesbian hate crime legislation. I think the benefits of treating this as a biography outweigh the desitre to mitigate her life down to the murder itself which is far less notable than the reaction to the murder. -- Banjeboi 22:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Accuracy of recent additions

I am not sure if I trust the recent additions by User:Benjiboi. For example, this sentence "Because of Milan's murder Rivera reformed a transgender activist group, Street Trans Activist Revolutionaries (STAR)"." STAR was around for three decades prior to the murder so how can that be true? This one inaccuaracy makes we wonder about the accuracy of everything else he has added.Nrswanson (talk) 00:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the bad faith assumption and tagging the entire article for one fact that you could have verified yourself. You may wish to reread that sentence - "Because of Milan's murder Rivera reformed a transgender activist group, Street Trans Activist Revolutionaries (STAR)". -- Banjeboi 01:20, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Duh! Lol sorry my bad. I misread it. FYI, if you notice my comments on Rebecca's talk page, I did compliment you there. I chose to tag rather then revert to give you the chance to clarify which does show some good faith.Nrswanson (talk) 01:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Street Transvestite Action Revolutionaries was reformed and renamed to Street Trans Activist Revolutionaries. There is a long history of sexuality and gender minorities engaging in offline and street sex work because regular routes in cultures were closed to them. That Milan was a person of colour compounded the issue. -- Banjeboi 01:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Since you obviously have some good sources relating this case to the revitalization of STAR you may want to consider adding content to the STAR article that refers back to Amanda Milan's murder.Nrswanson (talk) 02:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

More bad source reading

Please, stop taking everything written on any source as a fact. For instance, the article currently says Amanda was a high-profile prostitute that often traveled to Europe, but there's no source supporting this. The reference given simply says that this is what her closest friends told about here. We even the reference didn't took that as a fact. We can't simply believe every good think her friends say about her.

Also, we can't copy all the pov from the activists websites here. When the article describes the intention of Rivera's demonstrations as "to bring attention to the disconnection of transgender rights from the larger LGBT communities" , it is implying there is such disconnection, which is just Rivera's opinions.

Same problem with The line saying "The case and the resulting media attention helped "galvanize the transgender community and instigated change". It has an editorial tone.

This article is being slowly turned into an activist webbsite itself. Stop that right away. --Damiens.rf 17:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

These are published books not websites. And we do publish opinions and we attribute them to those wh make the statement to remain NPOV. -- Banjeboi 00:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

You're being disingenuous. You're misusing sources. As I showed above, you take a source that attributes something to her friends, and use it as a stated fact. --Damiens.rf 13:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I think you're quite mistaken. In any case I've altered the text to qualify who stated what. What is disingenuous is to suggest the sources didn't state what was there or I falsified the information. Titling your concerns " More bad source reading" doesn't help discussion and engenders a battleground which is against policy. -- Banjeboi 02:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Milan as a non-white prostitute

I'm still reading through sources but part of Rivera's campaign was that Milan was a transwoman of color and the increasingly affluent gay community was dividing mor e along class lines. That is she was still a person of color and a prostitute and the climate of NLY was that areas where sex-workers - predominantly lower class people of color - would meet their clients were being closed off or otherwise shut down. This including XXX-movie houses, the piers, youth centers and establishments that otherwise ignored the activity. I'm not sure how yet to include this but it seems relevant to the background. -- Banjeboi 01:38, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

If you can find sources, this would be really good (and pertinent) to include. Rebecca (talk) 03:06, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

It will take a little time as the recent edit warring has been simply to delete content and sources. -- Banjeboi 00:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

edit war?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sennen_goroshi#.28More.29_Gwen_Araujo

I shall step back from this article, due to constant reverts. Rebecca, I suggest you do the same. You were lucky not to get reported from 3RR, as per my talk page.

Sennen goroshi (talk) 05:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

A high-profile term

The use of "high-profile" as a qualifier for the murder case in the lead (or in any other part of the article) is to be avoided, since it's a term full of pov, and void of real information. By Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms: "Instead of telling the reader that a subject is important, use facts to show the subject's importance.". Editors reading this article should be able to properly qualify murder case. --Damiens.rf 11:24, 28 November 2008 (UTC)