Talk:Violence against LGBT people/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

History of anti-trans violence being recast as anti-gay

There's a significant history of anti-trans violence being recast as anti-gay. GLAAD had a pronounced tendency to do this until the mid 90's. I'm sticking this note in to start collecting material for a section on this. Anniepoo (talk) 19:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Old talk

• A man was shot to death in an Iowa bar because he was standing quietly in a corner holding a purse. He was perceieved as an unwelcome homosexual; in actuality, he was holding the purse for his wife, who was in the restroom.

I'd like to see a source for this factoid. I don't think a woman would go to the bathroom without her purse, or that her husband would simply stand in a corner holding it. Also, what else happened leading up to the shooting? Didn't he say, "Geez! It's my wife's purse, she just went into the bathroom." And what happened to the shooter? --Ed Poor

I too agree with Ed. There's no year or month/day. There's no city. There's no assailant or victim named. I'm unable to find anything via Google, and without more details, I'm loathe to go to the library and start searching. I question the veracity of this factoid. Sources?

~ender 2003-09-10 04:10:MST

Maybe it's a confusion with a similar incident, which took place in Tennessee ([1]). --Wik 11:31, Sep 10, 2003 (UTC)

the impilcation of this fact or factoid seems to be that this was a terrible mistake, wheras shoting a 'genuinely' gay man holding a purse would have been somehow more acceptable- Ihope that this is not what is being suggested quercus robur

No, I was questioning whether it really happened. I'm against murder. Also, it might be good in an article on "gay bashing" to show an example of it -- rather than two examples of "people bashed by mistake by lunatics who hate gay people but can't tell gay from straight". --Ed Poor

I didn't mean your comment so much Ed as the remark as it appeared in the original article on the subject page, whaich as you say, would have done better to have highlighted some real incidents of anti gay violence, I'm sure there are bucket loads of examples without picking up a couple of alleged 'mistaken identity' cases- cheers quercus robur

If these incidents really happened, I think they serve as fine examples. They demonstrate that it does take place, and that the assailants were mistaken doesn't disprove that point. It seems reasonable to assume that this sort of thing gets underreported to some extent if it happens at all. I think some statistics showing the prevalence of violent gay-bashing would also be helpful to lend perspective. Wesley

I added four notable victims of homophobic assaults who were ACTUALLY Queer. It seems rather stupid to mention two straight victims of bashing and no Queer ones. - Montréalais

---

"Gay-bashing as a practice may be on the decline as homosexuality eases into the protection of political correctness, but to those it affects it is still a fearful and factual phenomenom born from their society's intolerance." Purple prose and POV. Appropriate in a fundraising letter from the Human Rights campaign. Not appropriate here. And "phenomenon" is misspelled. orthogonal 05:34, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Attempted a reword. How's it now? Dysprosia 05:41, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Guess not too good :) Dysprosia 05:43, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)

It just seems not to really say anything other than, "bad things are bad". Sorry, I didn't notice your edit when I removed it. orthogonal 05:46, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Nah it's cool :) Dysprosia 05:47, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)

---

This name is better (than Gay-bashing?) Oh, I've translated that into Chinese using the name gay-bashing (long time ago, quite literally translation in Chinese, since there is not so many words in Chinese to describe homosexual) I don't know if I should refresh the Chinese version or not, there is no a special term for this... But the current name of the article in Chinese sounds funny... gonna think of it.... --Yacht 08:26, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Title

The new title is very unwieldy. How about "persecution because of sexual orientation" or something similar?—Eloquence 06:39, Feb 28, 2004 (UTC)

The previous name of this article was inappropriate as not all transgendered individuals are gay, and it allows for greater scope in looking at the "bisexual issue". I refrained from moving a title involving the term "queer" since I've heard some don't like this, but if you feel strongly, feel free to move it there somwhere.

Re Eloquence, transgenderism is not a sexual orientation. Tx Dysprosia 06:42, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I completely agree with Dysprosia. Thanks, BCorr ¤ Брайен 06:45, Feb 28, 2004 (UTC)

How about persecution of sexual minorities?—Eloquence 06:52, Feb 28, 2004 (UTC)

Bisexuals are a majority. There's very few true homo- or heterosexuals. And other thorny issues there as well. Pakaran. 06:57, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I highly doubt that this is true, and in any case, it seems excessively pedantic (people are persecuted because they don't behave like the majority, or like the majority is expected to behave). "Sexual minorities" is also a term used by the United Nations and other world organizations fighting this persecution. Would you be willing to accept the result of a poll on the title?—Eloquence 07:03, Feb 28, 2004 (UTC)

However, you have to consider established ideas on the matter, such as the Kinsey scale - essentially how can you classify whether someone is gay, lesbian, or bisexual? Dysprosia 07:07, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Kinsey conducted his research in a world unrepresentative manner. All his reasearch was conducted only jailed people.100110100 08:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

If you want to know my opinion, it is that the question is not so much what sexual experiences one enjoys (I believe that both heterosexual and homosexual people can enjoy heterosexual and homosexual experiences), but what gender one feels the most attraction and the strongest ability to feel love towards. I also believe that in most humans, this is fairly clear-cut; I cannot, for example, imagine falling in love with another man, but that doesn't mean that I would not, under some circumstances, engage in sexual activity with another man and enjoy it. Most bisexuals seem to be people who say "I enjoy having sex with persons of either gender, but I prefer ..". That's why I feel bisexuality is more of an enlightened view of one's sexual identity than a sexual orientation per se. I might be wrong, of course.—Eloquence 07:12, Feb 28, 2004 (UTC)

"Sexual minorities" isn't such a bad descriptor, but the word "minority" has that POV undertone... Dysprosia 07:32, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

In some academic articles I have read, "sexual minority" was also used to refer to BDSM and other not-so-common sexual practices. This article doesn't deal with prosecution of each and every "sexual minority", so I don't think that would be a good title.

The current one looks fine, except for "the" before transgendered. Maybe something like "Persecution of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people"? (oh, and the comma after bisexuals should go too :o) -- Kimiko 22:52, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The "the" is there for grammar. It was either that or the abjectly horrible "transgenders"...

In any case, the Oxford comma is a good thing ;) Dysprosia 23:29, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

This article could be about the persectution of every sexual minority. After all, some laws in, for example, England, could be seen as persecution of BDSM practitioners. My vote is to change the title to Persecution of Sexual Minorities. Exploding Boy 05:40, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)

Warning: Is that really what we want? I can see how calling it Persecution of sexual minorities will lead to homosexuality, BDSM and other, less respected sexual practices (like bestiality, pedophilia, polygamy) being lumped together. Opponents of any of those would probably approve on the grounds that all are reprehensible, but advocates likely wouldn't be so thrilled. I'm not sure this wouldn't lead to another flame-and-edit war. -- Kimiko 10:30, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

Can we get a concrete definition of what a "sexual minority" is, before proceeding? Dysprosia 05:42, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Uhm, I guess anything that deviates from what the majority does for fun? -- Kimiko 10:30, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Isn't this then getting back to a "who's *ahem*-ing who, how" definition, which would not, again, be accurate to describe transgendered people? Dysprosia 10:44, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well, abstaining from *ahem*-ing (quotable word! :o) because of genderdysphoria could be considered deviant, maybe.

I think what is needed here is a {definition, description} of how this kind of persecution is different from other kinds of persecution (religious, cultural). Is it the motivation by a fear of appearing to be queer(-friendly), as suggested by some theories of homophobia? Is queerness a threat to some folks' self-image/world view? It is unlikely to be motivated solely by religious rules (there are for example several rules in the bible that are ignored in today's society). -- Kimiko 12:10, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

If we're talking about sexual minorities then the transgendered would not be included. Being transsexual does not imply a specific sexual orientation or sexual habits. Being attracted to transsexuals on the other hand, would. I think it's reasonable to include gays and lesbians, BDSMers and other fetishists, the polyamourous and others. It's probably also reasonable to include bisexuals, because despite common belief that bisexuality is the most common sexuality, in most societies heterosexuality is still considered the norm. Exploding Boy 14:54, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)

"Persecution of gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and the transgendered"

You've got to be kidding me. Anthony DiPierro 02:24, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No, it's not political correctness, it's a matter of accuracy. Dysprosia 04:20, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

What's inaccurate about gay-bashing? Maybe we should rename "Boston Tea Party" as well, since it wasn't actually a party. Anthony DiPierro 12:30, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Read the article, and the previous discussion. Here are the instances I found of inaccuracy, which I probably should have repaired before, but I'll leave for the moment.

1. persecution of homosexuals and transgendered individuals (gay-bashing) - transgendered individuals are not de facto gay.
2. Although gay-bashing is often thought of relating to gay men, all Queer groups - including gay men, lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered people - can be targeted. - then the article should not have been called "persecution of homosexuals" since bisexuals and transgendered people are not automatically gay.
3. The term "gay-bashing" is often taken to include, in addition to random assaults, attacks on gay people - while the rest of the article includes bisexual and transgendered people
4. Gwen Araujo, transsexual woman (1985 - 2002) - no evidence of Gwen being a lesbian
5. Brandon Teena, transsexual man (1972 - 1993) - had a primary relationship with a woman - strongly suggests Brandon is heterosexual, not gay.

Which means that the previous title of "persecution of homosexuals" was not only inadequate, it makes judgement calls on bisexual and transgendered people. A more suitable title may have been "Persecution of the Queer community" (or similar), but the term "queer" is not widely accepted yet, though is quite descriptive and inclusive. Dysprosia 21:33, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

I'd like to see external references for the two "famous examples" at the bottom of the article page. The second one in particular sounds like an urban legend as there is no indication of names, location, or date. --zandperl 19:33, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Page moved

I've moved this to persecution of sexual minorities because a) the previous title was unwieldy, b) sexual minorities can refer to anything sexual - sexual orientation, sexual practices, sexual state. I do not see it as an exclusive term. If anything, it is overly inclusive, but we can deal with that if the article gets too long.--Eloquence* 08:44, Apr 10, 2004 (UTC)

Why was persecution of sexual minorities chosen? There were some fairly strong (and IMHO accurate) objections to this name. Unlike Anthony, I really don't see an issue with Persecution of gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and the transgendered. It's long, but it's also the most accurate way of describing the content of this article without being overly wordy or misrepresenting anyone. Ambivalenthysteria 06:40, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

There's been no objections after two weeks, so I've gone ahead and moved the page to Persecution of gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and the transgendered. Ambivalenthysteria 02:43, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

I'd much prefer gay-bashing. All the examples on this page are persecution of people who are homosexual, and that's how the term is used in general speech. Persecution of transgendered people does occur, but is not the same thing. Perhaps that could be discussed under another topic. The entire practice of lumping gay, bisexual, and transgendered people into one "LGBT" or "queer" group is also controversial and only accepted by some groups of people. It's more widely accepted now than it was 10 years ago, but there are still plenty of transgendered people who do not feel much of a kinship with homosexuals, and do not consider themselves "queer", but simply otherwise normal people who happen to have a mismatch between their gender and physical sex. --Delirium 20:59, May 13, 2004 (UTC)

I think that could be fair enough. Where would the transgender-related information go? Ambivalenthysteria 13:10, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

Another rename?

There are transgendered people now included on the list, though I wouldn't object to giving them their own list if someone thinks that's appropriate. However, I wanted to point out that this articles covers only acts of violence; there are types of persecution that don't involve physical violence. Also, we seem to be standardizing on "LGBT" as a short name for pages dealing with all four groups. So I would propose a rename to "Violence against LGBT people". -- Beland 23:22, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I renamed to "Violence against gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and the transgendered" to reflect the scope of the article. I think I may start a separate article to explain the term "gay-bashing". -- Beland 02:05, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Violence" is somewhat limited, and leaves out other forms of persecution - and I don't think each form merits its own article. Why not "Repression of LGBT people" Repression can be violent, or otherwise, and creates space for the aticle to grow. Haiduc 02:11, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Or "Oppression of LGBT people"? Or my original (in the sense of coming from my own self) title, "Violence against nonheterosexuals".100110100 08:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Request for statistics

In moving some material from Homophobia, I came across a passage that talks about the relative safety of tolerant urban areas vs. rural areas and the phenomenon of "gay bashers" intentionally seeking out LGBT hotspots in order to commit their crimes. There were no real references attached to these generalizations. I was thinking the best way to approach this would be to present some actual statistics on where these types of crimes were committed. So consider this a request for this to be researched and added to the article. The links to articles about specific incidents can give a first look at how these crimes are committed, but if someone has anything to add on that topic, please feel free. -- Beland 23:31, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

personally, I think this whole article is VERY inadequete, in that it fails to pay the slightest attention to issues of motive, besides for one sentence. For instance, how many "gay bashings" are motivated by mascilinity? religion? other cultural factors? Yes, I agree, these are matters of debate. But could someone please AT LEAST include some links to pages on this subject?

my personal impression is that most " gay bashings" are perpretrated by gangs of young men "looking for someone to bash". Religion seems to rarely be a motive, with the possible exception of true christian or islamic fundamentalist extremists - but these are a minority. Would someone include some info on the matter in this article?

Problematic text

This type of persecution is grounded in aversion to same sex love. This aversion can be of either a personal or cultural nature. See Homophobia

Well, that's one perspective, but there are many others. Especially since "aversion" has negative, almost clinical connotations, it's a very controversial term to use. Violence against a transgendered person, I think, can have nothing at all to do with same-sex love; I'm sure there are people who would hurt celibate transexuals because they consider them "freaks of nature" or some other terrible thing. I'm sure some people are also targeting the LGBT community not because they are against same-sex love, per se, but because they want to hurt someone, and picking the most stigmatized social group at hand might be the easiest and most logical thing to do. Less of a legal fuss might be made about crime against groups that the larger community stigmatizes. You could also theorize that anti-LGBT violence is not about sexual preferences, but about gender norms, or who knows what else.

"Views on the causes of violence against gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and the transgendered" could be an essay unto itself. If or when it is written, it would need to represent multiple points of view. -- Beland 02:19, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Good points all. Let me figure out a more defensible link to Homophobia. Haiduc 03:02, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Where is all this going?

It is not clear to me why there should be two articles on this topic, one listed under a slang term (gay bashing) and another under a more formal title (the current one). Both articles are small, and "bashing" should re-direct here. This kind of fragmentation of material does not seem useful but confusing to the users. Furthermore, material that Beland tagged as having been moved (from here to Gay Bashing has not been moved but has been deleted. I assume that was an honest mistake. But it does not make the changes here any clearer. It would seem to me that the very useful consolidation of the various bashing articles should all come into the present article, which can usefully accommodate everything. Furthermore, if this article is limited to physical violence where are the other types of repression to be discussed, and why should those aspects be broken away from this one? Haiduc 12:00, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree, it's a bit pointless to me to have two articles on the one topic. It's important to solidify what information we have. The topics are the same. Dysprosia 22:21, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If there are no further objections, I'll move the content back here. Dysprosia 04:09, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Not from me. I remain concerned about the unduly restrictive title. What should be gathered here is material related to all kinds of repression of same-sex love and sexuality. This could include imprisonment, humiliation, etc. I would like to see a discussion of substituting "Repression" for "Violence" and, absent a discussion, a title change. Haiduc 05:15, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That would be desirable, of course, but as far as I can see there's no easy way of titling this so it'll keep everybody happy and include everyone.... Dysprosia 08:21, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A further thought: Beside fusing the two articles on the same topic, changing the title of the resulting article to "Repression of queer sexualities" so as to avoid interminable, tedious and debatable listings, and discussions of which sexualities to include, in what order, and under what monicker. Also, I keep wondering whether material was lost from the various articles Beland redirected into this one. I do not know how to access that info. Haiduc 03:54, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Added global tag

Hi. I added the tag in the hope that somebody could add more material on violence against LGBT people in countries other than the US and UK. I was thinking mainly of Jamaica, as I got here from the article on Dancehall. Thanks. illWill 19:31, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Added content

The point about religions and churches &/c not condoning violence is an important one to make, but I would dispute the magnitude ("many") hinted in the statement that

Many religious authorities have been accused of constantly giving spiritual support to such violence because they overtly oppose thoughts and actions associated with LGBT.

Could this be qualified/sourced somehow? Thanks Dysprosia 09:47, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

These very same religious authorities are just as vocal in opposition of LGBT-bashing as of thoughts and actions associated with LGBT. For example, without even touching on whether something's a sin, most Christians would vehemently repudiate the expression "God hates fags" and agree that they need to take the teaching to love everyone seriously, including people engaging in LGBT activities. Mission9801 10:50, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

The point I'm trying to make is that to my knowledge there's nothing to back up the use of word "many" (you cite only one case above there). I'd just like to see either some sources to back up the use of the word "many" or perhaps the word should be changed ("some"?) Dysprosia 12:09, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

These very same religious authorities are just as vocal in opposition of LGBT-bashing as of thoughts and actions associated with LGBT... Yeah, right...

A "world-wide view"?

"The examples and perspective in this article do not represent a world-wide view."

Then what is the so-called world-wide view? --Thorri 12:51, 7 Oct 2005 (UTC)

This is very much an American view. The individual acts section is exclusivley American, and maybe it should be seperated into another more detailed section of homophobic violence in the US? Matchrthom 19:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Statistics

From the statistics section,

In the United States, the FBI hate crime statistics for 2004, the most recent year available, reports that hate crimes based on perceived sexual orientation were down from 16.4 to 15.6 percent.

16.4 to 15.6 percent of what?—Kbolino 20:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

England

Wasn't homosexuality a crime until much more recently than 1861 in England? Alan Turing was prosecuted for homosexuality and sentenced to a humiliating hormone treatment meant to suppress his libido (it was either that or prison). David.Monniaux 15:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Over 100 years later than 1861. Harold Wilson's government legalised homosexuality and abortion in 1965 (?).

Perhaps some other homosexuality law was passed in Britain after the Buggery Act 1533? Anyway I think it would be important to acknowledge this in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.243.191.108 (talk) 12:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I once commited offence to a gay guy

As an 11 year old, you may find me doing this quite unusual, but coming home from my Ju-Jitsu lesson, I saw two guys holding hands, and acting generally effeminate, I spat on the guy on the right, turned around and said."You sicken me", I was thinking of hitting him, but I stopped around 3 inches in front of his face.

Is this worth mentioning?Centurion Ry 20:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

What would you want to mention? The example you just stated? As a ==An example== section?

Or do you want somone to talk to? I could help with that.100110100 06:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

You may find (http://postsecret.blogspot.com/#110830722827025317) a more useful place to distribute this information. Thedreamdied 21:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

i bet they kicked your ass afterward right?

Giant List

Is there any need for this giant list of 'notable' intolerant attacks? i do, of course, realise theyre all very serious but theres no need for such a large list. Thedreamdied 21:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

List ain't that big, sez I. — coelacan talk — 21:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, its not giant, im exagerrating, but it could do with pruning. It fills up a whole screen on 1024x768, surely some of these attacks are more notable than others. Thedreamdied 22:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia's not paper though, so "that's a long list" isn't a reason to trim it. One screenful to one and a half, I think is appropriate for an article, If it gets longer than that it would make sense to move it to a List of incidents of violence against gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and the transgendered, however I see no reason to actually trim the list. If you really want the article shorter then go ahead and move the list over to a "list of" article today or whenever at your discretion. — coelacan talk — 22:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Shorter title?

The title is kind of nuts, why not Anti GLBT Violence or something similar? 74.109.131.245 12:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Move to

violence against nonheterosexuals

?100110100 06:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Incidence of violence -- should it be included?

The attack on Kevin Aviance was in the news, but I don't know if the collaborators on this article think it meets the criteria for inclusion. Sci girl 03:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Title II

I think the title as is seems kind of strange. I think perhaps "Violence against the LGBT community" might be a better alternative. Please discuss your thoughts. Thank you.--Jersey Devil 19:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Sexual orientation and gender identity hate crimes? -- ☑ SamuelWantman 21:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that the current title, "Violence against nonheterosexuals," is not reflective of this article's scope. The article includes violent crimes committed against transgendered people, who can be either homosexual, heterosexual, or bisexual, and who thus are not by definition "nonheterosexual." I'd recommend the title Violence against LGBT people instead. -Severa (!!!) 20:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Severa's argument makes sense. Fireplace 20:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I moved it to "Violence against LGBT people" though I think that "Violence against the LGBT community" sounds better. Discuss your opinions on the move.--Jersey Devil 01:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I think "Violence against LGBT people" is a more logical title, as "community" suggests violence committed against the community as a whole, whereas this article deals primarily with crimes committed against individuals who a part of that community (but the title "people" is broad enough to be inclusive of incidents in which there were multiple victims). -Severa (!!!) 01:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

But there have been other arguments that LGBT is too exclusive, such as, what about questioning, and intersexed?70.74.35.53 23:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Villification and persecution of non-heterosexually defined peoples (and those perceived as same)

I appreciate that the abovementioned contribution is cumbersome and acknowledge the complexity of the issue, inclusivity and identification propriety in dialogue with the necessity for spatial and referential economy. That said, I was disgruntled that 'queer' and 'same-sex attracted people' were not represented along with LGBT in the article title. How about "Persecution of actual and perceived non-heterosexually defined peoples"? Apart from being human we are only cohesively defined by what we are not.
xox
B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I vote for one that was proposed quite some time ago: Persecution of sexual minorities. Seems to cover all bases. Kasreyn 12:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Items Removed

I have been researching and writing detailed accounts of anti-LGBT hate crimes. I had been adding these accounts to Wikipedia until it was brought to my attention that none of them are notable enough to satisfy Wikipedia guidelines. I established The LGBT Hate Crimes Project in order to continue detailing cases that have no place on Wikipedia.

As I finished entries, I added summaries to Violence against LGBT people for the following:

• Ukea Davis & Stephanie Thomas
• Bella Evangelista
• Edgar Garzon
• Dwan Prince
• Julio Rivera
• Emonie Spaulding
• Michael Wrenn

However, I cited the entries I'd written at the site I established to write entries that I cannot write for Wikipedia because of guidelines. I was told that this is a conflict of interest, and that instead I should cite the sources I used to write the entries on the site I established.

As that would require, in many cases, citing 10 or more sources for summaries of a few sentences -- which none of the other items have, and which would require the same amount of work I've done in researching the articles I cannot write on Wikipedia, in order to avoid any conflict of interest, I have removed all the additions I made to the Violence against LGBT people list, as I have no intention of creating lists of citations that are twice as long as the summaries themselves.

I will add nothing further to the list or to Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TerranceDC (talk • contribs) 07:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Title Move Again: "Discrimination against sexual minorities"

I choose "discrimination" because "discriminiation includes" "vilification", "persecution", and "violence" because in order to be violent against someone you must discriminate them first.70.74.35.53 00:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Additional citations needed

While there is some sourcing (nine as of this point), many of the statements are not sourced. I don't see any that stand out as potentially unverifiable, but they should still be sourced per WP:RS and WP:V. So if anyone can add citations, please do so. I intend to help out also. I added the {{refimprove}} tag— Becksguy (talk) 04:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Parenthetic references

There are several parenthetic references in this article that I can't figure out. They really need to be converted to footnotes and clarified.
Second paragraph:

• (Conklin,1992)
• (CSVR)
• (New York Times, 1990) - which issue?

Sixth paragraph:

• (Berrill, 1922) --George100 (talk) 23:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Addition to the notable incidences list

Shouldn't Harvey Milk be included under the list of notable incidences? I mean, that's a HUGE one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.134.32.126 (talk) 22:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

from my understanding, Milk was not killed because he was gay (though the outrage after the lax verdict in the trial would rally the gay community). Is there evidence that Milk was targeted because of his sexuality? -- User0529 (talk) 22:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Universal Statements

I noticed this statement: "Prior to the rise of Christianity, homosexuality had been accepted as normal expression of sexuality by all ancient cultures." I think this is unsupportable because of the universal "all". To prove it, one would have to catalog every single historical culture and demonstrate that not one of them was a counterexample. Plus, at least one counterexample readily comes to mind: Old Testament Hebrew law (Leviticus etc.) is pre-Christian, demonstrating that at least that one culture, ancient Judaism, had some aversion to homosexual behavior. The statement also implies that Christianity is the only source of intolerance, which I suspect is also not true. I have changed "all" to "many" and added a request for a citation. However, I think this could be more improved by making a clearer and simpler statement, for example "Homosexual behavior was accepted as a normal expression of sexuality by many ancient cultures." IdahoEv (talk) 19:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

You are correct. The Levitical commendation of male-male sex is said to be the basis for all Abrahamic religions highly negative attitude toward homosexuality. So Biblical Judaism was first, followed by early Christianity, and then Islam. Your suggestion seems good: "Homosexual behavior was accepted as a normal expression of sexuality by many ancient cultures." See: Crompton, Louis. (2003) Homosexuality & Civilization. Boston: Belknap/Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0674011977 (pp 32-34) — Becksguy (talk) 07:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Cutting of external links

Thought the recent edit eliminating some of the external links was overaggressive. rememberingourdead.org is the place I usually send people wanting information about anti trans violence, for example. The essay on homophobia in dancehall music is useful and on topic. After reading the external links guideline I think the links should stay. They're meritable, accessible and appropriate to the article. Anniepoo (talk) 20:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

How does " the place I send people to research" make it justifiable by criteria? It is a memorial website as per WP:NOTMEMORIAL

dancehall music is a an advocacy organization, that is not an encyclopedic criteria that is a unique resource. It could, however, be a better resource is a section on the site pertaining to a history and the subject was linked. Hardly the advocacy as a whole.

The third addition link doesn't even work. Blind reverting doesn't help, considering only the two were advocated here. Lihaas (talk) 23:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:LawrenceFobesKing.jpg

The image Image:LawrenceFobesKing.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --09:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Kuwait

Kuwait is listed in the section of countries where homosexuality is punishable by death, however the article LGBT rights in Kuwait doesn't mention it, and neither does this website. Should it be removed from that list? Thankyoubaby (talk) 07:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, please do - remove Pakistan as well, cite the reference, and to indicate its status use Template:As of.

AV3000 (talk) 13:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

"state-sponsored violence"

such titles are needlessly polemic. Homosexuality was outlawed, period. Also, the constant implication that this has something to do with the Christian church in particular is untenable. Lots of cultures have suppressed homosexuality, and the remarkable thing is western society which has ceased to repress it in the 20th century. "Evil churchmen persecuted homosexuals" is a pop culture approach unworthy of an encyclopedia. --dab (𒁳) 21:34, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Violence by LGBT people ?

There needs to be some discussion about LGBT-motivated political violence, such as vandalism at Most Holy Redeemer Church, San Francisco and death threats against archbishop Angelo Bagnasco. ADM (talk) 13:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Although I agree that would better fit anti-Catholic or anti-Christian violence. There's a bit in Anti-Catholicism in the United States, but I might add more.--T. Anthony (talk) 08:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Auto-archiving

I've boldly added auto-archiving for threads stale 30+ days leaving a minimum of 7 threads. -- Banjeboi 01:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

This just becoming a glorified list?

Almost all of this article is a list of extralegal violence against LGBT people. How about removing almost all of them, and getting this article to be an article abouth the phenomnena of violence against LGBT people, and not just a list? Dendlai (talk) 20:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

How would you feel about the list being split off into a new article? Rivertorch (talk) 04:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

That would be a good solution. Something like "List of hate-crimes against LGBT people" (properly linked from here) or something. As is, this article just looks like an excuse to list every LGBT-related crime ever. Dendlai (talk) 07:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Unfortunately, I don't have time to work on this right now—I never even finished copyediting the list, which I was working on methodically a few weeks ago; I'd like to do that before attempting a split. I suggest we wait for a while to make sure there's consensus, anyway. Rivertorch (talk) 17:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I suggest doing some prelim clean-up so we can see which is which clearly. Also the list article would need to have a lede as well, likely duplicating the main article lede in some ways. I can see either route working. -- Banjeboi 01:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Good point. I'll pick up where I left off, then. When we get it cleaned up a bit more, we can revisit the question. Rivertorch (talk) 04:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Why would we have a list? Do we have a list of rape victims? List of murder victims? Get rid of the list, report the phenomnena. --Cameron Scott (talk) 22:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

We have lists on many subjects, apparently some people find them useful. Lists have three main purposes: information, navigation and development. All three would apply here. -- Banjeboi 23:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

a category would be a better link to navigation and any useful content should be integrated into the prose. I'll have a good look at the list later. --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Even a quick skim indicates this list is full of original research and at least half the list are unsourced. Reliable sources need to be presented or those names should be removed. --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Categories are only so useful, lists are far preferable as a compliment and they help guide where articles should exist but don't as of yet. Agree that more sourcing would be beneficial but wonder if any of the items are considered so exceptional that removing them is actually needed before a concerted effort to verify them makes sense? That is, do you see any that seem untrue, unlikely, etc. -- Banjeboi 10:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

unsourced information can be removed at any time, the onus on finding sources is not on those removing but those wishing to retain. That's how it's always been.--Cameron Scott (talk) 10:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of how it's always been, not to mention how it should be: let's assume a little good faith here. That something is unsourced doesn't suggest that it results from original research, nor does it demand instant removal. At least two editors here are actively working on this list at the moment. I am copyediting it heavily and checking refs (in some cases, replacing refs with better ones). I am leaving for last the unsourced ones because they may require more time and effort. I would greatly appreciate it if the spirit of collaboration and cooperation that has made Wikipedia so successful would come to the forefront here. One is entitled to slap "citation needed" on anything and everything that's unsourced, but it would be even more helpful to be patient and help find some sources. Rivertorch (talk) 13:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

If you'll do me the favor of pinging my talkpage ... I'll be happy to work in your wake a bit and dig for any that still need. I've sourced a few lists in my time. -- Banjeboi 13:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Please not that list entries mentioning the murderers by their name must be sourced, or they should be immediately removed. We don't tag potential libel with "citation needed". --Damiens.rf 19:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)