Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MiszaBot I (talk | contribs) at 06:01, 11 June 2009 (Archiving 2 thread(s) (older than 30d) to Talk:Violence against LGBT people/Archive 2.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The examples and perspective in this article may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. You may improve this article, discuss the issue on the talk page, or create a new article, as appropriate. (Learn how and when to remove this message)

LGBTQ+ studies Start‑class

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Misplaced Pages. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 7 sections are present.

Inclusion of serial killers

The inclusion of the serial killers John Wayne Gacy and Jeffrey Dahmer is problematic. It's not clear that self-hate was the only (or driving) reason behind their crimes. Recommend either deletion or move to separate section. omgwtf

State-sponsored violence

The article says that "The Roman Empire starting under Constantine around 400 CE." Since Constantine was emperor between 306 and 337, I think "The Roman Empire starting under Constantine in the early 4th century", or maybe "The Roman Empire starting after Constantine around 400 CE." would be more appropriate.

Edit War warning

It is not helpful to anyone, or to any position, to edit war over the inclusion of the Larry King photo here. Reminder: Protection will inevitably result in keeping the wrong version. Please stop it. Thank you. — Becksguy (talk) 12:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Additional sources for entry

on December 26, 2008 in Indianapolis, Indiana, Avery Elzy and Michael Hunt, a gay couple, were killed in their home along with one of their three dogs. A twenty year old man, Christopher Conwell, was arrested on 31 December and admitted to the murders two weeks later. The source for this says it's not considered a hate crime. Any sources support it's inclusion here before I remove it?

So what? Mish (talk) 14:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh and as people can see I removed an entry about a body that washed up on a beach - nobody seems to have any clue what happened there.--Cameron Scott (talk) 13:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes they do - a transsexual was murdered.Mish (talk) 14:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

On February 28, 1997, Robyn Brown, a 23-year-old transsexual prostitute, was found stabbed to death in her flat in London. The original report described her as being 23-year-old Gemma Browne, formerly James Darwin Browne. The two sources used are fairly vague and suggest it was a robbery gone wrong (they wanted an address book for blackmail reason) rather that it was a hate crime. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

So what? Mish (talk) 14:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

So we are back to Violence against red headed people, Violence against people who are 6ft 5. Let's be clear about what we are discussing - the lead of this article discusses violence against LGBT because of their sexuality or the perception of their sexuality (and they don't have to be LGBT to be attacked or included on this list). Your position seems to be that inclusion simply requires that someone *is* LGBT. So if someone is mugged on the way home from work and they turn out to be a lesbian, they should be included on the list. The one is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia, the second is simply an indiscriminate list. Is that a fair assessment of your position? If it's not a fair assessment of your position, can you explain why someone who is murdered *and* is transsexual should be on the list when nobody actually knows the circumstances or the motivation? --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

You are just taking the piss now - "A month later, Gay hotel porter William Dalziel was found unconscious on a roadside in Acton, west London. He died soon after from severe head injuries." --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

If I am 'taking the piss', then so are the national newspapers - because this featured in an article all about the topic, in this case a series of murders in a short period in the same area.

If somebody is murdered and their sexuality or gender identity is not alluded to in the reporting, then we can safely assume that it had nothing to do with their sexuality or gender identity. If the newspapers make a point of it, then it has some bearing on the case. For example, if a football supporter is involved in a crime, and that has a bearing on the case, the papers usually give the details of the team, etc. Similarly for if somebody is from an ethnic minority. If a football supporter is involved in an incident that has nothing to do with his support for his football team, we are unlikely to find the fact reported in any significant way. So, in one of the entries, where a BNP member murdered three people and injured over seventy others, the fact that he was a BNP member was seen as significant to the crime, and reported - had it not been, it would not have been (so, he may have supported a football team, but we don't know). Mish (talk) 15:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to outside eyes on this because clearly you and I have reached an impasse in how we see this and it's not going to be productive for the two of us to continue to try and solve it alone. I'll draft something for a RFC later. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Do so, but don't forget to bring it here for discussion before you submit it - to ensure that the wording is not biased - and I guess we should request page protection to prevent further disruption as well. As this comes under discrimination and LGBT studies, an RfC needs to go there. Mish (talk) 15:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to bring it here - that's not a requirement and what would be the point? I already know the answers I'm going to get, that's why I want outside independent eyes. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for admitting that you are presenting your RfC because there is no consensus for your point of view here, in fact the opposite, for you this is a one-man-crusade. If you present an RfC because your disruptive approach is not working, without consulting other editors of this page about the wording of the RfC, and seek to by-pass the projects and portals associated with this article, then it shows total disregard for the editors here, and complete lack of goodwill. Mish (talk) 16:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

thank you for removing your previous comment. It shows encouraging goodwill that we might be able to work together on this. That would be the best approach, because that will aid maintaining consensus. There is no rush, none of these dead people are going anywhere, we can take time and go through the ones you object to and discuss them. Not about what constitutes a hate crime, but how far the source justifies their inclusion, sure. I have not accused you being homophobic, and I won't, here or on your user page. I don't care about your sexuality or ethnicity or religion. I do care about the aggressive stance you have taken. Bullying does not work with me, it simply makes me worse. I have been like that for fifty years, and it will not change now. Now, I understand that there are people who have issues about things connected with this article, and they may do so for all sorts of reasons that have nothing to do with homophobia. The views of many conservative Evangelicals, for example, I respect, and do not see most of them as homophobic - simply misguided through the pseudo-religious indoctrination they have been subjected to; where I would feel uncomfortable would be if they let their religious views affect their approach to LGBT entries. It happens. So, instead of just deleting what you don't like, I would rather you took the time and took the time to work through what it is you object to, and do so in a way that shows some respect to people here. That is not a lot to ask. I cannot read your mind, and if you and I have a different understanding, then that needs to be worked on. I cannot be more reasonable than this, so please do not throw it back in my face again. Mish (talk) 19:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

OK - let's carry on with the beach example - the source provided (the news of the world - which generally isn't considered reliable anyway) simply states that a murdered transgendered person was found on a beach. The lead of this article states that in requires to this article that the violence discussed in this article is related to their sexuality (attacked because they were a homosexual), they were perceived to be LGBT (as with the two brothers attacked because they were hold hands), they were the victim of a LGBT (as with the woman caught up in the soho pub attack). All of those are specific examples that fit the topic of the article. I don't see how the beach example fits - because we simply don't know. If we include it simply because the victim was transexual then I consider that indiscrimate - because we have no idea *why* or *how* that person ended up on the beach - none of the sources know. She could have been killed because she* was transgendered or because she was involved in a drug-deal gone wrong or whatever. If *we* are supplying the motivation we have gone wrong somewhere.

• The reporting is uncleared if she was a she or he was a he, so I have used she for ease, otherwise I'm not sure how to refer to he/she and because we have no limited information I cannot determine the killed individual's self-determination on the matter. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Fine, first off, the woman was not found on a beach, but on a path in Plymouth, which is a city. Second, the report is not unclear whether the person was a he or she, it says that the police were unable to identify whether this was a man or a woman. The convention on Misplaced Pages in such cases is to use 'they' as a singular reference, or default to a term least offensive to the individual, but it is not set in stone. I agree that the News of the World is not the best quality paper, but reading through the (remarkably) few (3) comments about on the noticeboard, there is no consensus. In terms of BLP (more stringent than this situation) it is acknowledged that they are a national newspaper, part of a chain that includes more serious newspapers, with higher circulation than most other Sunday papers, and is subject to the same requirements for fact-checking and accuracy as any other, being subject to PCC regulations and libel laws in the same was any other newspaper. The issue is the way they report matters, not the content. So, it is different from the Sport, for example, which makes up stories like 'B52 bomber found on the moon'. I cited the News of the World several times in my PhD Thesis, and it was never flagged up as an issue, and academia tends to be more rigorous than Misplaced Pages, which is why I would not be allowed to cite Wikipeidia in a thesis. OK, we don't know it was a homophobic attack, yet the paper reported this as being a 'sex-swap murder'; the implication is pretty explicit in the headline. We (by we I mean anybody, not Misplaced Pages editors) don't know that the attack on Michael Windsor was a homophobic attack - being beaten to death by six people, and stamped on so hard his foot nearly came off. However, eventually, the police did treat it as a homophobic attack. This is where you have a problem. Before the review of the Metropolitan Police procedures, the police did not tend to accept that attacks were homophobic. Some forces have taken longer to understand this. So, few cases prior to this century will have used words like 'hate crime' or 'homophobic violence', and yet, if you look at the report from the 1950's I provided, it is pretty clear cut that today this would have been seen as violence against an LGBT person; then, 'provocation' could be used as a defense which effectively rendered the 'blame' for such violence with the victim. This is interpretation, and you will note I am not putting any interpretation on any of the data I have inserted, simply letting the report speak for itself - reports which all contain details about violence against what today would be considered LGBT people. People are not usually found murdered with no clothes on in the streets of a city unless it is a sex attack or an LGBT hate crime - even if it was a sex attack, and the perpetrator killed because this was an LGBT person, then that is still relevant as violence against LGBT people. True we don't know - but people don't know what the motives were for many unsolved crimes, so we have to go on the next best information - especially before 2000 - that this was seen as relevant in the way the crime was reported. I am not going to argue the point, and if you really want it removed, let me have your response to what I have just said, and I can then do that. I don't see that splitting hairs over how we define a hate-crime is fruitful here, because until relatively recently there was no such concept, but to pretend they didn't happen is not helpful, if they did not happen before the term was developed, nobody would have seen the need to develop the concept. Mish (talk) 21:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The point is they flag up the "sex-swap" angle in the headline because that would provide a bit of salicious titilation to the sort of readers that the screws attract - absolutely nowhere does in the article does it even *suggest* that this provides motivation for the crime - the only sources I can find say it's a mystery and still is. I cannot step over that line where we add that in ourselves, I simply cannot compromise on what I see as a core breach of NPOV and our core duty to report on what reliable sources say - not what we get if we read between the lines. Do I think that it could be a hate crime? yeah, that's a fairly likely thing given the culture we live in - but I'm not willing to see articles use my guesswork or that of anyone else - there is no point me saying I'm willing to bend on this because it would be a lie, I simple am unwilling to buckle on what I see as a core and fundemental conflict with our primary purpose. --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I would be interested in seeing the other sources, as I have searched but been unable to find anything on the net about this case. All I have is the original report. If you have a source that makes it clear that it is a mystery, then I will have to accede to that. However, it is not an issue of NPOV how one interprets this. This falls under the LGBT studies project, and there are established 'codes' used historically within the media to signify certain things (e.g. 'a bachelor in his mid-thirties', a euphemism for a gay man before it was safe to 'come out'). What you see as reading between the lines fails to acknowledge the context of this article within the LGBT studies project. There is much that occurred before 1967 that has to be understood by what is signified within the text, and the same is true for crimes of violence reported before 2000. This was the problem with homophobic crime, it was not recognised, rarely reported, and when it was reported the way that the nature of the crime was signified was by using codes in the reporting. This is what led to the recognition that crimes were not being taken seriously and a change in police practice. Whether you feel able to 'allow' these sorts of entries is ultimately up to you - but it is your responsibility if you exclude them, because it is not through the exercise of any rule, but your interpretation of the guidelines that determines this. The guidelines are clear, we use common-sense to determine such matters, following guidelines, not being ruled by them. This is the core policy within Misplaced Pages, and what makes it such a vibrant project. Mish (talk) 22:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Good god this is even worse than I thought, everything you say suggests that you are indeed adding them on the basis of "well we can read between the lines" - remember common sense does *not* apply here. --Cameron Scott (talk) 07:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Common sense does apply here - guidelines are meant to guide, but within the constraints of common sense. If guidelines aren't sensible in a specific situation, policy suggests they should not be applied dogmatically. Otherwise you will have to delete everything prior to late 1990's. Which would be preposterous.

Rather than deleting properly sourced material without discussion, please bring it to the talk page first, so that other editors who are more familiar with the item ahve an opportunity to respond. This is not your page, and all editors should be consulted. The only items that should be summarily deleted are those where BLP policies apply. You have not discussed these items. This is a shame, as I had thought we had made a good start. Mish (talk) 10:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution

NOTE: The Requests for comment requires that it be placed on the talk page of the disputed article (and in a separate section) for the script and RfC bot to work. The RfC reference requesting outside opinions is listed on the appropriate RfC page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Society, sports, law, and sex, in this case. From RfC: "Any RfC not accompanied by evidence showing that two users tried and failed to resolve the same dispute may be deleted after 48 hours." Also note that since this is a dispute between Mish and Cameron Scott, a third party opinion might be helpful before going to RfC. — Becksguy (talk) 21:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I would feel much better if we can sort things out here. I don't have much time for crises, that is for work and this is for play. I'm not sure what the rush is, because we have plenty of time to work on this, and I would far prefer working on other outstanding items I have waiting. I am more interested in certain aspects of LGBT health than violence (I try to avoid anything violence because it tends to bring out certain psychopathic qualities in me that I would rather avoid). I feel we have made a good start here today. I have removed the item, as I said I would, and if at some point we can find out more details, then it can always go back in. I am wondering if the details of violent attacks might work better as a more general timeline around which we can hang other related events; for example, the item about the CPS 'zero tolerance' approach from 2002 I have just put in. Other items from the UK that would work would be decriminalisation in 1967 and the implementation of the Metropolitan Police review of procedures for investigating these sorts of crimes in the late 1990's, along with other relevant landmarks in other English-speaking countries. I appreciate that this is more of a problem in the USA because so much is governed at state level, but countries like Canada, Australia and New Zealand should be pretty straightforward. This would help to alleviate the concern expressed about this appearing to contain a list, when it actually includes quite a substantial time-line charting the reportage of what are now seen as 'homophobic' and 'transphobic' 'hate-crimes' over a period of fifty years. If we need to refer this to somebody, perhaps you could give some suggestions. Mish (talk) 00:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Although I have no involvement with this particular issue, I do have an involvement with the Larry King image issue, since I have argued that it should be kept in the shooting article, and removed from this article. So I would probably not be perceived as uninvolved enough. Part of the problem is finding an editor that is considered to be fair and impartial by both parties, is uninvolved in the article, is uninvolved with both editors in dispute, is experienced in dispute resolution (DR}, specifically third opinion, and finally is willing to spend the time and energy in the DR process. And that is a tall list of requirements. One place to look is in Category:Third opinion Wikipedians, or place a request at Misplaced Pages:Third opinion. I do know a few editors that I would recommend if it comes to that. Yes, it would be best if the dispute could be resolved here, but maybe with some impartial mediation. — Becksguy (talk) 07:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Why don't we do what somebody suggested earlier, hive the section of examples off as a separate list? We can keep the key verifiable cases from each decade, merge the information on legal changes into the timeline, and anybody who is interested in the list can continue on the list. How we decide which is which needs discussing - but there are the obvious ones, people that had films made or books written about them, or whose cases in some way affected the legal debate. I'd be in favour of keeping the sole item for the 1950's, and seeing if we can find something for 1960's as well, keeping 2-3 items for each subsequent decade, ideally representing the types of target - L, G, B or T. These lists are all over the place, and they make it quite hard getting at the verifiable sources, and it would be better focusing energy on improving this entry than fighting over a list. Feedback? Mish (talk) 13:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Using past history as a guide - as soon as that list is cut off into it's own article, it will be AFD'd (note: *not* by me) under WP:NOT a tribute, the article will survive the AFD but will be at least half of it's current size but will be better sourced. So I'm for it. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree, that given the seriousness of the topic, I'd prefer quality over quantity here, some clear and uncontrovertable well documented examples of violence, especially those have affected public awareness and/or legislation, with illustrations where possible, that work to inform a body of text which deals with aspects of the violence in terms of legal changes, academic writing, statistics, and if available in citation from texts, even some narrative content describing the experience of violence. That would be more informative. If the examples were hived-off as a timeline documenting such violence, that would be less problematic than a list, hopefully, and not appear as a memorial. Mish (talk) 10:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

In the context of *this* article I've never been convinced of the benefit of a list to start with - well constructed prose which highlights (and wiki-links) key cases and why they are contextual important to a) society's position on hatecrimes and b) legal change seems perferable to an endless but rather uninformative list that simply repeats over and over "and then they smashed his head in". --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Just because something is repetitive doesn't make it unfit for WP. The Oxford American Dictionary defines "encyclopedic" as "comprehensive in terms of information", and that is exactly what the list could become over time. But if you read the list more carefully, you'll see it's way less repetitive than you're suggesting. Aside from running for decades, it shows: geographic diversity; diversity of victim in terms of age, race, socioeconomic status, and specific LGBT identification or lack of LGBT identification (i.e., "perceived as LGBT"); and vast diversity in terms of what, if any, justice resulted. Pulling that information together in one place, sourcing it, and presenting it in a uniform format provides a unique informational resource to everyone from casual Web surfers to students to theologians to statesmen to researchers to jurists to you name it. That is exactly what WP should provide. Rivertorch (talk) 17:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the section is important, but I'm not sure it works as best it could the way it is now. This is an important Misplaced Pages article, and we need to look at strengthening and improving it, not firefighting because of potential flaws. The timeline works well, but it has grown rather full of examples. I agree that we need the notable cases, influential cases, and diverse types of case, cases through the years. If we could go through them, decide which to keep and which to put into a separate list. I wouldn't want to lose any of these, because somebody might have inserted some of them because they were friends or loved ones, and they would have been that to somebody anyway; I know that is sentimental and nothing to do wth Misplaced Pages policy, but I'd like to think there was room somewhere for that - as it makes it more human. Mish (talk) 17:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

neutrality of article

The article has been tagged questioning its neutrality, which points to the talk page for discussion of this, but no section has been established for that discussion. This section is for those comments. Mish (talk) 22:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

See above - no point duplicating sections. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Please be much more specific. POV tag really needs specific actionable items that other editors can address or fix. I don't see which item "above" which covers this. -- Banjeboi 11:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

That a fair number of the the examples shouldn't be here - see "additional sources" above - This article seems to be on the verge of turning into a full-blown memorial article and does not reflect our core policies and practices on WP:NOT and NPOV. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Cameron, could you explain what exactly you mean by 'NOT' and 'NPOV' in relation to this article? I have had a look (I look every time somebody points me there). But I'm not sure that people having put examples here in the past is about NPOV. Dismissing an item because it refers to a victim's gender or sexual identity in context is itself a POV - and to explain that away as simply due to 'sensationalism' is a synthesis that cannot be based on the article itself. If I look here, Lynching, I agree that the content is handled differently from here, and that it links to here Necklacing or to a more comprehensive article on the USA Lynching in the United States, etc; in the last case, there is no detailed listing of individual lynchings, although there are links to some notable lynchings Michael DonaldHenry PlummerMack Charles Parker. I think there's a case for us looking at moving this page towards something along those lines, maybe reorganising by country, and linking out to specific articles. But you need to explain which aspects of 'NOT' and 'NPOV' you are referring to, because all you have talked about is getting rid of items that are properly sourced, but according to your understanding shouldn't be in here. You need to work with us on this really, not against us. And as I said earlier elsewhere, flinging around false accusations at people about being homosexual activists doesn't help, especially as nobody here has made accusations like that about you being a homophobic activist (for example). Mish (talk) 20:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Your own words here say it all - wouldn't want to lose any of these, because somebody might have inserted some of them because they were friends or loved ones, and they would have been that to somebody anyway; I know that is sentimental and nothing to do wth Misplaced Pages policy, but I'd like to think there was room somewhere for that - You are an activist, I have no problem with that in a real world context, hell I'm an activist for certain things in the real world, but I don't do it here. I have problems with this article because people approach it like it's a tribute site and we need to list each and every attack on a LGBT person like they are of equal importance, they simply are not from a wikipedia point of view. We aren't here to advocate for victims, we aren't here to rally for social justice, we aren't here to help people to remember their loved ones,we aren't here to right previous wrongs, we are here to outline the facts in a netural fashion - that's how we provide value to anyone who wants to read about LGBT issues - that we are neutral as possible - because neutral reporting/analysis of this issue is horrific but it's harder for someone to try and suggest the articles LGBT "proproganda".

I am an activist here - for wikipedia. My position on re-organisation is that we should be using prose to describe the situation and historical context to the reader not provide an ever increasing laundry list of victims - if the article gets too large that way, that's OK we can break it off into sub-articles (for example, I'd have absolutely no problem with sub-articles that describe the legal situation in individual countries and that be better than the current high-level position we have on many legal situations). --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

So again, interesting points all but these don't seem to be POV issues as much as regular editing issues. POV suggests we are neglecting to represent multiple veiwpoints or failing to include something thereby making the article imbalanced. Instead you seem to suggest regular cleaning up of adding sourcing and fairly representing those sources is the issue. Am i missing something in that assessment? -- Banjeboi 21:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

In saying I am some kind of activist in this area you are wrong a.) how would you know if I was or not? and b.) because I am not - here or anywhere. In the real world I may be an advocate for some very specific things connected with health issues and human rights, but my interest in this issue is primarily academic. Being an activist is not an issue provided one is open about it - just as being an academic or a doctor or a priest is not an issue either; I am open about about my involvement where it matters. I may take an interest in this area for other reasons, for the same reasons I take interest in many things. My main concern with articles like these are seeing what seem like attempts to change the established discourse through manipulating some articles by applying neutralised euphemisms to replace common discourse, descriptions that are simply not used in the 'real world'. The more I look, the worse it appears. People writing biographies that are little better than hatchet-jobs for example. What I also notice is that there are whole articles out there that concern historic campaigns against homosexuality without a single source that go unchallenged, and yet every article connected with LGBT issue is gone through with a fine tooth-comb to check every sentence is referenced. Can you see the concern here? The concern is that Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines are being utilized in a biased way that unless a balanced approach is taken will be detrimental to Misplaced Pages's neutrality.

Apart from where my specific interest in Foucauldian and post-modern theory, phenomenology and sociology of medicine intersect with LGBT studies, my academic interests are not in this area either. Being humane is not the same as being an activist. We do have a duty to document issues of social justice and injustice, especially in articles in this project (LGBT studies) in this topic area (which includes social issues). Doing that in this context entails drawing on the body of work that has been built up about these sorts of issues, and using contemporary sources where these issues are featured. You may be right about the material here being too extensive. What I am going to do is pull out the UK-specific items, and pull together a UK section elsewhere, then re-insert it and remove the relevant pieces from the main text. Are you agreed that what is situated before the section of examples is neutral? If so, could you move that template from the top of the page to that section, or say what you see as being a problem with the rest. Mish (talk) 22:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

image gone

I see the image has been disallowed. I'll let you all into a little secret. I was all for having the image here, but I never appreciated the position it was put in. So, can we try and refrain from putting any more at the top please, and let the infobox sit where it is supposed to please, with images left to inform the text. Tks. Mish (talk) 01:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I respect your position on the image inclusion, Mish, even though I disagreed, but only because of the requirements of WP:FREE as I understood it. If the image had been free (eg - creative commons), I would have fully supported it's inclusion in this article, but not at the top as you pointed out. I totally agree it didn't belong there, as that position implied a level of importance for King which wasn't present. IMO. We should still look for a free photo of King. I agree that the infobox should be at the top, and the remaining images further down the page. — Becksguy (talk) 01:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Following up, I have an email into the family requesting release of the photo so it will be a free image and the agenda driven editor(s?) will have a reason to move on to the next gay hate crime article. - ALLST✰R▼ _{wuz here @} 06:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

That's terrific that you're requesting free licensing for the image! I've done this myself for a number of useful, non-free images, and it sometimes has positive results. Best of luck! (I do ask that you tone down the rhetoric, though. As an image-use watcher, I don't like being lumped in with homophobes.) – Quadell 10:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Allstar, ask them to release just one photo of Larry under creative commons (CC-BY or CC-BY-SA, for example), maybe on Flickr. That would be the cleanest and make it available for other sites as well. It think it would be a nice thing to do in his memory. Thanks for reaching out. — Becksguy (talk) 11:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm a bit busy with real world stuff this week but will offer this quick comment - surely a free image exists that can be used here? (and would therefore be unremovable) People have got a bit fixation on having *that* image when the richness of the article means that any number of free images can serve a similar purpose? As for moving on - forget it, this article has serious problems and I'm here forever. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

As has already been said a thousand plus 2 times, people want *that* image because of what his death represents. It was his death that brought about the resurgence and more attention to hate crimes since the death of Matthew Shepard. So it's only fitting that his picture be used. - ALLST✰R▼ _{wuz here @} 19:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree 100%. Rivertorch (talk) 22:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

proposed replacement section for examples of violence

I have taken the non-USA material and reformed it into a set of new sections, and worked the UK material into series of sections based around some key events and examples within a historical timeline. What I would like to do is insert this into the article in place of the existing section, extracting the US material, from the existing section much as it is now, and replace that within the section 'USA'. Then people can work on material that they wish to for whichever country into whatever structure they see fit. Are there any objections to my doing this? Feedback appreciated.

The draft without the USA is linked from my user page: User:MishMich/LGBT_violence —Preceding unsigned comment added by MishMich (talk • contribs)

Could you explain why you think splitting it up by country is a good idea? And by "key events and examples", do you mean that you did that only for the sandbox or that you're proposing that we no longer should attempt to be comprehensive in the article? Rivertorch (talk) 05:26, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I like the look of that - as for the level of detail in this article - it's such a large area and the history and development of, for example, legal remedies for hate crime are so different, it seems that this should be the high level article and it should branch to sub-articles that cover the situations in individuals areas? regions? countries (we need to work that out). From a wikipedia POV there is no problem if we have 50 sub-articles as well as they are all sourced and that wouldn't be a problem. --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:22, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Rivertorch. Events in one country may have effects in different countries, but the events in one country help to inform other events in that country better. If you go back to Lynchings, that is how it is handled there, with subsections for countries, some of which lead off to more detailed articles (such as Lynchings in the USA). Having a section which details all the hate crimes people can find from around the world, and dumping them all together in sequence means another section is necessary to detail the legislative responses to the campaigns that developed as a result of those crimes, yet appears out of context from what it was drafted for. That cannot give a coherent picture of events - because what a judge in Florida said in 1988 had little relation to what happened to actor Michael Boothe in Ealing 1990, which may have little relation to changes in US law further down the line. The way I arranged the UK material, all that there was, not selectively, was by moving things around into a sequence determined primarily by the text; this helps the reader (we do this for people who read Misplaced Pages) gain an understanding of the sequence of events, in context, where a sequence of gory gay murders is (I have to agree with Cameron on this one point) not that much more informative than 'a lot of queers killed, and it was violent, and it was messy, and it's still happening'. Sure it was, but that is not what we are here to say, we are here to inform people about how it happened, any published material on why it happened, what has been done to try and prevent it happening, and what happens to people who do it (and other things already in the previous sections). At the moment you cannot see the wood for the trees. The information for most of the countries other than the USA & UK is thin, as is the situation regarding the legal changes and responses in the USA, which is currently changing. Separating these out into their own sections provides points of focus for other editors, who can start to build up the sections they are more interested in, or have more knowledge about, create new sections, add details about the legal situation, key cases, etc. The way it is now, the sequence is completely dominated by US material, and cases from other countries get lost in the wealth of detail, that is not informative, by separating these out, the material becomes more material without doing much else to it. If at some point, a section becomes too unwieldy, then people can shift that into a separate article, leaving a reduced section in this article, with links to the relocated material as described for Lynching in the United States. Mish (talk) 09:27, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

All right, then, I have no objection to dividing it by country. It does look neater and make it more navigable. I still think we should shoot for being as comprehensive as possible, however. Some incidents undoubtedly are more significant than others in terms of notoriety and societal impact, but trying to select certain incidents as somehow representative or "key" seems utterly futile and will lead to endless argument. (As if we don't already have enough of that. Wink. Nudge. Benevolent smile at the entire Wikiuniverse.) Rivertorch (talk) 17:42, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, it is not that major a change, just a reformulation, and I will look at doing it over the next day or two. The USA section will remain as is, but without the international content, and people can deal with that as they see fit. I have been reviewing some information on Africa and the Balkans, which can be used there as and when there is time. Mish (talk) 21:49, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

It is done now. Mish (talk) 21:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

why is this called what it is

Given the criteria for entries being acceptable in that article, why is this called 'Violence against LGBT people' and not 'Homophobic violence" or "Homophobic and transphobic violence"? Mish (talk) 16:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

That's a valid point - especially since many of the people affected are not LGBT but equally impact (such as in the soho pub bombing). Homophobic and transphobic violence maybe? --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that is a very good point. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:15, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Or Homophobic and transphobic crime? (Falling under LGBT studies, discrimination, criminology, homophobia, etc.) We can start it as a new page, pull things across from here, build it up into a better article, and either leave anything we don't use behind, or delete it and make this one a redirect to the new page. How does that sound? Mish (talk) 17:29, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Whoa, there are at least two very good reason the article is called Violence against LGBT people. Number one, the title is intended to encompass acts of violence which cannot be classified as literal crimes (burning people at the stake in Medieval times, for instance, or the legal penalties faced by LGBT people in certain countries even today). Number two, while the tenor of modern-day examples generally indicates homophobia or transphobia, it cannot be established anywhere near conclusively in many cases. So the current title leaves the door open very nicely to presumed or apparent homophobic/transphobic motive. That is important—both for accuracy and, as a practical matter, to avoid unnecessary contention as we build the article. Rivertorch (talk) 17:53, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, well Homophobic and transphobic crime and violence then. The second point is moot now, as it has already been contested on this basis anyway, and I wouldn't see domestic LGBT violence or random acts of violence affecting LGBT people should feature, but there are acts of violence against people who are not LGBT (or of unknown sexual or gender identity) who are victims of homophobic violence, and strictly speaking they would be excluded by this article's title. It is a bit like the expression 'extra-legal violence' used somewhere here - why not 'criminal violence', seeing that is what it is? Mish (talk) 18:28, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're losing me. The title as it stands right now is simple, descriptive, and encompasses the different types of violent acts that it describes. While the current title doesn't explicitly identify the reason for the violence, is it absolutely crucial that the title do so? Article titles aren't rocket science, and absolute precision is impossible and, imo, unnecessary. (Re the Soho bombing, that there was "collateral damage" doesn't negate the identity of the target—LGBT people.)

"Homophobic and transphobic crime and violence" is unnecessarily wordy, jargon-laden, has problematic syntax (the crime and violence aren't homophobic or transphobic—the people who perpetrate them are), and theoretically opens the article to inclusion of nonviolent crimes. My primary point in my earlier post was that it's more than just criminal or extralegal violence that's at issue in the article; there is a tradition of violence that has a long history. Isn't that better placed under one unifying umbrella of violence? I think so. In any case, I don't see any compelling reason to consider changing the title at this time, and in such cases I haul out my trusty aphorism-generator and say if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Rivertorch (talk) 20:25, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, any problem with my creating some redirects here to cover these? Mish (talk) 21:50, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Presumably we are talking about violence directed at people because they are LGBT rather than violence directed at people whose sexuality is not a motivating factor in the violence. If that's the case, then "homophobia-related violence" or "homophobic violence" would be the most accurate name, and it would also cover people who are targeted because of their perceived (rather than actual) sexual orientation. Exploding Boy (talk) 22:49, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

To Mish: no problem at all. I think it's a good idea. To E.B.: arguably, violence against a straight individual who is perceived to be LGBT is an act of violence—or at least aggression—against the entire LGBT population. It's somewhat comparable to what I said about collateral damage; the intended victim is still a (hypothetical) LGBT person and, by extension, all LGBT people. That's one of the rationales for hate crime legislation, anyway. What about a redirect from "homophobia-related violence" to this article? Rivertorch (talk) 05:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I am more concerned about how somebody coming to Misplaced Pages will find this article. If I were looking for an article like this I would be more likely to type 'homophobic violence', and get a direct hit - If I type this in now, it lists seven artciles, including 'Gay bashing' before this one. If I type 'homophobia-related violence', it brings this up first, via LGBT-related violence redirect. Mish (talk) 08:47, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. Why is Gay bashing a separate article? Exploding Boy (talk) 15:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Because it doesn't necessarily involve violence.

Mish, are you talking about running a search or entering the article name directly? I find WP's search functions unpredictable and bizarre. Not sure what to tell you, except that both of those pages should be made to redirect here. 17:10, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I am talking about putting the term in the search box, and pressing 'OK'. If an article is found, you are taken to the article. If no article (or redirection to) is found, it yields a search on the terms. I have addressed 'homophobic violence' and 'transphobic violence'. I have not addressed transphobia or homophobia related violence etc., as that brings this article up at the top of the search, as does homophobic crime. Transphobic crime yields it as the second item. Mish (talk) 17:34, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Assuming you mean the 'Go" button—there is no 'OK' button, unless this is some browser-specific weirdness—I think that when there is no article or redirect found the results are the same as if you click the 'Search' button. But as I said, I really don't "get" WP's search functions. When running a serious search of article space, I generally use Google. Rivertorch (talk) 22:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Rationalised another section a bit

I have tidied up the other sections, because it seems odd to have a section on state violence which has a few brief historical items, followed by a sub section on Islam today. There is a problem with the latter, and I have put it in a new category as contemporary state-sanctioned violence. The problems are that it is the practice of Sharia Law that permits the killing, not the state per se, it is an extension of Abrahamic Law alluded to in the previous (was main) section, so is religious law, rather than state law. That is why it happens in Nigeria, which is not an Islamic state, and where as nearly as many people are Christian as Muslim (although hold similar views about homosexuality), it is not state-sponsored, in fact probably state-sanctioned is inadequate, because it is state-permitted. It is mainly in the Muslim North where this happens, not the Christian south (where people are more likely to be burned as witches and where if homosexuals killed it would be extra-legal). Similarly with the entry on Iraq, killings are sanctioned by a particular party, but it was not state policy that such killings took place, so in a sense these were extra-legal killings (similar to the death squads in Brazil which allegedly involve the police, and to which the state has turned a blind eye - which could maybe go in there as well). Because these acts take place either through Sharia Law, or through other means, where the state takes no action to prevent them, then putting them under this heading is probably the best way to do it - alongside countries like Saudi Arabia where Sharia Law is embedded in the mechanisms of state. However, then questions would need to be asked about Russia, where the LGBT demonstration last night was stopped by the police - violently - because neo-nazi's had threatened violence if it was allowed to go ahead; in other words, the Russian state used violence against LGBT people to prevent worse violence against them, rather than preventing those threatening violence from being violent. That could be argued as being a form of state sanctioned violence as well.

The link to ILGA about the 7 countries that use the death penalty for homosexuality does not work. I have left it there in case it does later, but I have inserted reference for Fox News as well. If the ILGA one doesn't work, I'd suggest searching for a better link for the details - but I do not have time, and without the ILGA source it is not easy to work out where the information comes from originally. Mish (talk) 21:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah, the lede is a bit long - maybe need to find a way of condensing it and moving some of the material down into the USA section? Mish (talk) 21:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

If you mean this ILGA link (ref #16), it works for me. I'll give some thought to the distinction between state-sponsored and state-permitted. Off the top of my head, I'm not sure it's a terriby meaningful distinction: if Sharia is the law in a sector, de facto or otherwise, then the effect is the same. Rivertorch (talk) 22:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

No. It still doesn't work. Have found it here: ILGA Europe link. Maybe it only works in the USA?

That is why I changed it to state-sanctioned. It falls between. Some communities in the UK have Sharia courts, where there is no conflict with UK Law, but it does not sponsor this, it allows it. In Nigeria, I don't think the state is in a position to do anything but allow it. Mish (talk) 23:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Religious condemnation and violence-- removal?

I note that the section entitled 'Relationship between religious condemnation and violence' consists of two (sourced) sentences, and doesn't seem to contribute much to the page. In fact it appears to be a bit out-of-place. If someone wanted to expand on this it might fit better in the article as a discussion of the phenomenon of violence directed at LGBT people, but as of now it's not helpful. I don't have the time to research this or the sources to discuss it properly, but I didn't want to remove a sourced section entirely without giving it a chance first. If I hear no objection, I will cut it entirely. Altarian (talk) 23:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

It isn't clear that the source applies to the first sentence anyway, and the second sentence is only indirectly relevant. It is so minimal, if somebody wanted to build a more substantial section at a later date with some reliable sources, and balanced this with the condemnation of such violence by the Vatican and protestant leaders, then losing what is there now would be irrelevant. Perhaps you should just tag the section in some way and if nobody does anything with it, then delete it. Mish (talk) 00:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Scope

• Does it make sense to have non-English speaking countries in this article?
• It makes no sense to have two countries within the UK dealt with in different parts of the article as if they are different countries, rather than within the UK, detailing the separate legal arrangements? The way this is going we will end up with two Irelands, North and South, the North being part of the UK but in a separate section, making the UK spread out across three sections: England and Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. I'd like to suggest that we use 'UK', with subcategories for the three. The legal status of Scotland or Ulster in relation to England and Wales is closer to that of different states in the USA, which are not dealt with on a state-by-state basis here. Mish (talk) 17:04, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I would say it does make sense to include non-English-speaking countries in the list. There is no reason not to. We are supposed to present a worldwide and non-biased or limited point of view on any topic (WP:NPOV), and although I feel we should use English names for countries (e.g. my Eire -> Ireland edit), violence against LGBT in foreign countries is still violence against LGBT. In reference to your second point, I agree. The easiest think to do is have a section titled United Kingdom encompassing England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, and change the "Eire" category to Republic of Ireland. Neil Clancy 19:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• Start-Class LGBTQ+ studies articles
• WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies articles