Talk:List of unlawfully killed transgender people

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Purpose of list[edit]

Is this a list of notable instances of transgender people being murdered, "due to their transgender status / gender identity" OR a list of murdered transgender people? It must be one or the other. A list of "notable instances of transgender people being murdered, mostly due to their transgender status / gender identity" is illogical.Royalcourtier (talk) 04:52, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I came here to ask the same question. Should the article include, say, a bank clerk shot by a robber who was unaware that the victim happened to be transgender? The article title is inconsistent with the lead. The discrepancy invites some editors to add cases that other editors think shouldn't be here. Certes (talk) 15:44, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm more concerned about the loaded "unlawful killings" being used when many were not. At least two individuals on the 2017 list were killed during or after killing or attempting to kill another person. At least one other was at most a negligent accident. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:40E:8100:8FE4:6C3D:E51B:DE30:80D3 (talk) 21:38, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

White or person of color change?[edit]

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[edit]

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:
  1. Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Wikipedia
  2. 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
  3. 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)

Names assigned at birth[edit]

Names assigned at birth should be edited to names the victims recognized with. Johnnyharka (talk) 06:27, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 2 January 2019[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. After extended time for discussion, there is a clear absence of consensus for the proposed move; it has also been correctly pointed out that "murder" is a legal term with a specific meaning that excludes certain acts of intentional homicide. bd2412 T 18:46, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

List of unlawfully killed transgender peopleList of transgender murder victims – The article outright states that this is what it is a list of. Per WP:CONCISE, the proposed title is more concise and per WP:PRECISION is more befitting of the page than the current title. Slurmboy (talk) 01:13, 2 January 2019 (UTC)--Relisted. –Ammarpad (talk) 05:54, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Support The current title suggests it distinguishes from an article on transgender people who have been killed by the death penalty of euthanasia. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:42, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. "Murder" has a very specific definition that might not be met in all cases. Multiple entries mention that the perpetrator was "only" sentenced for manslaughter. "Unlawfully killed" encompasses all kinds of killings. If the lead uses "murder", the lead is wrong, not the article title. How about List of transgender homicide victims instead? Regards SoWhy 10:16, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support but article has low value and will continue eternally to accumulate cases which lack notability. At least this rename will reduce the scope of it, and perhaps help stop the exponential bloat it currently attracts. Wikipedia is not a memorial, and the list is unencyclopedic as it is right now. If it remains, the scope should be drastically reduced with some guidelines, such as those murders where the victims TG status was actually relevant to the circumstances of the murder, and which gained interest on national/international scale. -- Netoholic @ 10:33, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose murder is only after murderer is convicted and page should only include people killed because they were transgender if they were killed for any other reason it shouldn't be included עם ישראל חי (talk) 22:10, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose: "murder" does not mean the same thing as "killing", as pointed out above, e.g. in requiring a conviction, which delays addition of notable killings, potentially indefinitely. If the lead is wrong, let's revise the lead. -sche (talk) 23:13, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per Netoholic. This list contains a whole load of WP:BLP1E violations and should probably be taken back to AFD even if moved. IffyChat -- 09:39, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. "Unlawfully killed" is a legal term which also covers such things as manslaughter. Yes, most of these people probably were murdered, but some were not or no perpetrator has ever come to trial. Thus concluding their deaths were murder would be presumptuous. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:22, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose; Move to List of transgender homicide victims. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:07, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
    • @Rreagan007: - Just to understand, do you believe that it is encyclopedic to document even accidental deaths? After all, we don't even have a list of homicide victims page, whereas we do have lists of murders. -- Netoholic @ 11:05, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
      • If someone wants to harm but not necessarily kill a transgender person but accidentally kills them anyway, shouldn't they be listed? Is the homicide potentially less notable if the perpetrator did not set out to kill? Regards SoWhy 11:43, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
        • Why not a list of transgender people that were accosted, threatened with battery, robbed, or otherwise generally assaulted? The reason is because we must have some sort of reasonable scope to work with. Wikipedia is not a crime database, and it is not a memorial. A list of murder victims who were targetted because of this particular status is perhaps encyclopedic - an indiscriminate list beyond that is ridiculous. -- Netoholic @ 11:52, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
          • Inclusion standards can and should be defined of course, so that encyclopedic-ness is followed. However, using the term "murder" would exclude some cases where the perpetrator has not planned to kill the victim or where the perpetrator's plan is completely unknown (e.g. when they, too, were killed before they could be tried). The planned title might lead to the exclusion of some cases such as "Julie Doe" (unsolved), Venus Xtravaganza (unsolved), Rita Hester (unsolved but died only in the hospital, surviving the initial attack), Tracey Thompson (unsolved, died in hospital) and Loni Kai (unsolved) which I don't think is helpful. Regards SoWhy 13:58, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
            • Oh come on... your examples include victims that were stabbed multiple times... hardly accidental conditions. Future editors can quibble over the details, but I don't see why we should be willing to leave the scope intentionally so broad just to worry that "some" cases may be dropped from the list. And precedent on Wikipedia is that we don't broadly include such lists, restricting them only to murders. Its THIS name change, or this page will continue to grow exponentially and keep finding itself back under the microscope at AFD. -- Netoholic @ 19:10, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
              • Which is my point. Yes, they were likely trying to kill them but unless we have a reliable source to verify it, we cannot claim that a killing was a murder as defined in our own article. The scope can and should be defined separately but doesn't that also mean we should first define the scope and then discuss a name change? Because if there is consensus to include killings outside the definition of murder (killing "without justification or valid excuse, especially the unlawful killing of another human being with malice aforethought"), then the name should reflect that. Regards SoWhy 12:23, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support a move away from this title in general, it unintentionally makes it seem as if there is also a large group of transgender people who have been lawfully killed, which is ridiculous. Homicides, murders, man-slaughter etc. are by definition unlawful in almost every single country on earth, so its place in the title is a bit redundant. Inter&anthro (talk) 18:06, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Being killed in a war or accident is not unlawful killing! So yes, there are undoubtedly plenty of transgender people who have been "lawfully" killed. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:18, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose: NOT EVERY UNLAWFUL KILLING OR HOMICIDE IS A MURDER. LEGAL FACT. NO LAW DEGREE REQUIRED. "HOMICIDE" MAY BE A BETTER TERM TO USE. Quis separabit? 22:16, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As others have pointed out, "murder" is a significantly narrower term than "unlawfully killed". No justification has been given for narrowing the scope in this way. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:49, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.