Talk:Violence against LGBTQ people/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

"64% of the victims were gay men, 32% were trans women, and 4% were lesbians" (section "criminal assault")

While the interaction between the greater male inclination to violence and the existence of trans panic tropes supports the idea that the incidence of heterosexuality and bisexuality among transgender female murder victims may be higher than the incidence of heterosexuality and bisexuality among transgender women as a broader class, it would surprise me greatly if the number of transgender lesbians killed out of any given sample of LGBTQ+ murder victims was less than 1% of the total sample. Therefore, the fact that this statistic adds up to 100% suggests to me that it's fallaciously using "lesbians" to mean "cisgender lesbians". 86.153.60.194 (A) (talk) 17:30, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Of course trans women can be lesbians, and of course they are more likely to be violently killed than cis lesbians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.60.194 (B) (talk) 18:01, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Exactly, so the statistic is misleading86.153.60.194 (A) (talk) 18:05, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Why? If anything, I'd expect more of the sample to be lesbians, since roughly a third of trans women identify as lesbian in the surveys I've seen -- so it's surprising that the proportion of lesbians is not 10% or so. (Actually, this might be explained by the proportion of trans women who identify as lesbian being different in Brazil, where this statistic is from, than in the surveys I've seen.)

Oh! I see what you mean now. I completely misread "adds up to 100%" in your comment, and thought it said "adds up to more than 100%". Yes, you're completely right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.60.194 (B) (talk) 18:22, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure why the article is using statistics from a 2009 report, when the [2014 one] is available. Here's what it says, in highly dubious language: "Brazil remains the world champion of crimes motivated by homophobia and/or transphobia. According to international agencies, 50% of transgender murders last year were committed in Brazil. Of the 326 dead, 163 were gay, 134 transvestites, 14 lesbian, 3 bisexual and 7 were persons specifically known as t-lovers or transvestite-lovers. There also were 7 murders of heterosexuals, straight men who were mistaken to be gay or because they found themselves in homoerotic circumstances and/or homoerotic spaces." So I suspect that "transvestite" has been changed to "trans women" in the article's quoting of the report, which obscures problematic biases in how the victims were categorized. 86.153.60.194 (B) (talk) 18:39, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Why are you arguing with yourself? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:07, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

See what others (and me in a different comment) have said. Also, turns out it was a misunderstanding rather than an actual disagreement 86.153.60.194 (talk) 18:47, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Two different posters who happen to have the same IP, which is slightly odd; maybe we're coming from the same ISP's NAT? I just forgot to indent my response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.60.194 (B) (talk • contribs)

Same IP address. Please stop. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:14, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Yep, we're both coming from British Telecom's NAT. Not surprising since that covers a whole country! Anyway, now we've all hopefully learnt something about how unique IP addresses are :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.60.194 (B) (talk) 18:19, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Also, I have reason to believe you live with me :P 86.153.60.194 (talk) 18:47, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Removal of Mahmoud Asgari and Ayaz Marhoni photo

This photo should be removed, couple was executed for [blp violation removed]. --MehrdadFR (talk) 01:33, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Good Olfactory, you can find explanation here, pp. ix-xi. (one of few online available sources, publisher is Duke UP). --MehrdadFR (talk) 01:49, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I have no objection to it being removed any longer if everyone else is OK with it being removed. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:54, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

That page doesn't mentioned anything about a 13 year old, it just mentions their names, thus the claim is a BLP and should be removed. Plus MehrdadFR tried to remove the | photo once before with an unacceptable edit summary. I'd request the edit summary be rev-deled as there was not nor is there now proof of MehrdadFR's assertion. KoshVorlon 16:13, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

We need to mention that a small number of ultra orthodox Jewish people hate LGBT people

At the end of this article there's a section about Judaism. We need a small mention that the Ultra Orthodox section of that community is sometimes strongly against LGBT people. Here's a case from England in 2016 about a transgender father being not being given contact with her children because the children would be ostracised by their school and community. Note that the judge referred the school to the schools regulator because of poor teaching around LGBT stuff. https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/judgments/j-v-b-and-the-children-ultra-orthodox-judaism-transgender/ DanBCDanBC (talk) 11:51, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

A person being hated or ostracised but without violence would seem to be outside the scope of this article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:06, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Jeffro77's response is sufficient to answer your point, but even were that not the case, then there would be an issue with undue weight here. Try moving your comment to the Talk:Transphobia article, perhaps you'd get a different response there. Mathglot (talk) 20:08, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

More than hate crime

From an outsiders perspective to LGBT it seems to me that prejudice is inclusive but not limited to hate. Just because Violence against LGBT people is classified as a hate crime I dispute that this should limit the classification.

I suggest that the LGBT entry in: Template:Discrimination_sidebar is changed from "LGBT hate crime" to the actual title "Violence against LGBT people".

(Also wondered if there was a way to promote the use of My bad(ge) - Template:User recognises LG significance) Gregkaye (talk) 12:36, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Along the same lines as the previous suggestion, perhaps a section should be added to this article covering violence against sexual minorities from within their own community (as noted in the 2010 CDC report on Victimization by Sexual Orientation ), or which occurs as a reaction to violent or otherwise dangerous behavior on the part of sexual minorities (in some sense self-defense by other against LGBT groups. It seems to me that this article covers many important aspects of violence against the LGBT community, but is somewhat incomplete and potentially biased in scope.--Feinstein24 (talk) 09:35, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

References

Pritchard?

The section on historic violence in the Middle East asserts that the passage in Leviticus condemning male same sex relationships is misconstrued and in fact is talking about male same sex rape. I was surprised as this was new information to me, so I looked at the citations wanting to know more. The only citations given for this is "Pritchard, p. 181" and "Pritchard, p. 468".

I'm not well versed in the site's rules but it would seem a claim like this would need multiple sources, or one very strong source. As it is I have no idea what "Pritchard" is and haven't been able to find out. Should this section be changed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crioca (talk • contribs) 02:27, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Doing some digging, this claim dates back to this revision. I looked at the edit history and user talk page of the user who added it, but did not locate the source (though admittedly I could've been more thorough in my search). I removed the text sourced to "Pritchard" from the article (and considering it looks very much like one person's interpretation, it should've probably read "According to Pritchard, [...]" to begin with). TompaDompa (talk) 15:49, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Suicide among the LGBT teens in terms of relation to the family is that family members who are not willingly to listen to their children who are gay they are more likely to commit suicide. Basically it is not the religious domination that makes a LGBT teen commit suicide it is about acceptance and guidance within the family that helps to make the child more accepting of their sexuality instead of feeling that their sexuality is a burden upon the family. Nia Dokes (talk) 01:11, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

References

Recent edits by Mauriziok

@Mauriziok:, in your recent sixteen edits since 18 September, you've added 64kb of text, apparently with good intent. However, I see no addition of any sources to provide verifiability of your content, as required by policy. There are also no edit summaries justifying any of your edits.

Can you give a reason why your edits should not be removed, and the article rolled back to version 859793264 of 09:20, September 16, 2018‎? Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 10:12, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Mauriziok, You've gone and done it again, with the addition of a great deal of unsourced information to the article. Wikipedia really does take verifiability seriously. Since you didn't respond last time, I've gone ahead undone these twelve revisions of yours from today. It's a shame, because that's a really great table you added, and it deserves to be there; I'm sure you spent a lot of time on it. I'd like to see you add it back to the article, properly sourced next time. Please provide citations to reliable sources, and add your table content back. Fyi: my intention is to back out your previous sixteen edits from September as well, unless you source them. Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 07:11, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Just fyi for other editors who may have edited since September: this reverse diff shows exactly what would be removed, if the rollback to revision 859793264 is carried out. (Note that in this diff, the latest rev is on the left, and the old rev is on the right: the diff shows what would happen in case of a rollback.) As you can see, it's almost entirely the unsourced table added in September that would be removed. There are a few urls that were simplified, and slight wording adjustments here and there; those could be merged back in following a rollback, if deemed improvements to the article. Mathglot (talk) 22:30, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Mathglot Hello. The information is based by info of others Wikipedia articles like: List of countries by Human Development Index Anyway, I will re-publish the table with references and you tell me if it is enough or needs more, and I will do my best to place more references. For example, Brunei penalizes homosexuality with the death penalty and as it is shown the page is outdated, much of the information that shows the degrees of penalty are based on the data of the article LGBT rights by country or territory. Thanks --Mauriziok (talk) 05:02, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

@Mauriziok: Whatever you publish here, has to be referenced. If there is an identical table in two places, there's a way to avoid having to include it in both places, so you don't have to do the references twice, especially when things start to change. Unfortunately, due to the Wikipedia policy Wikipedia is not a reliable source, you cannot source anything in one article, based on what is present in another article. (If this surprises you, I can explain, but it's off-topic here; ask me on my Talk page.) That means, that everything on this page, must be referenced here. If there are other pages with similar information that is unreferenced, that is problematic as well, but this is a volunteer project, and you can't be everywhere at once. I'm looking at this page; hopefully someone will look at the other one(s).

If you read and understand the core policy of Verifiability, which depends on citations to reliable sources, that's the most important thing. Wikipedia is a labyrinth of policies and guidelines, but if you get that one covered, that's at least half the battle.

As far as how many references: each assertion (fact) needs a reference, but one reference can cover more than one fact. If, say, the CIA Factbook has the population, ranking, and legal status for every country in the list, then you can have just one reference. If the data for each country comes from a different website, then you'll need 197 references, one per row in the table. Good luck, let me know if you need any assistance. Mathglot (talk) 06:34, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Source on religious motivations

@Bennv3771: What source supports following claims in the lead: Violence targeted at people because of their perceived sexuality can be psychological or physical and can extend to murder. These actions may be ... influenced by ... religious ... biases. And also: such violence often being connected with ... religious leaning ideologies which condemn homosexuality. I see no sources that support these claims at any point in the whole article. But maybe I'm missing it. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:25, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

@Shinealittlelight: Ref #4: Stewart, Chuck (2010). The Greenwood Encyclopedia of LGBT Issues Worldwide. Santa Barbara, California: Greenwood Press. ISBN 978-0-313-34231-8 (numerous pages e.g. 2, 4, 36, 65 etc). Bennv3771 (talk) 15:49, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

@Bennv3771:You said that "the contents of the article" support the claims I mentioned. Was that a mistaken edit summary? Because I'd like to know what you're referring to, since the book you referred to is only cited in the lead. Also, the book you referred to is only cited at present in support of a claim about LGBT violence outside the west, and not specifically for the claims about religious motivation. Do you have a page number or a quote from that book that could be used to support the claims I quoted above? It's over 1300 pages long, so it isn't effective sourcing to just refer to the whole book.Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:14, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

"Occupy Paedophilia" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Occupy Paedophilia. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 21#Occupy Paedophilia until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. buidhe 02:09, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

"Parents of Russia" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Parents of Russia. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 28#Parents of Russia until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. buidhe 20:57, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Motivations section

There is a very big logical gap with this section. The section is supposedly about motivations for violence against LGBT people. But the sources cited do not call for violence against people. The sources speak against LGBT sexual activities, but they do not call for violence. Opposing some practice or group is not a logical reason to label this a motivation for violence. I strongly oppose street racers, human smugglers, and people who prevent the use of widespread vaccination programs for polio -- that does not mean I call for violence against them. Unless the logical link between opposition and violence can be proven, not merely a claim that opposition is a call to violence, I think the section should be removed. I hope that my suggestion is seen as a peaceful suggestion within the rules of Wikipedia. I am open to discussion. Pete unseth (talk) 18:59, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I think you're missing the forest for the trees. People are motivated to violence because of these issues. We are not stating that everyone who opposes LGBT rights is calling for violence, only that those calling for violence are using these issues as their reason. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:29, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I strongly object to removal of such a large section of the article, with the edit summary that it has "no logical link to causing violence." The articles in question make the link, and simply declaring it illogical is a personal opinion. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:27, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

People complain the Wikipedia is becoming a hostile place to edit. Let's be an exception to this by working on this gently and politely. My point in my earlier post, then my deletion, is that the article does not present evidence that there is a logical link that these various positions lead to violence. It lists a number of reasons that people oppose LGBT practices, but the article does not give evidence that these lead people to violence. I'm not saying that a link does not exist. I am saying that the article currently does not give evidence that there is a link. Evidence has to be more than an activist's claim. Ready to listen. Pete unseth (talk) 12:53, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I would be very happy to hear from other editors on this specific point. I do not want this to become just two people with opposing views arguing about the question of evidence for a logical link, or not. Not asking for a vote, but rather to examine the question of logical linkage between violence and the listed views. Listening... Pete unseth (talk) 13:00, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

My point in my earlier post, then my deletion, is that the article does not present evidence that there is a logical link that these various positions lead to violence.

Then what the hell do you call all the citations in that section? You're just deleting the entire section, rather than presenting a coherent argument that the citations do not support the section. I get the impression it's just WP:DONTLIKEIT because of your has to be more than an activist's claim statement and insistence that the section is (somehow) not "logical."

This is a long standing section, so removing it requires a strong reasoning. Present a coherent argument against the citations used. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:10, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

My apologies and a retraction. A I studied the various examples, I see that there are places where there is a logical claim for a link to violence. Except in the Judaism section. I will now restore the sections I had deleted without adequate study, except the Judaism section. My apologies. And I hope a demonstration of peaceful process and resolution. Thank-you, and I'm sorry. Working to keep Wikipedia gentlePete unseth (talk) 14:04, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for reconsidering. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:22, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Biblical condemnation

I'm relatively new this page. The article says the "Torah has a vague condemnation of homosexuality". I think the Torah is clear on this. Am I missing something? Pete unseth (talk) 21:07, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 February 2019 and 15 March 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Neasha995, Cassidy27.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Gay bashing into Violence against LGBT people

The first sentence of the articles indicates that they have essentially identical scope. (t · c) buidhe 01:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree in principle. It might be a good idea to fork off some of the bullying material into its own article; seems notable enough and it would help preserve some of the information in more detail than would be present in a merge to here. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 22:09, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

This merge proposal seems to have a consensus, but with very limited participation. I've pulled this discussion back out of the archive for more input.--Trystan (talk) 12:55, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Oppose. Gay bashing includes non-violent abuse against LGBT people. If anything the merge should be the other way around, based on scope. But these are two topics that are each notable in their own right, so I suggest no merge in either direction. ––FormalDude talk 13:00, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Support, per Mhawk10. There are a couple of ways we could resolve the duplication in scope between Gay bashing and Violence against LGBT people:

1. We could use use the bullying material currently in Gay bashing for an article on Anti-LGBT bullying. Gay bashing would be a disambig between Anti-LGBT bullying and Violence against LGBT people.
2. We could make Gay bashing a parent article of Violence against LGBT people, adding a summary section for Violence against LGBT people, and covering other aspects, such as bullying, in the article.

My preference would be for option 1, as I think it the scopes of each article would be the clearest to the reader.--Trystan (talk) 13:24, 31 August 2022 (UTC)