Talk:Violence against LGBT people/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Robert Opel

I removed Robert Opel again - adding someone simply because they are LGBT would be a perfect example of indiscriminate - otherwise we might as well have Violence against people who are 6ft 5 or Violence against people who have blond hair.--Cameron Scott (talk) 14:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Sarcasm deflates your point which bears some due consideration. It may be helpful to have the lede state, and thus sourcing support, the inclusion of what the article is talking about and what the list would include. -- Banjeboi 15:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

No sarcasm intended, because that's what we are talking about - the lede already makes it clear (as far as I can see) what the article is about - Robert Opel doesn't fit what is being discussed. He was a man who was murdered (during a robbery) who was also a homosexual, he wasn't murdered or targeted for murder because he was a homosexual - at least not according to our article on him or the sources used there. My position is this (and the lede is worded as such), if someone - if someone is attacked or murdered because of their sexuality (or perceived sexuality) then they are going to be suitable for inclusion, if they are attacked or murdered and it has nothing to do with their sexuality - then it's not an example that fits. The basis principle worked over at the transgendered article and I don't see why the same doesn't apply here. If people do want to include random attacks simply because they also happened to be LGBT then I'd consider that indiscriminate. --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Apologies, I meant the examples seemed sarcastic. On Opel I seemed to recall he was killed because it was a drug deal gone bad but details may lurk that it was a anti-gay motivated. We go by sourcing though so drug deal gone bad does not equal anti-gay crime by the sources we currently have. -- Banjeboi 18:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

CameronScott's point seems valid. I wish he or she had made it here on the talk page before killing the Opel entry, instead of two reverts later, accompanied by an edit summary threatening AFD. There seemed to be a lot of deleting going on earlier today, and it was a little alarming. This article, like many others dealing with violence, bigotry, and minorities, is sometimes a target, so it's more than just basic wikiquette to discuss deletions and significant changes here first; it helps us avoid unnecessary DEFCON 1-type alerts. Regarding what the list is and isn't, it is broader than just hate crimes but shouldn't include crimes in which the victims' perceived sexual orientation played no role. If that was the case with Opel, then I agree his murder shouldn't be on the list. And I am sorry if I was hasty; I was rushing and, as I said, a bit alarmed. Rivertorch (talk) 20:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear what my motivation is here - comics, the kindle, LGBT, Star trek, the zombie survial guide - it's all the same to me - it's either accurate or it's not, that's my only interest. --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I think we all agree on a way forward so let's be cautious in deleting entries unless there is comelling violation going on. I've agreed to follow Rivertorch's wake and work to cite items that remain elusive as of yet. My past experiences with lists is that in general they are fairly accurate and when we run into an Opel case the sources show us the way. I only have a little time today but I'll be back and will work on citing. -- Banjeboi 02:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the article being about violence against LGBT people, then items about people who happen to be LGBT but get caught up in violence unconnected with this may not be appropriate; by the same reasoning, people who are victims of violence against LGBT people may not be LGBT themsleves - they may be trageted because of their appearance, or be caught up in such violence (e.g. in the Soho pub bombing, a 4 month pregnant women was murdered, and her husband injured). Mish (talk) 19:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

removal of material currently under discussion

Somebody removed the King photo, so I have undone this with a comment to go to the appropriate discussion. WP:Files_for_deletion/2009_May_7#LawrenceFobesKing.jpg Mish (talk) 15:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree the image should not be removed while under discussion. If the decision is keep (again), the image's specific suitability to this article should be discussed here. There may or may not be any point in starting such a discussion until the decision is made (again) on the image itself. Rivertorch (talk) 17:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

My own take is that fair use of the image is ok on the shooting article but not here and have noted as such at the AFD (truthfully I should have voted delete at the AFD as it doesn't actually expand understanding at the shooting either - but hey, I'm human). --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The way I see it, photos of murder victims almost always expand understanding because they turn an otherwise faceless name into something more real. Something into someone, I might say. Rivertorch (talk) 18:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the image is relevant to the topic, and violence against children with gender identity issues is tragic; the case features in the text, there are few such images of victims available, and images put a human face to text that might otherwise come across like a list of tragedies. Mish (talk) 18:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The article already have free images of violence against LGBT people then, per WP:NFCC#1, we can't use non-free images. --Damiens.rf 19:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you have not understood the significance of the picture. The only other contemporary image I have managed to find (so far) in Wikimedia Commons is of Shepard, who was a young gay man. This is a child with gender identity issues; these are qualitatively different. In one case, the violence is inflicted on the basis of assumptions about sexual practice, in the other on the basis of appearance and non-sexual behaviour. One is violence on the basis of sexuality, this is on the basis of gender pesentation. I am not keen of images of any dead children being used in this way, just out of respect, and would prefer images of adult victims - so ideally, we would also have an image of a female (lesbian or bisexual) victim of sexuality violence; for gender violence, female to male trans with gender identity issues (such as Brandon Teena) and male to female. When we have these, then the two archaic images could be rendered redundant, but even then the one under discussion features a type of violence being directed against one so young, and is very significant, and warrants a picture. Mish (talk) 20:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MishMich (talk • contribs)

Agree with the general thrust of MishMich's remarks here (not necessarily with every specific). I am restoring the image. Consensus has not been reached to remove it at this time. Rivertorch (talk) 22:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I have changed my mind slightly, because somebody on the delete discussion said the trial was not yet completed - I hadn't appreciated this as I am in a different country. I would support the removal of the image, and minimising reference to this case, until the trial process has been completed. That is because I wouldn't want to risk prejudicing the trial. However, that support would be on the basis that we could discuss inclusion of the image once the trial is completed and the facts known in a way that we can ensure fully accurate coverage in the article, accompanied by the image. If you are sure that the image and coverage within this article entails no risk of being prejudicial, or if the person who said this is misinformed, then ignore me. Mish (talk) 23:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not really up to us to decide what might be prejudicial; we should follow policies, then guidelines, then common sense. There is nothing in either policy or guideline that demands removal of the image, and common sense fails to suggest to me how placing a murdered child's image in two Wikipedia articles instead of one could conceivably make any difference to the outcome of a trial. If you have infinite patience, considering checking out the archives at Talk:E.O. Green School shooting, where some parallel discussions took place long ago.

Further note: the mass deletions of text that also occurred today are extraordinarily unhelpful. Given that the article is currently undergoing intensive editing and sourcing work, it just makes for lots of unnecessary busywork to go back through the history, retrieve each one, source it, and put it back in the article. Either way, though, the result will be exactly the same: the text will be back in the article, properly sourced, within a few days. Rivertorch (talk) 23:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I take your point re the prejudice issue, thank you for the clarification. The mass deletions are unfortunate and I have been adding refs as I am able, but being in the UK it is not so straightforward for me to source US material. I have done some work on the UK items I have noticed, and will do others if I become aware of them. I think that it will help to make this a better article, but it is a shame that the individual is unwilling to engage in discussion and allow time to ensure they are properly sourced - it is sad that whoever inserted the items did not identify their sources at the same time. The lack of goodwill in engaging in discussion is outstanding. Still, this article is what it is, so it shouldn't be surprising if it attracts disrespect from some people. Mish (talk) 23:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I've done a few more citations, and I have moved the archaic images down the page as they were messing up the 'edit' tabs because of the long infobox, squishing them all together. Would it be possible to educe the words in the King photo text box, as it is much too long. Like 5-6 lines should be enough. Mish (talk) 00:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

The arguments here seem to run to "he was a little boy and it will tug the heartstrings" none of which has anything to do with NFCC. Are we *really* saying no free image that illuminates the topic exists? because if someone wants to tell me that I'll be happy to call them a liar. --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

That is your POV, but as nobody has said this, then it is a further instance of you lack of goodwill. If you can find another illustrative example of this type of crime - of a minor killed for their gender and sexuality expression, then feel free to replace it. All I have found are images of lesbian, gay, transgender or transsexual adults. If 'tugging at people's heartstrings' is the case, then that is not an issue that comes under wikipedia, that is not why it is there and it is a very significant watershed case; your persistent bad-faith accusations are rude, show no respect for other editors and disply no goodwill on your part - this is the second misrepresentation of motives (I am aware of) that you have inserted into these discussions, which strongly suggests that you are not approaching this from dispassionate perspective. Mish (talk) 10:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

But why would it need to be of a minor killed for their gender? Are you saying a free picture of an adult wouldn't be acceptable? if not, *why not*? --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

The article should probably have more images than it currently does. Some should be adults, some children; some historical, some recent; some gay, some lesbian, some bi, some trans; some black, some white, some Asian. For what it's worth, I'd go so far as to say there ought to be at least one photo of a violent aggressor alongside the victim photos. But the King image is particularly suited to lead with because it is of the victim of a very recent, particularly notorious homicide, it defies expectations, and it goes beyond mere illustration to create a compelling sense of visual urgency that leads the reader into the article. Are there other images that would do all that as well? Possibly. I'm not aware of any over at Commons at the moment, but if you find one, please give us a preview here on the talk page and we can consider it. In the meantime, I don't think it's too much to ask that you, Damiens, and anyone else so inclined please stop removing the image from this article while the deletion review runs its course; repeated removal is disruptive, and I assume that disruption is not your objective. Rivertorch (talk) 14:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I simply do not believe that it's use here meets NFCC (it does over at the shooting article) and regardless of the AFD will actively progress it's removal here by getting outside imput as we seem to be deadlocked. The page could be plastered with images as far as I'm concerned as long as they meet our NFCC requirements. The other thing here to be bear in mind is that my viewing of "notorious" is not the same as your simply because I'm from a different cultural background, the case is unheard of where I am from. So I fall back on what the sources say about it rather than get drawn into, what I see as, emotional response based upon individual perspections. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. King was a minor and his killer's antagonism and a history of bullying in the case is well documented. It's rather naive to suggest that the combined gender identity and sexuality issues are contested as part of the motivations. The vast majority of reliable sources certainly seem to think so. On an article concerning ... violence against LGBT people I would expect to see one of the most notable cases highlighted with an image and caption exactly as we have it. The three highest profile cases are King, Matthew Shepherd and Brandon Teena. There are no photos yet of Teena. King and Shepherd murders each resulted in widespread media coverage and were tied specifically to legislation. Shepherd's case is now quite old and concerned sexuality only. King's case highlights a child kiiled for both gender and sexuality identity issues rather than just being gay and victimized for hanging in a gay bar (was chosen at random). He's also a minority minor. The case is compelling and ongoing; regardless if hate-crime enhancements are applied and regardless if his killer is tried as an adult the case is intertwined with hate-crime legislation. So even if the letter of his final sentencing doesn't state he killed king because of ___, the public perception has clearly dictated this as a hate-crime and reliable sources bear this out. -- Banjeboi 15:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Your arguments are good, Benji, but unfortunately we can't use this fair use image anywhere but the primary article. It violates the concept of "minimal usage" per WP:FAIR. I've looked for free or creative commons replacements without any luck. — Becksguy (talk) 17:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

That is not what it says, it says minimal normally means a single use, but this is not overarching, for example where you cited, says "If another non-free image of an element of an article is used elsewhere within Wikipedia, either referring to its other use or, more preferably, repeating its use on the list are strongly preferred over including a new, separate, non-free image. If duplicating the use of a non-free image, please be aware that a separate non-free fair use rationale must be supplied for the image for the new use." I may be reading this wrong, but this suggests rather than taking another copy, the same copy should be used, and a defense made for why the second use is justified. This is what we are doing. The issue is not that we aren't allowed to use it, but whether the second use is justified or not. It is justified because it is the most notable (notorious is the wrong word here) example of the topic in a decade, and is unique because it involved a minor who was targeted in part (at least) because of his appearance in terms of gender presentation; also the case embodies all the classic elements of this type of crime, such as the deliberate shooting the victim in the face - defacing his image, as a symbolic erasure of an identity the violator could not tolerate. Mish (talk) 18:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Please don't use the talkpage to play internet CSI - your theories about the crime are irrelevent and meaningless in this discussion. Stick to the matter of the image and get a blog if you want to have that sort of conversation. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:53, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

That is not CSI, it is analysis. You are the one who asked why it is significant, I have explained to you why. I'm sorry if you don't understand the response, perhaps if you are incapable of intelligent discussion you should try sticking to comics. Sticking your fingers in your ears and going 'lalalala' is not a valid argument. Mish (talk) 22:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

All right, folks, let's try to keep this 100% civil. Cameron, what Mish said was completely relevant to discussing the use of the image in this article, and your suggestions of playing "internet CSI" and your characterization of another editor's theories as "irrelevant and meaningless" are not exactly constructive. And Mish, you know what Gandhi said about an eye for an eye, right? Let's not go down that road. Cameron, regarding your comment further up about different cultural backgrounds, the story of King's murder has been widely reported, followed, and discussed on multiple continents, and WWW news portals are global, in any case. If by getting "outside [input]" you mean RFC, that's your prerogative, but where's the fire? I don't see why you, acting in good faith as I'm sure you are, will not wait until the IfD is resolved; the image has been here for a while, and if consensus builds around your view, it doesn't really matter whether that happens today, tomorrow, or sometime next week. The multi-pronged attack on this article and its lead image have been extremely disruptive to the orderly work that was progressing, but I continue to assume that disruption was not intended. (Note to Becksguy: your reading of WP:FAIR is reasonable but not cut-and-dried. There seems to be some room for interpretation.) Rivertorch (talk) 22:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC) Added "not", which I somehow left out, two sentences back; this changes the meaning 180 degrees. Rivertorch (talk) 15:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Other legitimate sources, incl. AI & UN

FYI, This document [1] contains details of killings considered (by the campaign) to be hate crimes, and references sources. It includes lesbian, gay and transgender people, as well as heterosexuals targeted because they are 'read' as GLBT.

The Southern Poverty Law Centre in the USA has a number of documented cases of this type of violence on its books, I believe - so that would be another location for sources.

You might want to look at Amnesty International's 2005 report 'USA: Stonewalled : Police abuse and misconduct against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people in the U.S.' [2]

AI has some well-documented material about the abuse of LGBT human rights from around the world, (including systematic violence, torture, state persecution and killing) by country as well as from an international perspective. There was a comprehensive report in 2004 which cited cases from around the world, and I do have hard-copy, but have yet to find it on there website - it will be there somewhere, but there has been so much on this over the past year it is like finding a needle in a haystack. That report kicked off country-specific reports like the one on the USA. A summary is available here: [3]

It is important to include these developments, such as Amnesty International taking up the issue from 2004 and the UN following on from this, in the text of the article. There is a lot of material available, particularly since the UN started focusing on the issue of violence against LGBT people. I can start drawing together information from the UN, and am happy to look into UK and international AI reports - but there is a limit to my time, so I would advise somebody else to look at country-specific information. It is important in an article like this to document the shift to acknowledgment that violence against LGBT people is a violation of their human rights, and that it happens in many different countries, and in some cases is part of systematic persecution which can include illegal detention and torture. However, until the sources have been collected and set as citations properly, I don't want to risk some fool dicking around with such an important entry to Wikipedia, so will pull together what I am able first, and then insert it as complete section. Mish (talk) 08:27, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The southern poverty law centre rings a bell because it keeps popping up on the reliable sources board in conjunction with various article - my recollection is vague but I think there are issues with it's use, I'll have a look at the RS board archives and see if I am remember this correctly. UN stuff is generally ok but make sure it's from the UN and not just UN branded (because they've provided some funding support but have no editorial input) - some of that stuff is completely whacked out. A while back we had an article that was sourced to a UN report that gangs of western women were forcing men to masturbate to deny their masculinity - the "research" in the report being dreamed up by the guy who wanted to add it to the article. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:04, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The SPLC will have details of cases, which can then be traced back to the original resources. Yes Cameron, the United Nations isn't a reliable source on human rights. In your dreams. Somebody imagining stuff in UN reports is irrelevant, so why bring it up? Oh yes, because you cannot argue sensibly. Mish (talk) 10:20, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Em.. no that's not what I'm saying the UN is a reliable source but not everything with the words UN on the front is actually (and confusingly) from the UN. I should be clearer about the example I provided, By "dreamed up" I mean he was the author of the report not that he'd dreamed what was in it, when it came up at the reliable sources board, the consensus was that it wasn't reliable because nobody from the UN actually had any input into it and it provided no sources for any of the claims in it. It had the UN stamp and logo on the front because they had provided funding to the charity the author was attached to. Is that clearer? --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

As I said, it is not relevant to this article at all, so no reason for introducing it, or belaboring the point. I referred to UN reports, Amnesty International, and the SPLC for people who are interested in constructively working on this article, you appear more concerned with disrupting this article and others like it, so the points I made should not concern you. I appreciate the SPLC is a problem to some people because it focuses primarily on crimes that involved racial hatred, but it also documents crimes relevant to this article, and tends to cite sources; these can then be followed up for this article. AI and the UN produce reports on a range of human rights abuses and crimes against humanity, in this case crimes where LGBT people are targeted. Both those reports and the evidence contained within those report will serve as supplementary sources to those already documented.

If you have issues about what should or should not be categorised as instances of violence and killing of such a group of people, I have no issue with you doing that, and you need to find sources that substantiate that view, and insert it in the appropriate article(s). However, disrupting an article simply because it contains information you do approve of being classed in certain ways is not the best way to go about it. I am not suggesting you do have such issues, but clearly you have some problem, or else you would be engaging in serial disruption of these sorts of articles. You are entitled to your view, and I would not object to your holding that view, but it might be more constructive for an encyclopedia if you were to document such opposition rather than trying to erase the topic from Wikipedia, as that does not improve Wikipedia, it damages it. To that end, I would encourage you to work in a way that ensures balance in articles where different cultural perspectives are represented, rather than the elimination material that derives from a cultural perspective reflected in some countries' legal and human rights discourse, because that can only improve Wikipedia. (I don't know how the issue of holocaust denial features in Wkipedia, for example, but I would expect the arguemnt for and against to feature somewhere in such an article.

People do get killed because they identify as or appear to be LGBT, as well as have their rights violated through violence and intimidation, whether one approves of people being LGBT or not, this is a valid topic for an encyclopedia - especially seeing this has been debated in parliaments in the UK, the USA, and other countries, as well as on the floor of the United Nations, as explained under UN declaration on sexual orientation and gender identity. This article does not need to go into the detail of a specific article such as that, but it does need to refer to such debates as part of the context of the article topic; at the moment this is missing from the article, so now I have highlighted it. I am not sure what more needs to be discussed about this particular point. However, if there are specific items that weaken this article, I would encourage you to bring them here for discussion, so we can look at how best to deal with them, one at a time, and ensure the article is improved in the process. The approach taken so far (in the past couple of days at least) of mass deletions and insisting certain items just go without discussion will not achieve this, and it does not display good faith. Mish (talk) 13:52, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Mass deletions? I removed one example that people agreed did not fit the article and fact-tagged a series of other unsourced claims - plus I feel the image should be removed - I haven't been invovled in mass deletions. Are you confusing me with someone else? I'm also get a bit bored with the veiled references to me being some sort of homophobe - if people actually want to say something - say it. People "talking out of the side of their mouth" is getting frankly boring. --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

True they were deleted almost as soon as you tagged them. But I thinking more about at least one other page similar to this. I was expressing my concern that the process engaged in there does not start here, before it does. I have no idea whether you are a homophobe or not, just as I have no idea whether you support Liverpool or Everton. I am sure there are liberals who are not homophobic who have problems with the concept of hate-crimes, for example. I wouldn't think people were necessarily homophobic just because they had issues with certain aspects of LGBT issues, although they might be. I might have issues with some aspects of the LGBT movement, but it no more makes me homophobic than agreeing with some aspects makes me a homophile. I am simply stating this as a precaution, so that should the same pattern emerge here, these concerns are documented beforehand. What choose to do about that is up to you.

On the issue of SPLC, I have checked the archives WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard and it does appear that SPLC is a reliable source, it is a legal firm, and articles in the journal and reports are acknowledged for their fact-checking and reliability, and they have received awards for journalistic excellence, and are highly respected in legal circles. So, contrary to what I said, what they report can itself be cited as a source. The only caveat to this is where they express opinion, they should be cited as expressing an opinion; so when they report a crime, it is a fact. The Washington based Human Rights Campaign does not appear to have any issues either, so it seems that can be used as a source as well.

I am new to this article, and while I am not sure of how appropriate it is to have the quantity of illustrative material here, it strikes me as being an important article. The volume of examples is quite significant, and I am not sure that significance could be conveyed by simply citing numbers (which may not be appropriate either). They do serve as a good illustration of the article topic, and so far I have been unable to find any that do not have sources, and have found others not here that are documented. I have found one that you insisted on deleting elsewhere that is documented and have now inserted it here.

In my short time on Wikipedia I have noticed how some articles grow organically, almost imperceptibly, over a period of time; when coming upon them they may lack certain things that a good entry requires. Source citation can be missing, or a series of insertions without any coherent temporal or literate structure, too much POV or language that is pejorative. I find these some of the most fascinating articles because they can grow over the course of several years, with people sharing their knowledge, so they have a grass-roots aspect to them that would not be found in a different type of encyclopedia (because anybody can contribute, not simply experts). The challenge on finding one of these is to edit, move things around, get the timeline sorted out, put up suitable headings, reduce or expand as appropriate, ensure they are literate, and that what is written can be verified using sources and citing these. So, I feel it is important to respect that people have felt it important enough to create an article, and if it is on a noteworthy issue, then try to ensure it is suitable for Wikipedia. Maybe you have a different view, I don't know. Maybe you just like seeing stuff deleted. Mish (talk) 23:21, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Mish, for suggesting these sources. Google only goes so far, and I no longer have access to a good library. SPLC provokes a fair amount of controversy in all corners of the political arena, but as far as I'm aware they haven't ever been credibly accused of making stuff up. Ditto HRC. Aside from the lurid example, Cameron does make a valid point about material published under the auspices of the UN, but I think we can determine the provenance of such material without too much trouble.

For the record, the tagging of multiple entries in the examples section was redundant, since the section itself was already headed with a tag. I'd actually call it "overtagging". That, in combination with the massive deletions and a near-edit war over the image, was bound to set off alarms. While I could have done without the drama, at this point I'm pleased with the result: most of what was deleted has been restored, plus there are new entries and lots of new citations. Rivertorch (talk) 04:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I have sourced some of the stuff removed elsewhere to SPLC, and there is additional material there and with the HRC that is not here yet. I'll insert things as and when I have more time, unless somebody else does it first. There is other material that addesses a more international perspective; it is a big job, but like health I guess it is time this was done. The proliferation of activist sites citing this stuff second/third hand don't help, because Google searches lose sight of the significant sources. There are other law firms in the USA that publish reports and online journals. Other places that may lead to sources and stats [4][5][6][7][8][9]. Police forces in England usually have a neutral definition of these types of crime, for example "A homophobic or transphobic incident is any incident which is perceived to be homophobic or transphobic by the victim or any other person", and hate crime is “Where the perpetrator’s prejudice against any identifiable group of people is a factor in determining who is victimised.” [10] Mish (talk) 08:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Because of the particular nature of policing in the UK, you might be better off using information off the home office than individual police sites - For example, you can get those sorts of stats:

The police estimate that as much as 90% of homophobic crime, goes unreported because victims are too frightened or embarrassed to let someone know

34% of men and 25% of women said they had experienced violence because of their sexuality. Between 2-5% had been assaulted with a weapon; 32% of respondents had been harassed because of their sexuality; harassment included blackmail, vandalism, graffiti and hate mail; 73% had been verbally abused; 40% of all homophobic attacks in young people took place in school --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:01, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Interesting figures, and one radical lesbian feminist journalist responded to this problem thus: "we may as well forget about the criminal justice system and train groups of vigilantes to exact revenge and, hopefully, deter attacks. Because if I were raped, I would rather take my chances as a defendant in court, than as a complainant in a system that seems bent on proving that rape is a figment of malicious women's imagination." [11] The actual figures for those hunting down their attackers and exacting extra-legal retributive justice are more hard to come by. Mish (talk) 20:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

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

I CAN HAZ MAZZIV GAY CONSPIRACY?

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, 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)