Jump to content

Talk:Cheshire murders

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Marrakech (talk | contribs) at 08:11, 2 May 2023 (→‎Disgrace: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Good articleCheshire murders has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 28, 2011Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on November 26, 2010.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the 2007 home invasion murders in Cheshire, Connecticut, have been called 'possibly the most widely publicized crime in the state's history'?

Parole board

I think a significant point here was that they were released early from prison due to inadequate information given to the parole board about the nature of their past crimes Skysong263 (talk) 20:59, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pronouns / Gender Identity

@TheXuitts I suggest you read up on the relevant Wikipedia rules, and educate yourself on gender issues in general. Hayes "was" not "a man" when she committed her crimes, Hayes is (and has always been) a woman. You getting knowledge of her identity late into her life does not invalidate the facts of her identity. The linked article itself already mentions that gender dysphoria was diagnosed early in her life. Please take a look at for example Elliot Page to see how this is done on Wikipedia, and refrain from further bad faith edits. 2A02:8108:2C3F:AC2C:B9FD:F9D:DB4E:720D (talk) 09:12, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It’s absolutely hilarious that you’re an anonymous user telling me what is and isn’t appropriate on Wikipedia. A change this major requires CONSENSUS. Elliot Page’s page has nothing to do with THIS one. THAT decision was made for THAT page, and it should be discussed here whether that sets the precedent for the entire article’s pronouns for Hayes to be changed. TheXuitts (talk) 10:04, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey TheXuitts! I believe (hope) you are merely misinformed about how these things should be handled nowadays, and the topic of gender in general. I am sorry if I came off accusatory; that was an overreaction on my part. Is there something wrong with me not having an account? If I created an account for this edit, you would've complained about me being a "new" user when I, in fact, have been contributing to Wikipedia for over a decade now :)
I was giving you an example of a page doing things right, so you can see for yourself how Wikipedia's clear and unambiguous rules play out in practice. I do understand and appreciate that you feel the need to reach "CONSENSUS" on an edit like this. But your personal opinions on this are irrelevant, and from the arguments made in your edit summaries it's obvious you are woefully uneducated about these topics - Hayes never "was a man", and you do not "become a woman". There is no need for consensus on something that is a clearly spelled out rule:
"Precedence should be given to self-designation as reported in the most up-to-date reliable sources, anywhere in article space, even when it doesn't match what's most common in reliable sources. Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the pronouns, possessive adjectives, and gendered nouns (for example "man/woman", "waiter/waitress", "chairman/chairwoman") that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification."
What you personally think about the topic is irrelevant. Hayes is a woman, and that is an undeniable fact of reality - it does not matter if you or the rest of the world "learned" this late, and it does not matter if you "like" or don't like her. This is about inalienable human rights that even criminals have.
As for how to proceed, I am certain someone more familiar with the bureaucratic proceedings of Wikipedia will be able to explain the rules to you more eloquently than me. As for now, I suggest reading the box at the top of this talk page, as well as MOS:GIDINFO while we wait for a third party to resolve this conflict. 2A02:8108:2C3F:AC2C:B9FD:F9D:DB4E:720D (talk) 11:35, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, stop adding “transgender woman” to the lead sentence, it’s completely irrelevant to the crime TheXuitts (talk) 10:05, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, it is irrelevant to the crime and does not belong into the lede. I was trying to avoid confusion about the male-coded first name, but IMO her transgender status is irrelevant to the article. Unfortunately it has gained traction in reputable sources, so I feel it can't be completely omitted. 2A02:8108:2C3F:AC2C:B9FD:F9D:DB4E:720D (talk) 11:35, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is indeed correct to consistently use feminine pronouns in our writing about Hayes. A footnote should suffice to explain this, though I don't know if Hayes' experiences in prison are of interest for the Aftermath section in general. This doesn't need to be a distraction to the crimes described in this article at all. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 12:19, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:GENDERID is clear on this: Refer to any person whose gender might be questioned with gendered words (e.g. pronouns, "man/woman", "waiter/waitress") that reflect the person's most recent expressed gender self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources, even if it does not match what is most common in sources. This holds for any phase of the person's life, unless they have indicated a preference otherwise. Under this guideline, Hayes should be referred to as a woman even though she had not transitioned when she committed the crime. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:26, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The easiest way to handle this is to not use the pronouns at all in the article. Except the mention that Hayes transitioned later on. BabbaQ (talk) 12:49, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's no need to form convoluted sentences, presuming that the new sources are accurate on this. If anything the separate feminine and masculine pronouns for the two perpetrators would probably make the article slightly clearer, as a reader can more easily tell which pronoun belongs to which attacker. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 12:57, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Their last names distinguishes between them. BabbaQ (talk) 13:27, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is not the easiest way. The easiest way is to simply abide to the rules and basic human decency and use the correct pronouns. Refusal to do so and insisting on writing convoluted, unnatural sentences just to somehow get around using someone's pronouns is derogatory - not only to the subject of the article, but to all trans people. (same anonymous user as above, IP changed) 2A02:8108:2C3F:AC2C:7992:DFBE:4F0D:5122 (talk) 13:44, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's zero ambiguity here. Hayes is a woman, and we refer to her as such, throughout her life, unless she has indicated a preference otherwise. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 14:32, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant aspects of MOS:GENDERID are to avoid misgendering, explain gender presentation where pertinent without overemphasis, and avoiding confusing constructions. In cases where an individual's gender presentation at the time is relevant, the article requires additional clarity beyond just an initial explanatory footnote. Given the nature of the crimes described in the article (including rape) and the detailed way in which the events are described, this is such a case. I think the simplest approach to both avoid misgendering and avoid undue emphasis on Hayes' gender identity would be to not use gendered terms in the lead, background, and home invasion sections, then use she/her pronouns following an explanation in the perpetrators section that Hayes is a trans woman.--Trystan (talk) 20:11, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So, how does one go about diagnosing "undue emphasis" on a subject's gender identity? I'm sure that isn't just when gendering a trans person correctly could make a cis person confused or vaguely uncomfortable? ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 20:43, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
By "undue emphasis", I had in mind this edit, that added a mention of it to the lead sentence. (Though I do wish to acknowledge that the edit summary suggests the editor who made that edit also found it undue, and was looking for a better solution.)--Trystan (talk) 02:02, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(notified via WT:LGBT) I see no strong reason this article should diverge materially from the advice given by MOS:GENDERID, which (I will remind TheXuitts) is the result of several RfC and thus represents a community-level consensus which does not (as implied in this edit summary) depend on local consensus to be implemented.
Assuming Hayes's gender identity is verifiable, the article (including the lede and all body paragraphs where Hayes is mentioned), should consistently refer to her using the correct pronouns, and at the first instance where this may come as a surprise explain it without overemphasis in the form of a {{efn}}. The further into the body this information is delayed, the more of a surprise it becomes. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 06:32, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with users here that the easiest solution here is to remove pronouns referring to Hayes altogether. TheXuitts (talk) 23:32, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How is this easier than just using the right pronouns? Oh, you don't mean the solution is "easier", you mean the solution enables you to avoid the responsibility of growing as a person and overcoming the prejudices and bigotry you've made obvious in your edit notes here and elsewhere. At this point I no longer believe this is a case of being unaware of WP guidelines, but simply anti trans sentiment. 2A02:8108:2C3F:AC2C:EC75:AA79:65EB:5A37 (talk) 08:15, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(This is a general note rather than making any specific opinion myself.) I don't really have an opinion as to the right option in this specific scenario but I do want to note that Wikipedia's guidance on this expressly says omission of pronouns altogether should be a last resort. Because I don't have an opinion (because I haven't looked into this enough), I don't know if this is at that point yet, but I wanted to note it. - Purplewowies (talk) 06:06, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What? Dude, Hayes is a woman, I completely understand that. But they were identified as a man when the crime was committed so it’s kind of rewriting history to refer to them as a woman in parts of the article discussing the timeline of the crime and legal proceedings and confuse readers. That’s all. TheXuitts (talk) 08:20, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bigotry? I suggest that the IP involved in this discussion halts its combative attitude. And starts being a part of productive discussions instead. BabbaQ (talk) 08:29, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GENDERID explicitly says that we should refer to people by their most recently expressed gender identity, even when discussing a time in their life before they came out as trans, unless reliable sources indicate that they prefer otherwise. (As for the "no source says that Hayes uses she/her pronouns", given that she identifies as a woman we should assume that she/her are the correct pronouns unless a source says otherwise. Yes, there are women who use he/him but they are vanishingly rare. We wouldn't refer to a cis woman as "he" on the grounds that "no reliable source explicitly says that they prefer she/her" so we shouldn't do it for trans women either!) Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 13:04, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to have to defend myself in a discussion that is supposed to be related to the article, and I don’t like giving my views away, but trust me, I am very left-wing on the subjects of trans issues, probably more than you are. My issue here is that I feel as though it isn’t practical for readers to refer to Hayes as a woman before they ever began their transition. I also would like to note that I have not seen a single source stating that Hayes uses feminine pronouns, and the NYT article outright said they didn’t specify. Being a woman doesn’t mean you use feminine pronouns, you could be a woman and use he/him pronouns for example. TheXuitts (talk) 08:35, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, if you write things like "Hayes was not a woman at the time of XY", in regards to an individum that was diagnosed with gender dysmorphia a decade earlier, you are not "left-wing on the subjects of trans issues" (whatever that is supposed to mean), but either woefully uneducated or a bad faith actor. Why not just go by the Wikipedia rules then? 2A02:8108:2C3F:AC2C:EC75:AA79:65EB:5A37 (talk) 10:34, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
IP, you need to stop with accusations and name calling like uneducated, bad actor, bigot etc. Immediately. I hope I won’t have to remind you again. This is a productive discussion otherwise.BabbaQ (talk) 12:16, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would kindly suggest you stop the tone policing, especially since you are not a moderator - and suspiciously the only other user involved in this conversation that wants to "compromise" on what are clearly written rules. Concern trolling? You talk about a "constructive discussion" while trying to compromise on clearly, unambiguously worded rules. IMO some of what has been said here by anti-trans editors would be enough to warrant punitive action by administrators. 2A02:8108:2C3F:AC2C:EC75:AA79:65EB:5A37 (talk) 15:17, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that WP:GENDERID applies here (everywhere) and we should be using Hayes' most recently stated gender identity. That said, I don't think we have much to go off of. Besides the NYT piece and a few others published at the same time, I'm not seeing anything about Hayes' gender. We know that Hayes said "I'm a transgender", described themselves as "feminine", was still using the name "Steven", and that they "did not say which pronouns were preferred". Unless there's more info out there somewhere, I think:
  • We should remove the part of the footnote that says "Hayes was a man when the crimes were committed". Even if we're going to continue using he/him pronouns, the "was a man" framing implies something incorrect about trans people.
  • We should either use no pronouns or they/them pronouns, the two best choices when any person's pronouns are unknown, especially a trans person. The NYT article avoids using any pronouns.
Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:01, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In the 2019 NYT article, Hayes mentions present[ing] as a female, and being diagnosed with dysphoria. From this, I feel ostensibly comfortable concluding that Hayes identifies as a trans woman. I respect the desire to not be presumptive wrt pronouns or binary identity, but (speaking from my own experiences), the hyper-cautious use of "they/them until proven otherwise" for people who evidently desire to be perceived as women (Hayes also began HRT) can also come across more insensitive than gracious. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 21:23, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: I've made this edit which inserts the invisible markup <!--HP--> (Hayes Pronouns) at the start of every instance where Hayes is gendered. This allows faster find-and-replace operations, in case we ultimately decide to omit pronouns, or something else. Because the continued use of he/him in the article bothers me, I've subsequently made this edit which changes all such instances to gender Hayes as female. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 22:54, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't object to she/her pronouns, but I do feel they/them would be an improvement. Regardless, thank you for standardizing and future-proofing. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:05, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per the interviews I quoted below, it definitely seems like Hayes identifies as a trans woman and uses she/her pronouns. My most recent diff also dropped the invisible comments in the process, but they can be restored if necessary. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 22:10, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Using they/them for Hayes seems reasonable since we have no official pronouns to go off of. TheXuitts (talk) 19:45, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I second that. Especially since Hayes has not stated anywhere that they use ”she” pronouns. Especially with a controversial subject like this one, they/them pronouns is a better option. If anyone can bring forward a source that supports otherwise. That’s my opinion.BabbaQ (talk) 12:46, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
From a more recent podcast interview (20 Mar 2021):

[00:01:12]
TOMASO: Hayes has come out as being transgender and has, in fact, been diagnosed with gender dysphoria and is currently receiving treatment for that. During this interview, you will hear me refer to Hayes as both Stephen as well as her preferred name of choice, Linda.

[00:04:24]
HAYES: I am a transgender, so I go by either S. Hayes or Linda Hayes at this point.

From another interview (23 Feb 2020):

[00:02:05]
TOMASO: This January of 2019 is when you actually started living as a transgender woman in the prison system and started receiving hormone replacement, correct?
HAYES: Actually, it was January 2018.
TOMASO: Okay.
HAYES: And I started receiving hormones in February 2018.

The fact that she now prefers Linda (or S.) means MOS:DEADNAME also affects this article, and will probably need some further adjustment. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 01:39, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Barring any opposition, I've added Linda's name to the lede, the Perpetrators section, and her infobox. The section-link Cheshire home invasion murders#Steven Hayes still works, although I don't think any enWiki articles rely on it. (the disambiguation page Steven Hayes links to the Perpetrators section). See Special:Diff/1131562492. Cheers. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 18:42, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. I removed the anchor, having confirmed that no page links to it. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:05, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just a thought re this ...

Having just semi-protected the article for a month, it occurred to me looking through it that maybe, just maybe, if someone discussed in an article has transitioned since the events described, we ought not to have a pretransition picture of them? I mean, it sort of looks ridiculous to be going to the lengths we have (that I just took further) to prevent the deadnaming of one of the murderers when we have their "deadface", so to speak, right there.

Frankly, CTTOI, neither booking photo should be in the article. Neither of them are the subjects of the article, they were not notable for their appearance before the murders, they are both likely to spend most if not all their remaining lives in prison and out of public sight ... and most importantly, as the products of a state criminal justice system rather than the federal government they are not free images. Daniel Case (talk) 06:29, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The photos alao have invalid fair use rationales (transformative use, which this is not). ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 06:47, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nor are they on the whitelist. Daniel Case (talk) 03:10, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:GIDINFO advises that it is preferable to have no image compared to pre-transition images (and there's some past discussions that seems to show general consensus for this). I have tentatively removed both File:Komisarjevsky, joshua.jpg and File:Hayes,_steven.jpg from this article's infoboxes. I'm not highly knowledgable about WP:NFCC so if you have a moment Maddy from Celeste could you tag these files with {{subst:di-disputed non-free use rationale|1=your concern}}? –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 16:07, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's worse. They do not, I seem to recall, have any fair use rationale.

Frankly, now that we've removed them from the article, there is no need to tag them ... fair-use images not used in articles are pretty much automatically deleted after a week or so, and that's what these images should be. Daniel Case (talk) 03:14, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Too late; already tagged :p ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 18:03, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever ... same thing will eventually happen. Daniel Case (talk) 18:58, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, the images added value to the article by their presence and the circumstances of their placement were consistent with the fair use rationale stipulated. Having said these, I will not edit the article to restore my bias (being the editor who originally added them to the article) but will support any uninvolved editor who restores them of their own accord. In any regard, I appreciate being notified of these developments and this discussion. Best regards.--John Cline (talk) 11:31, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The fair use rationale stated was never a valid one. I do not see anything at WP:NFCC that would justify it ... my original comment addressed all the possible rationales and found them wanted.
Any editor who would restore those images would be going against policy and IMO consensus. Daniel Case (talk) 20:39, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Followup to this: I had thought at first that once we removed the two pictures of the perpetrators as incarcerees, we should then get rid of the pic of the family. But while in its present position it does not meet the NFCC (I mean, it looks like a picture of, well, a well-off Connecticut doctor and his family, and the stated justification that if we have pics of the perps then we should have pics of the victims a) no longer holds and b) isn't a valid rationale for fair use anyway) it would be fine in the infobox (where we often put a lot of fair-use images of victims of killings; see Murder of Sherri Rasmussen and Chen family murders, both of which I've worked on. So I will move it there. Daniel Case (talk) 04:29, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 16 December 2022

Change Hayes' pronouns from he/him/his to she/her/hers to be consistent in the article. Bklibcat (talk) 04:04, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Already done Hello! To my knowledge, the article text already refers to Hayes using she/her pronouns. Are there any specific instances I missed? –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 10:11, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2023

Add that this Case is on the show Deadly Sins. 2607:FEA8:F420:F400:6CD0:CD81:16A0:73D3 (talk) 13:17, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 15:17, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disgrace

So a 'woman' raped and murdered Hawke-Petit? I am sure Hawke-Petit must have had a somewhat different impression while she was being raped and strangled to death by Steven Hayes, and if only out of respect for her the article should reflect that. It is an absolute disgrace that respecting this lunatic's alleged gender identity should prevail over respecting Hawke-Petit's memory. Marrakech (talk) 08:11, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cheshire_murders&oldid=1152780555"