This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Damiens.rf (talk | contribs) at 02:03, 17 June 2009 (→Jamie Ray Tolbert murder was not related to his sexuality). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 02:03, 17 June 2009 by Damiens.rf (talk | contribs) (→Jamie Ray Tolbert murder was not related to his sexuality)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | 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 | ||||||
| |||||||
 Archives |
|
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.
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)
Jamie Ray Tolbert murder was not related to his sexuality
Being out of the latest developments in this talk page, I'm not currently sure about what the current inclusion criteria for this article. In any case, I would like to point out that the murderer of Jamie Ray Tolbert, mentioned in this article, was not related to his sexual option. Although the suspects were convicted of muderer, there was no mention of hate-crime, homophobia or the like:
- "Jeremy Shawn Bentley c. State of Alabama" (Press release). Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals. 2004-03-26. Retrieved 2009-06-15.
If this is a list of all violence against gay-people, disregarded of motivations, just forget this message. But if this article plans to list only sexual-orientation-related crimes, this one should go.
Please notice it's a libel/BLP case to imply that a convicted murderer is a hate-crime-murderer without proofs. --Damiens.rf 19:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Categories: