Jump to content

Talk:List of people killed for being transgender: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 109: Line 109:
:::If the accused is convicted, I would argue that the victim was killed for being trans even if she wasn't actually trans, and that this is a case of mistaken gender identity. That seems like it would be in scope for this article. [[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]] ([[User talk:Sideswipe9th|talk]]) 23:07, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
:::If the accused is convicted, I would argue that the victim was killed for being trans even if she wasn't actually trans, and that this is a case of mistaken gender identity. That seems like it would be in scope for this article. [[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]] ([[User talk:Sideswipe9th|talk]]) 23:07, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
::::When police shoot an unarmed suspect because they mistakenly believe his phone was a gun, the victim wasn't shot for having a gun. And no, we don't know the victim wasn't trans. Pink News is not a good source and doesn't validate the victim's gender identity. Fox59 does not reference anything indicating as such and makes no reference to "cisgender." Huffington Post simply says "Peacock was a 59-year-old cisgender woman" without explaining how they came to this conclusion. Are we to just assume someone's gender identity by default? I don't agree the perpetrator mistook her gender identity; he mistook her sex, evidenced by your quote. Due to this, I find it likely the sources are referring to her natal sex in their rebuttal, not how she viewed her own gender. They're saying, "but she wasn't a male trying to present as a women like he thought." The victim wasn't killed on the basis of her gender identity which is what the article is about. [[User:Randomdude87|Randomdude87]] ([[User talk:Randomdude87|talk]]) 00:54, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
::::When police shoot an unarmed suspect because they mistakenly believe his phone was a gun, the victim wasn't shot for having a gun. And no, we don't know the victim wasn't trans. Pink News is not a good source and doesn't validate the victim's gender identity. Fox59 does not reference anything indicating as such and makes no reference to "cisgender." Huffington Post simply says "Peacock was a 59-year-old cisgender woman" without explaining how they came to this conclusion. Are we to just assume someone's gender identity by default? I don't agree the perpetrator mistook her gender identity; he mistook her sex, evidenced by your quote. Due to this, I find it likely the sources are referring to her natal sex in their rebuttal, not how she viewed her own gender. They're saying, "but she wasn't a male trying to present as a women like he thought." The victim wasn't killed on the basis of her gender identity which is what the article is about. [[User:Randomdude87|Randomdude87]] ([[User talk:Randomdude87|talk]]) 00:54, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
:::::PinkNews is [[WP:PINKNEWS|is a generally reliable source]] on Wikipedia. There is no requirement in [[WP:RS]] that reliable sources must show their working for how they assert certain facts.
:::::{{tq|Are we to just assume someone's gender identity by default?}} No, we go by what is stated in reliable sources. For the moment, it's [[WP:V|verifiable]] to multiple reliable sources that the victim was cisgender. That may change in the future, but we can address that when that happens.
:::::{{tq|I don't agree the perpetrator mistook her gender identity; he mistook her sex, evidenced by your quote.}} The specifics of this case don't really matter right now, because I'm merely using this as a framing example for asking a hypothetical. I'm not saying we should include this article ''now'', and in fact I've said in my original comment that we should not include it yet. The question I asked in my original comment is {{tq|if the attacker is convicted and it is proven that Peacock was killed because she was thought to be trans, would this be valid for inclusion in this list?}}
:::::Setting aside for the moment that broad speculation on a live criminal proceeding is not the purpose of an article talk page like this, speculation on the exact outcome of the case beyond the scope of the question doesn't really matter. This is because if the attacker is either not convicted, or it is proven that the victim was killed for any other reason, it would be inherently out of scope of this article. The only thing I'm interested in is whether or not a cisgender person who was killed, because their killer thought they were trans or non-binary, would be in the scope of this article. [[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]] ([[User talk:Sideswipe9th|talk]]) 01:54, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
:I'm also fine with adding cases like that to the list despite the title. It should be clear in the description of those cases that they were not in fact trans, just thought to be trans by their assailant. [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 02:13, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
:I'm also fine with adding cases like that to the list despite the title. It should be clear in the description of those cases that they were not in fact trans, just thought to be trans by their assailant. [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 02:13, 30 January 2024 (UTC)



Revision as of 01:54, 27 February 2024

Requested move 6 June 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved (non-admin closure) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 22:55, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]



List of people killed for being transgenderList of unlawfully killed trans people – Each death can't be proved and won't be proved in a court of law. The title "killed for being trans" presumes an unreasonable criterion. 2601:C4:C300:1BD0:708E:2510:279C:4124 (talk) 18:21, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose and speedy close. With only a minor alteration, this RM is just a repetition of the recently-concluded one (#Requested move 20 March 2020). That RM established that there is no encyclopedic value to a list of people killed who just happen to be transgender. The encyclopedic value is in a list of those whose status was a proximate cause. Yes, this means a lot of names no longer belong, and that's the point. -- Netoholic @ 19:58, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So many unarmed trans people being killed isn't a coincidence. The "killed for being transgender" is a furtive move to eviscerate the article after the failed attempts to delete the article.--2601:C4:C300:1BD0:708E:2510:279C:4124 (talk) 22:02, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The last AfD was specifically closed noting "overly broad criteria for inclusion, problems with the article title". Without the changes, its quite possible another AfD would delete this list noting that very little had been done to address the problems after multiple years. This title and scope may in fact be saving this list from complete deletion. I suggest focusing on finding reliably-sourced inclusions under the current scope. -- Netoholic @ 02:19, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for confessing to your dogged attempts to delete this article for so many years.--2601:C4:C300:1BD0:708E:2510:279C:4124 (talk) 02:32, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above. This was the agreed-upon title in a very recent RM. Paintspot Infez (talk) 01:31, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - revised list fits title well. Hundreds of people die every day, some of them trans - simply being a unlawfully killed trans person is not criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. AntiChirality (talk) 15:49, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - No single oppose is going by notability established by RS. I see several RS that list killed trans people without the added criteria and discuss the murders as an issue that happens for a multitude of reasons, see Forbes, The Hill, NBC, USA Today, Newsweek, CNN, etc. These sources, as do research oriented sources I can pull, discuss multiple reasons for these murders and show that there are systemic issues leading to higher murder rates for trans women that are also very notable, like homelessness, lack of employment except in sex trade, disrespect by police. The other issues with the current title is it talks to a mental state of the murderer that we are indirectly inferring. The wording also is informal, not the type we'd likely see in well-written RS (check out this quick search from Google News, note the sources are mostly opinion pieces.) In RS you'd be more likely to see wording like murders where transphobic bias was a factor. Also on this being a move request that happened recently after a previous one, I'll note that the move that changed the title to it's current one also happened after frequent prior attempts to change it failed. I suspect it only went through due to editors like myself burning out on the same discussion happening frequently. Rab V (talk) 19:43, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I regret supporting the move to the current title as I see that is now being used as an excuse to completely gut this article, by establishing an impossibly high standard of proof that a person's trans status was the primary motive in their killing. Funcrunch (talk) 20:36, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The current edition of this article includes those whose trans status *may* have been a motive in their killing. This is a generous reading of the title and a shorter list is not necessarily a poorer article for it. Simply being a trans person killed is not notable enough for inclusion in a page that leads the reader to draw the conclusion they were killed for being trans. AntiChirality (talk) 01:22, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So the Human Rights Campaign list of trans people killed is a reach, huh?--2601:C4:C300:1BD0:708E:2510:279C:4124 (talk) 01:32, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. Wikipedia is not the HRC and not an advocacy group for transgender activists. Please refer to WP:Memorial and WP:DIRECTORY. AntiChirality (talk) 02:47, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If someone's trans status contributed to their death, find reliable sources that state such. If it didn't contribute to their death, then there is no point (other than violating WP:NOTMEMORIAL) in singling them out from the WP:RUNOFTHEMILL reports of violent deaths across the population. If LGBT equality means anything, it means being treated the same as any other segment of the population... and that means if someone is killed, we don't create a list to based on an arbitrary personal status. We don't have a list of killed gay men/women, nor a list of killed redheads, or killed black people, or killed stutterers. Those would be the definition of WP:INDISCRIMINATE, just as moving this back to the old scope would be. -- Netoholic @ 02:52, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do not confuse equality with equity. There is no historical record of violent physical attacks on people with red hair or speech impediments. Funcrunch (talk) 07:03, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Regarding "we don't have a list of killed gay/men women": See List of people executed for homosexuality in Europe and Gay bashing. Funcrunch (talk) 07:09, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You do realize that you are making Netoholic's point for him there? List of people executed for homosexuality in Europe is a list of people executed because of their (alleged) homosexuality. It's not a list of all homosexual people executed. Similarly, Gay bashing is about "attack, abuse, or assault" because of a person's (perceived) LGBT status. Regards SoWhy 07:29, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTMEMORIAL requires that the subject meets notability requirements, and that shouldn't be a problem. Similar with WP:INDISCRIMINATE's requirement that"data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources." Agree HRC is likely not an RS. Rab V (talk) 03:00, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • HRC's mission is advocacy. However noble, that is not what Wikipedia is about. By its own criteria, the list itself includes people who may be victims of transphobia, but it also includes people who may have been made vulnerable by marginalization, poverty, etc. In Wikipedia terms, it's a memorial, and its scope is suitable some place other than Wikipedia. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What's wrong with advocating against killing trans people? Is CNN wrong for running the 2019 list? At least 22 transgender people have been killed this year. But numbers don't tell the full story at CNN --2601:C4:C300:1BD0:708E:2510:279C:4124 (talk) 00:19, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - When I commented on this article before, I was unaware of the last RFM. I agree that the change seems to have been, intentionally or unintentionally, a crippling blow to the article. The new title would give us room to make this article what it actually is, and not set a nearly impossible bar in an attempt to empty it out. Parabolist (talk) 22:29, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose return to the previous main title header which was moved to the present title two months ago, on April 2. "Unlawful killing" is a term used in English law, but not throughout the English-speaking world. An exchange [above] highlighted possible confusion regarding the term — "Support are there "lawfully killed trans people"? Axem Titanium (talk) 19:43, 20 March 2020 (UTC) Comment: Self defence, capital punishment, euthanasia... jamacfarlane (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2020 (UTC)". I would, however, support an all-inclusive header such as List of killed transgender people or List of transgender people who were killed and do, indeed, include those, if any, who died as a result of euthanasia, capital punishment or someone claiming self defense. —Roman Spinner (talkcontribs) 00:38, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per last time and Netoholic. Every person's death is tragic in its own way but not every person's death is worthy of inclusion or we venture into WP:INDISCRIMINATE territory with no way out. While per Transgender#Population figures the number of transgender people is hard to pin down, one estimate mentioned in that article is that 0.3% of all people in the EU are transgender. Extrapolating to worldwide population, that would ~24 million people (the real number is probably much higher). Every year, approx. 7 out of 100,00 people are killed unlawfully worldwide. That means, approx. 1,700 transgender people are killed unlawfully every year. The proposed scope (by moving the article) would include every one of those deaths, no matter why they were killed. Regards SoWhy 07:50, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The current discussion clearly shows that the move to the current title did not reflect an actual consensus among editors. In addition, several people who supported the move at the time have changed their position. Yet the article's scope and content are being changed despite the lack of consensus. I'm not a fan of the old title, but I think we should revert the move and go back to the previous title/scope until we have a clearer consensus on what this article should be. --Jd4v15 (talk) 17:59, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 12 February 2023

February 11th 2023 Brianna Ghey was stabbed to death in a park in Warrington UK Angel Delight (ASD) (talk) 22:48, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. You'll need to provide sources demonstrating that they were killed for being trans. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:54, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Given the social climate around Brianna Ghey's murder, I strongly support adding her to this page, linking to her current event page and adding the addendum "Motive for her murder is under current investigation. Coverage of her death included The Times titling their article with her deadname, sparking controversy over media coverage of transgender individuals."
If it is found that her death was not motivated by her identity, it can be removed later. 66.219.235.165 (talk) 07:09, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This list is for individuals which reliable sources have reported were killed for being transgender. In Brianna's case, all sources that I read make it clear that the motive has not been determined yet, so we cannot add it. I understand where you are coming from and personally, I suspect you are right, but unfortunately Wikipedia cannot operate on speculation and we especially cannot add something based on speculation just because we can remove it later. Last but not least, the presumption of innocence in WP:BLPCRIME also extends to motive. Regards SoWhy 08:40, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If highly prominent trans victims of homicide don't meet this article's requirements for inclusion, perhaps the requirements need to change. Jd4v15 (talk) 18:44, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jd4v15: This article is literally called "List of people killed for being transgender". As mentioned in the last discussion of the scope above, listing every death no matter the motive would most likely violate WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTDIRECTORY (see also WP:SALAT for details). It would also imho reduce transgender people to their gender identity, implying that transgender people are somehow a special group of humans who cannot do anything (or have anything done to them) that is not related to their gender identity. Regardless though, the consensus is what it is, so at this moment, her inclusion is not possible until reliable sources confirm that her gender identity was (part of) the motive. You are welcome to try and start a WP:RFC to change the requirements though. Regards SoWhy 19:30, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with SFR and SoWhy. Until a motive for Brianna Ghey's killing has been established by RS, we do not include her on this list. Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 22:07, 11 August 2023 (UTC) PS: I got here because the issue has been raised again on Brianna's talkpage, which I monitor. Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 22:14, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Brianna Ghey’s death should not be added to the list in this article unless/until reliable sources say that she was killed for being transgender. Sweet6970 (talk) 22:20, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Restore Serena Angelique Velázquez Ramos and Layla Pelaez Sánchez

Incredibly straightforward case with Reliable Sources unambiguously indicating that they were killed for being transgender. Their inclusion isn't even vaguely controversial. Any objections? OrdinaryDecent (talk) 22:22, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I object – the reports only say that the police were investigating the killings as hate crimes, and one of the sources includes …. one of the men confessed to his participation in the "vile" crime and admitted it was done for "reasons of revenge" by "repudiating the sexual orientation of the victims." Being transgender is not a sexual orientation, so this source actually contradicts the idea that the killings were because the victims were transgender. Sweet6970 (talk) 22:57, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of people confuse sexual orientation with transgender identity, unfortunately. Can you post a link to the source of your quote so I can see it in context? Funcrunch (talk) 00:23, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The sources used for this when these killings were in the article are [1] and [2]. It is the second which refers to ‘sexual orientation’. Neither of them gives a definite statement that these were hate crimes – the sources are just quoting comments from a police officer.Sweet6970 (talk) 10:23, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that your perception that there's some ambiguity here is extremely non-standard. If you feel strongly that this is incorrect, I suggest you escalate the issue through the Wikipedia dispute resolution system. Perhaps with a Request for comment. OrdinaryDecent (talk) 14:26, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The first source quotes the police captain saying "We are classifying it as a hate crime because they were socializing with the victims, and once they found out they were transgender women, they decided to kill them". There is no ambiguity here. That the same police captain mentioned sexual orientation in the second source does not make the motive for these killings more ambiguous. Both victims should be restored to this article. Funcrunch (talk) 18:22, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We don’t have any reliable source saying that they were killed because they were transgender. If this was a standalone article, we could only say that it was reported that a police officer said it – we could not say it in wikivoice. So these killings should not be in this list, which is in wikivoice. Sweet6970 (talk) 10:30, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Concur. This seems straightforward. CMacMillan (talk) 22:59, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The list criterion stated at the top of the article is "people who were killed for being transgender". If we reworked that to be "people who may have been killed for being transgender", I think we could reasonably included cases like these. As it is, we shouldn't be making a wikivoice statement about the motive of a killing until there's been either a judicial finding of fact or an overwhelming consensus in reliable sources. Those don't exist for these two killings. More recent reliable sources have talked about the delay in processing the charges as itself a potential manifestation of anti-trans sentiment, but we can do little here but wait for a court decision. I think the main thing holding us back from including similar cases is the list criterion, and I'd be in favor of starting up that discussion again. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:20, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A list of people who ‘may have been killed for being transgender’ would have no encyclopaedic value. Sweet6970 (talk) 13:42, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I could see it being very valuable, depending on the specific inclusion criteria we could develop, but it doesn't make sense to get into it if we're not really getting into it. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:55, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Given that there hasn't really been a true consensus on the title of the article or the appropriate inclusion criteria, I'd suggest that this article would be an excellent candidate for the Wikipedia dispute resolution system. If no one else takes the initiative on that, I guess I can start that process some time soon. OrdinaryDecent (talk) 15:01, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree dispute resolution might eventually be needed, but most DR processes start with thorough local discussion. Want to start the ball rolling in a new section. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:36, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a new discussion; discussion about the inclusion criteria for the list have been going on for as long as this article has been in existence (see the archives). Funcrunch (talk) 16:48, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Funcrunch, and I am aware of those prior discussions. It's still not advisable to jump right into higher levels of DR, since it's been years since the last discussion. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:50, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion criteria - cisgender people killed because they were suspected to be trans

I'm aware of the past discussions on the inclusion criteria in the archives, however none seem to have touched upon this. Does the inclusion criteria for this list include cisgender people who were killed because they were thought to be trans?

A recent example of this is Michelle Dionne Peacock, whose attacker reportedly described the victim as a male acting like a woman during police questioning. As far as I'm aware, that case is still pending so I don't think we should include it yet, but if the attacker is convicted and it is proven that Peacock was killed because she was thought to be trans, would this be valid for inclusion in this list? Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:36, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t have any objection in principle to changing the criteria for inclusion in this article, provided this is agreed by other editors. But if we are to include any such killings, we’d have to change the title of the article. Do you have a suggested revised title? Sweet6970 (talk) 15:10, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would we have to change the title? The current title is list of people killed for being transgender, arguably killing someone because you suspect them to be trans is the same as killing them because they are trans, so it seems in scope to me. The perpetrator is killing the victim because they perceive them to be trans, whether or not the perpetrator knows for certain that the victim is trans is kinda immaterial, as the intent was to kill a trans person.
I guess though you could call it list of people killed for being or suspected of being transgender, but that seems rather verbose and kinda redundant. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:25, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that the title should remain unchanged if the content of the article is changed. This would have the result that the title of the article would become a falsehood. How about as a new title: List of people killed for being perceived as transgender? Sweet6970 (talk) 15:42, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would favor adding such cases to the list. On the title issue: WP:NCLIST gives some wiggle room, saying

The title is not expected to contain a complete description of the list's subject ... Instead, the detailed criteria for inclusion should be described in the lead, and a reasonably concise title should be chosen for the list.

Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:29, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's a difference between the title not being a "complete description" and the content being completely different than what the title implies or represents. The recent example given would be a killing related to gender, I think? One could easily say the woman was killed for being a masculine-presenting woman in the eyes of this one man (to the point he believed she was a male). Although do we even know the victim wasn't trans herself given it's an unfalsifiable state of mind? Randomdude87 (talk) 22:55, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we know the victim wasn't trans. The sourcing on this killing indicates that she was cisgender. While the accused has yet to be convicted, he did tell investigators he believed the victim to be "a male acting like a woman" (per PinkNews, Fox59, and Huffington Post).
If the accused is convicted, I would argue that the victim was killed for being trans even if she wasn't actually trans, and that this is a case of mistaken gender identity. That seems like it would be in scope for this article. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:07, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When police shoot an unarmed suspect because they mistakenly believe his phone was a gun, the victim wasn't shot for having a gun. And no, we don't know the victim wasn't trans. Pink News is not a good source and doesn't validate the victim's gender identity. Fox59 does not reference anything indicating as such and makes no reference to "cisgender." Huffington Post simply says "Peacock was a 59-year-old cisgender woman" without explaining how they came to this conclusion. Are we to just assume someone's gender identity by default? I don't agree the perpetrator mistook her gender identity; he mistook her sex, evidenced by your quote. Due to this, I find it likely the sources are referring to her natal sex in their rebuttal, not how she viewed her own gender. They're saying, "but she wasn't a male trying to present as a women like he thought." The victim wasn't killed on the basis of her gender identity which is what the article is about. Randomdude87 (talk) 00:54, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PinkNews is is a generally reliable source on Wikipedia. There is no requirement in WP:RS that reliable sources must show their working for how they assert certain facts.
Are we to just assume someone's gender identity by default? No, we go by what is stated in reliable sources. For the moment, it's verifiable to multiple reliable sources that the victim was cisgender. That may change in the future, but we can address that when that happens.
I don't agree the perpetrator mistook her gender identity; he mistook her sex, evidenced by your quote. The specifics of this case don't really matter right now, because I'm merely using this as a framing example for asking a hypothetical. I'm not saying we should include this article now, and in fact I've said in my original comment that we should not include it yet. The question I asked in my original comment is if the attacker is convicted and it is proven that Peacock was killed because she was thought to be trans, would this be valid for inclusion in this list?
Setting aside for the moment that broad speculation on a live criminal proceeding is not the purpose of an article talk page like this, speculation on the exact outcome of the case beyond the scope of the question doesn't really matter. This is because if the attacker is either not convicted, or it is proven that the victim was killed for any other reason, it would be inherently out of scope of this article. The only thing I'm interested in is whether or not a cisgender person who was killed, because their killer thought they were trans or non-binary, would be in the scope of this article. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:54, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also fine with adding cases like that to the list despite the title. It should be clear in the description of those cases that they were not in fact trans, just thought to be trans by their assailant. Loki (talk) 02:13, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Nex Benedict

Nex Benedict was murdered for being non binary. Does this count for the purpose of this article or do we need a separate "List of people killed for being non binary" page? 98.116.173.242 (talk) 01:00, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article Death of Nex Benedict the cause of death has not yet been established, and Police also stated that Benedict did not die of a traumatic injury. Therefore, it is completely inappropriate to refer to the death as a murder and there should be no reference to the death in this article unless and until it has been legally established that the death comes within the criteria for being included in this article. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:57, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sweet6970
Many reliable sources have made the connection between Nex's gender identity and the attack. While police have claimed that preliminary autopsy results do not indicate trauma as the cause of death, many reliable sources have also call that statement into question. I do not think it is inappropriate to make the connection between the attack and Nex's death, as well as the connection between the attack and Nex's gender identity.
Can you please clarify what is the burden of proof required to meet the bar of this article? 98.116.173.242 (talk) 15:54, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Sweet. For now, IP98, the list criterion is "people who were killed for being transgender". Reasonable interpretation of the criterion might be "people who are described in reliable sources as having been killed for being transgender (including nonbinary)". If you're aware of reliable sources that say in their own voice that Benedict was killed and that the killing was caused by their nonbinary status, please bring them here for discussion (and probably also Talk:Death of Nex Benedict). Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:12, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This has the potential to be added to the list in the future, but not yet. The cause of death hasn't been established yet, nor has anyone been arrested, charged, or convicted. I suspect it will be some time before the particulars of this death are established. We can re-evaluate it in the future though once that happens. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:56, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, for heaven’s sake, LilianaUwU – either provide a reliable source saying this was a murder, or self-revert. Sweet6970 (talk) 18:41, 23 February 2024 (UTC) LilianaUwU[reply]

Ugh, fine. It's just that you've refactored a comment (well, header) of someone else, which as far as I know is not bound by sourcing - it's just the opinion of a random IP that it's a murder. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 18:51, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, talk page headers don't belong to anyone in particular, and anyone is free to edit them for reasons of accuracy or neutrality. See WP:SHOWN. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:29, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add Fred Martinez, Jr. to list

2001 - Fred Martinez, Jr. (also known as FC Martinez) was a 16-year-old Two-Spirit individual found dead in June of 2001. Their murderer, 18-year-old Shaun Murphy, confessed to the crime later that year and was sentenced to 40 years in prison in 2002. [1] [2] CakesGoSupernova (talk) 15:57, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Wikishovel (talk) 16:37, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t have access to the Washington Post, but I see that the Journal says: A Farmington man who admitted in the early 2000s to beating and killing Fred “F.C.” Martinez Jr., what some have considered a hate crime against the LGBTQ community, has been released from prison on parole. I don’t think this is enough to add to our list, because we would be saying in wikivoice that Martinez was killed for being transgender, when the Journal does not confirm this. Sweet6970 (talk) 21:07, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both sources given by CakesGoSupernova indicate the source was an anonymous tip to police. In addition, they conflict with one another. Beyond that, they only affirm the potential motive was his gay sexual orientation, which is not a gender identity. Randomdude87 (talk) 21:42, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard to be sure, due to the age of the sources and some of the original reporting having gone offline in the years since the conviction, but The Advocate somewhat supports the assertion that Martinez was killed for being trans where it says that Murphy could not be charged with a hate crime because, at the time, Colorado's hate-crime statutes did not cover crimes based on gender identity or expression. An article by High Country News about a documentary released about the killing also indirectly supports this where it says The hate crime opened up frank discussions about perceptions of gender among Navajos. It's all a bit weak sauce, but...
What I find most convincing however is that TDoR include Martinez on their list of people killed for being transgender, and the TDoR list is I believe part of the inclusion criteria. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:26, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Advocate is not an unbiased source. It both states that he was the youngest person to die of a hate crime and then immediately contradicts it by stating it wasn't classified as a hate crime. It disingenuously implies that the only reason it wasn't a hate crime is due to lack of statutes related to gender. This is false and misleading. You can still find plenty of the original reporting online that make it clear that sexuality was the focus and it also wasn't on the books in hate crime legislation: https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2001/09/01/gay-youths-death-shakes-colo-city/98d8eab5-4afb-41b9-b83c-35d69d7cc88e/
Nothing in the Advocate link provided supports trans-identity being the motivating factor, including the quoted section. If anything, it affirms that sexual orientation was the issue, highlighting the "beat up a fag" quote and referencing the killer's mother being a lesbian. Everyone refers to him as both Fred and gay. I see no reason it should be on the TDoR list either. Randomdude87 (talk) 00:28, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Advocate is considered a generally reliable source on Wikipedia. There's no requirement in WP:RS that sources must be unbiased to be used, as WP:BIASED states sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for information about a topic.
It disingenuously implies that the only reason it wasn't a hate crime is due to lack of statutes related to gender. Actually The Advocate are correct here. Gender identity (or as stated in the law, transgender status) wasn't covered under Colorado's hate crime laws until the passing of House Bill 05-1014 in 2005. It would have been impossible under the statute at the time of Murphy's trial for him to be convicted of an anti-trans hate crime, as the trial and conviction of Murphy happened in 2002. As a side note, the first successful conviction under the anti-trans hate crime statute in the state was for the murder of Angie Zapata in 2009 (CNN).
highlighting the "beat up a fag" quote Your or my interpretation of that quote doesn't really matter. What matters is how reliable sources interpreted it.
I see no reason it should be on the TDoR list either Then you may wish to contact the folks at TDoR who compile that list, and request that they remove it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:15, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Carla Leigh Salazar

Carla Leigh Salazar should be removed. The sources listed for the murder unequivocally state, "the motive for the killing is not clear." As the suspect died before trial and pleaded not guilty, Carla does not belong on this list. Randomdude87 (talk) 20:27, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree: done. Sweet6970 (talk) 21:19, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Venus Xtravaganza

Venus Xtravaganza should be removed as the killer is unknown. This goes against the scope of the article which specifically excludes murders with unknown killers. Randomdude87 (talk) 21:57, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:33, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]