Talk:List of people killed for being transgender/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

RFC: Establishing list criteria

Keeping in mind that the current article title is not set in stone, what criteria should be used for potential entries in this list article? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:09, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• Proposal A. This should be a list of transgender people who were killed. The criteria for inclusion should be if a potential entry is: (1) included/mentioned in a similar yearly list of transgender killings published by a WP:RS (ie. the HRC yearly reports), or (2) for a person who was reportedly killed for being transgender and such killing was covered in-depth by a WP:RS of national prominence/circulation. The article's title will have to change in a follow-up WP:RM.

• Proposal B. This should only be a list of transgender people who were killed explicitly for being transgender. The sole criteria for inclusion is if a potential entry is covered in depth by a WP:RS of national prominence/circulation and the motive for said killing is clearly established to be for the victim's status as a transgender individual. The article's title will not necessarily need to change under this proposal.

Pings

Extended content

@Paisarepa, Plantdrew, Nsk92, Genericusername57, and Funcrunch: Editors from the above discussion. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 03:09, 17 March 2021 (UTC) @Netoholic, Paintspot, AntiChirality, Rab V, SoWhy, Gene93k, Parabolist, Roman Spinner, and Jd4v15: Participants in the last move discussion. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 03:09, 17 March 2021 (UTC) @Equivamp, Aquillion, OrdinaryDecent, JPxG, SreySros, and Willbb234: Other recent contributors. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 03:12, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Responses

• Proposal A. According to WP:LISTCRIT, one of the questions editors should ask themselves when determining list criteria is: Would I expect to see this person or thing on a list of X? For some time now, victims like Bee Love Slater are not catalogued here for failing our criteria despite her inclusion in similar lists by multiple reliable sources (CNN, HRC, Advocate, Out, and HuffPost). It isn't acceptable for our list not to follow similar criteria used by WP:RS, and the current more restrictive criteria seems awfully prone to editors using their individual judgement in opposition to what reliable sources have to say on the matter (which is often nuanced).
  If the article gets too large, we can split by country or by chronology. It seems to me the pretty obvious choice is Proposal A, but there has been extensive debate over whether or not that reflects current consensus. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:09, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
• Proposal A. I agree with MJL's argument above for WP:LISTCRIT-based consistency with other sources, and additionally we must consider notability; the fact that there are no other lists published by RSs with the same inclusion criteria as ours is a bad sign. It seems that the concept of "trans people who were murdered" is far more notable than "trans people who were murdered explicitly for being trans". Reading through past discussions, I anticipate some WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:INDISCRIMINATE arguments against this, but I think that the RSs establish that this concept (as defined in Proposal A's inclusion criteria) is independently notable enough to merit an article. As it stands most of the content for this article ends up coming from these lists and then is filtered through a layer of editors performing quasi-murder investigations deciding what counts as RS statement of motive, which is subjective and prone to both error and dispute. Srey Sros^talk 03:51, 17 March 2021 (UTC) Removed "Leaning" from beginning, Srey Sros^talk 04:33, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

  I disagree that Wikipedia should follow the exact same inclusion criteria as other sources do. Wikipedia shouldn't even be citing tertiary sources. If you want to build such a list, cite secondary sources that report on individual cases, sources that collect and report lists might as well be deleted and in turn their sources should be directly used. WP:PSTS--TZubiri (talk) 02:39, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

• Proposal A. Multiple high-quality reliable sources maintain lists of all transgender people who are killed, and several of them provide reasonable explanations for why those lists are topically relevant. When this was changed before, there were fewer sources to make clear that the topic had significant focus. I would also argue that the original focus of the list is actually more neutral and less emotively-charged, in the sense that it is a simple list of facts that reflects similar lists elsewhere; whereas the current version feels like it is trying to make an argument, which is part of what makes the constant argument over inclusions so charged. Also note that there are numerous similar lists - eg. List of murdered American children, List of United States federal judges killed in office, List of popes who died violently, Category:Lists of journalists killed, etc, which show that at the very least that basic type of list is not inappropriate when (as in this case) there are sources indicating that the topic has attracted coverage. --Aquillion (talk) 04:18, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
• Some modification of Proposal A. First, it can't be a "list of transgender people who were killed." Clearly certain categories, such as suicides, accidental deaths, people killed while committing crimes (in some circumstaces), military personnel engaged in military activity, etc. Ultimately an adjective like "unlawfully killed" would have to be re-added to the description of the list. Second, I think it is impractical to wait until a person's death gets included in something like Human Rights Campaign annual report. That often takes way too long, and many killings of transgender individuals receive substantial amount of coverage (often even enough for a standalone WP article) way before they get included in an annual RS list. There should be a way for us to include such names here without waiting months and months. I think (1) in Proposal A needs to be broadened to allow for additional alternative pathways to inclusions such as (1)' Evidence of significant coverage of the case by multiple non-local RS extending over some period of time needed to overcome WP:NOTNEWS, let's say a couple of weeks or maybe a month. However, on the whole I agree that the current scope of the page (which essentially corresponds to proposal B) is too narrow. The media and other WP:RS treat violence against transgender people and not just hate crimes against them as the notable topic. Many murders of transgender people receive significant and sustained coverage in WP:RS even if they are not classified as hate crimes. There was a concern that, raised in the June 2020 RM that there could be well over a thousand transgender people killed each year, and it's not feasible to maintain a list that long. However, in practice, only a small number of cases receive sufficiently significant coverage to be considered for inclusion here and we should try to set the inclusion criteria with the notability bar in mind. Nsk92 (talk) 09:36, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
• Either Proposal A or delete the article certainly can't remain in the current state when the intentions of the killer are extremely hard to pinpoint, as evidenced by my recent removal of some listings, and thus making the claim that someone is killed for being transgender isn't acceptable. I would propose to delete this list on the basis that there isn't any reason why being transgender and being killed are somehow linked; all groups of people face opposition, and even violence, from other groups, and such it doesn't make sense why transgender people who were killed should belong in their own stand-alone list. If the killing is notable, it would either have its own article, or would be listed in the deaths of a specific year (i.e. Deaths in 2021). Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 13:03, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
  • For the record, I did read the above comments relating to why some users believe this list should remain and not be deleted. I just don't agree with said judgement. For example, there's a difference between an indiscriminate list of people, who belonged to a group, who were killed, and specifically children who were murdered in America, a much more specific set of defining characteristics. Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 13:13, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
• Proposal A. The inclusion criteria listed here are reasonable and appropriate, per other supporters' comments. Funcrunch (talk) 14:19, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
• Proposal B of the two given, or preferably Genericusername57's proposal above to make it a list of independently notable acts of violence against transgender people. Expanding the list inclusion to include every transgender person who is killed regardless of the circumstances would make it an indiscriminate list. There are ~400,000 murders annually and ~0,5% of the population is transgender, giving an estimate of ~2,000 transgender people killed each year and equating to a total of ~66,000 entries from the time period currently covered. Note that in the last deletion discussion the 'no consensus' was determined largely because many of the delete !votes cited the overly broad inclusion criteria then in place, which was narrower than Proposal A, but the article was not deleted because narrowing the inclusion criteria was considered a surmountable problem. Paisarepa 15:32, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• The number of people killed for being transgender would certainly be lower than the figures you provide. Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 16:51, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

  I think that was their point. Regards SoWhy 16:56, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• Proposal B per Paisarepa. Even statistically, this list would have to include tens of thousands of entries if the only criterion were "was transgender". Since transgender people are more likely to be killed than other groups (for a variety of reasons), the estimate by Paisarepa is probably on the low side. Proposal A fails to explain why we would need to maintain a list of people who died for any reason, e.g. including transgender people who were killed in accidents or randomly. The current criteria satisfy WP:INDISCRIMINATE because having been killed for being transgender is a specific, non-common reason and one that (unfortunately) "makes sense", in that there are too many people still out there who have irrational biases against transgender people and may act violently on them. But a list of people who were killed and transgender but where their transgender status was irrelevant, lacks such a reason for existing. The number of lists of people killed is not that large (see [1] [2]) but they all have in common that the victims are connected by something, be it the reason for their deaths or the way they died. As was pointed out as well, there is a good chance that an article with too broad criteria will be deleted at the next AFD. Regards SoWhy 17:17, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

  @SoWhy: If Proposal B allowed for transgender people who were killed for reasons which may have been because the victim was transgender, then there wouldn't be an issue here. Therefore, Proposal A reasonably suggests we start with a broad set of criteria (transgender people who were killed), and we structurally limit entries to prevent WP:INDISCRIMINATE. This is not dissimilar to the approach used by List of HIV-positive people (which isn't a list of every HIV-positive person) or List of journalists killed in the United States/Lists of killed journalists (which does not absurdly limit killings to journalists killed for being journalists).
  Either way, the number of lists of killings you link to is pretty low. I found a bunch in Category:Lists of murders, Category:Lists of executed people, Category:Lists of victims of crimes, Category:Death-related lists, and some more in Category:Crime-related lists. There are quite a lot, and some of them are pretty weird to be honest.
  Finally, the reason why Proposal A could include people who were killed in accidents is because a WP:RS will be the ones to decide what constitutes a notable killing of a transgender person; not us. I don't agree that editors should be the ones determining their own reason for someone's death ("This person was attacked by their lover; so it couldn't be because they were trans!"). We have reliable sources that publish lists, and we should just mostly be following theirs and not inventing our own with original research. (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:23, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

  Per the lists above, List of HIV-positive people is a list of otherwise-notable people (95% have their own pages) who also have HIV. I would be fine with a list of otherwise notable trans people, or trans people with their own pages who were killed. However, as you can see on this list, only a few of the victims have their own pages. Additionally, the list you provided of List of journalists killed in the United States consists, as far as I can tell, almost all of journalists who were killed in the "line of duty" (aka because they were journalists. Not sure how these change the argument of Proposal A, which proposes criteria to include non-notable trans people who were simply killed irregardless of their trans identity playing a role. AntiChirality (talk) 18:28, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps another way to expand the inclusion criteria is to allow for the inclusion of entries where the killing itself is independently notable in the sense of WP:EVENT and has its own article, or where the victim is independently notable and has a standalone biographical article about them. There are many situations where the victim is/was not sufficiently notable prior to their murder but the murder received significant coverage for various reasons. Having this criterion would allow for the inclusion of Muhlaysia Booker and probably some others, once articles about their murders are created. Nsk92 (talk) 19:02, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• @AntiChirality: You completely misunderstand Proposal A if you think that is the proposed criteria for this article. As I mentioned earlier, the intention of this proposal is to ensure our article aligns with the yearly death articles published by WP:RS. If CNN thinks an individual's horrific death is worth covering as representative of a broader subject (the killings of transgender people), we should have coverage that follows that. No one is suggesting we cover every transgender person who is killed for any reason; the only time we should is if a person is included on similar lists. If anyone can provide me in depth lists with similar criteria to ours in a WP:RS or tell me one good reason why we should ignore the broader criteria used by reliable sources, then I'll understand that. However, no one has produced a restrictive list like ours, and no one has suggested any reason beyond saying it would fail WP:INDISCRIMINATE (despite the fact it clearly meets WP:LISTN ...a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, which transgender killings has). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:48, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

  @MJL: The list provided in your example *is* a list of every transgender person killed for any reason in the US. And I think you'll find that the year-end lists created by groups like the HRC are lists of every trans person killed for any reason. AntiChirality (talk) 18:51, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

  @MJL: List of journalists killed in the United States even starts with Numerous journalists have been murdered or killed in the United States while reporting, covering a military conflict, or because of their status as a journalist, clearly indicating that this list is supposed to include only journalists who were killed while or for doing journalistic work. In fact, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of journalists killed in the United States has had people arguing for keep precisely because the list is limited to journalists whose deaths were related to their work.

  You are correct, MJL, that editors should not be determining the reasons for someone's death. The whole discussion two sections above was precisely because one editor argued that a death should be included despite no reliable sources existing to indicate that the death was anything but a tragically all too common case of domestic violence. If anything, it seems strange to highlight a certain subset of domestic violence victims, considering that thousands of women (unfortunately) die at the hands of their partners each year. Regards SoWhy 19:20, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

  @SoWhy: While I understand that, the problem I think we have here is this: For journalists, they can go home and call it a day. If they get killed for seemingly no reason when they aren't doing their job, very few people will be quoted in WP:RS saying this was a targeted killing since they were a journalist. However, when a person is transgender, they are always transgender. They are also visibly transgender in many cases, so they are almost always at risk for being targeted. With that you gotta ask, is it always going to be that clear-cut when someone is horrifically murdered out-of-the-blue? No, it won't be obviously.
  @SoWhy and AntiChirality: If it helps us reach consensus, I am willing to support a stipulation that if a reliable source in a list article explicitly rules out the possibility of someone killed for being transgender, that said individual should not be added to our list. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:16, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

  @MJL: But that is the problem, isn't it? Every time a transgender person is killed, there will be people to claim it was because they were transgender. Even if there is no evidence for it. So the question in my mind is: Is being transgender something so special that no member of that group can be killed for "normal" reasons? Because that is basically what Proposal A is about. On the other hand, if one stipulates that transgender women are women and transgender men are men, which I personally believe, one must also assume that these persons can be killed for reasons that have nothing to do with their transgender status (and thus logically should not grouped together just because of that status).

  Take the #Chyna Carrillo discussion above. She lived with her killer and they were romantically involved. He by all accounts had no problem with her being transgender. Unfortunately for her, he was apparently also a woman-beating bastard who did not care whether the women he beat were cis or trans. The only thing that connects her with someone like Gwen Araujo was her being transgender. But that had as far as RS report, nothing to do with her death. So if we were to list Carrillo somewhere, shouldn't it instead be on a List of female victims of domestic abuse together with other women who were killed by their partners? Regards SoWhy 07:34, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

  @SoWhy: I do think being transgender is an utterly unique experience in today's society. Transgender people just simply don't live the same lives as cisgender people (for one cis people aren't as affected by transphobia), and to some extent that will always be the case due to just basic things like hormone therapy or such. However, that's just my individual opinion on the subject which I generally find irrelevant in these matters of Wikipedia. What we have here is a list article which doesn't match similar lists presented in WP:RS, and as we know they are the ones that truly determine (via wp:Verifiability) what is and is not notable. The lists within reliable sources are broad, and ours should match that if we want to provide our readers the information they expect from us.
  Again, I am willing to strike a compromise here if it can achieve a broader consensus than Proposal A can. I understand Proposal A (and even my suggested compromise just now) would both include Carrillo on the list, but a reliable source did consider her death worth mentioning and reporting on along with the other 2021 transgender killings (HRC's article, HRC's list, Pink News, LGBTQ Nation, Out, Pittsburgh City Paper, Arkansas Online, New Castle News etc). Personally, I am not so sure we should have Castillo in the list given this, but the only reason I could think to justify her exclusion would be because that WKBN report was written after the HRC one after more information came to light. On the other hand, she's still included in the HRC list, and I think that is pretty important to recognize to ensure we are compliant with WP:LISTCRIT. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:16, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

  HRC includes Carrillo because HRC includes every single known murder of a trans person in the United States regardless of circumstances. So if we're using sources like that as our basis, that's what we'd being doing as well. I'm fine with that as long as the title is changed to accommodate that standard. Might be an issue if anyone ever gets around to cataloguing all the known murders of trans people in Brazil or Mexico, though. We'd be getting up to hundreds of entries each year. But that's an issue for another day.OrdinaryDecent (talk) 20:38, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

• Proposal B or delete per Paisarepa and SoWhy. A list of people killed because they are transgender has merit. A list of transgender people killed (in robberies, in domestic violence, in mass shootings) has no merit and, as stated above, would expand the list to untenable numbers. AntiChirality (talk) 18:19, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• Proposal A. This should be a list of transgender people who were killed.--2601:C4:C300:1BD0:7C6B:5717:3201:B979 (talk) 19:18, 17 March 2021 (UTC) — 2601:C4:C300:1BD0:7C6B:5717:3201:B979 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Proposal B. The title of the List is very clear, when one reads the contents of this article it is clear that at least someone has deemed their murders to be because of their sexuality, by changing the title of the article that information would be lost. A title change should not change the scope of an existing article (unless it's very recent), a new article can be created instead. --TZubiri (talk) 19:59, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

The clarity of the current title is zilch. Why is there zero transphobic deaths listed under year 2021? This will be in conflict when Joe Biden announces that on his birthday which coincides with Transgender Day of Remembrance about 30 people have been killed while this article will have zero which will be in conflict with HRC, ABC, CBS, CNN, Advocate, and so on. --2601:C4:C300:1BD0:7C6B:5717:3201:B979 (talk) 20:28, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

What? --TZubiri (talk) 03:10, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

• Proposal A. When I first read the RfC, I was initially for B because of the title of the article and concern over indiscriminate lists similar to that of Paisarepa and SoWhy. But arguments for A have convinced me: first of all, that such indiscriminate lists exist and are indeed fairly common, and second, that narrowing the list excludes people who one would normally expect to be on such a list. I think the problem of having to prove the killer's motive for every entry is much greater than the problem of the list being too long. Loki (talk) 23:36, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
• Proposal B, To answer this question directly - Would I expect to see this person or thing on a list of X?, - It is still unclear why Ms. Martin was killed - no, if it's unclear why she was killed, I would not expect to see her on this list. - we don’t know what the motive was - I would not expect to see her on this list. - killed during a robbery - I would not expect to see her on this list. - an unexplained death - I would not expect to see her on this list. - casualty of a mass shooting - I would not expect to see him on this list. - do not think the crime was motivated by gender identity - I would not expect to see her on this list. The criteria should be specific and unambiguous, kiled for being transgender. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:18, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Proposal B is currently used as a pretext to leave out the vast majority of 2020 transphobic deaths in spite of sources such as Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamiewareham/2020/11/11/350-transgender-people-have-been-murdered-in-2020-transgender-day-of-remembrance-list/?sh=38980af465a6 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:C4:C300:1BD0:708E:2510:279C:4124 (talk) 11:41, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

• Modified proposal B. I think that it's reasonable to include entries where the victim was believed to have been killed for being transgender - less strict than what it currently appears to include. If there's disagreement in sources about it (eg, police not investigating something as a hate crime but other sources saying it was/likely was) then I think it's reasonable to include the incident and describe the opposing viewpoints. --Equivamp - talk 14:27, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Agree. It's pointless to include someone who was killed in a head on collision with a drunk driver, but also too harsh to only include instances where there is documented proof it's a hate crime. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 23:16, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

• Proposal A. It's clear-cut and it follows WP:RS. If the list becomes unwieldy, we can break it down by year or region or look at other strategies for managing it. Proposal B sets an impossibly high standard of proof, is not based on reliable sources, and has been causing problems ever since it was imposed on this article. Jd4v15 (talk) 17:43, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

If the page takes the indiscriminate, memorial-style approach with Proposal A then separate pages will absolutely be necessary. We'd be looking at close to 1000 entries. By country might be the easiest.OrdinaryDecent (talk) 21:31, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

• Proposal B. Frankly, what's the point of having Proposal A as an article? What would such page brings to an encyclopedia? Who would be looking for that? Besides, I don't see that the argument that the motive of the killer is not immediately clear: wikipedia is not the news, and we can perfectly wait for a final judgement to establish such a motive. --JBchrch (talk) 19:13, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

That's not actually how it works, though. It is rare to get a final judgement that says, "Person A killed Person B because Person B was trans." That can be because the killer wasn't found or didn't go to trial or took a plea bargain or got off for unrelated reasons, or because prosecutors didn't need to establish motive to get a conviction, or because the motives were complex or hard to prove, or because of bias in the justice system. It's an unreasonable standard, which is one reason reliable sources tend not to use it. Wikipedia should follow their lead. Jd4v15 (talk) 17:16, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't disagree with what you say, but I would answer the following. Precisely because "Wikipedia doesn't lead, it follows", if reliable sources do not (or cannot) establish the motive (because, for instance, of shortcomings of the legal process), then it simply cannot be added to an encyclopedia. That's unfortunate, but that's just how it is. The alternative, which is to list every since murder of transgender people, would result in a large amount of non-notable information being added to Wikipedia, and that's even more unreasonable to me. --JBchrch (talk) 14:53, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

@JBchrch: Ironically enough, the first part of your response here was the reason I started the RFC. Since RS publish more comprehensive lists agnostic to the killer's motive, I feel Wikipedia has a duty to follow that rather than create our own unique criteria. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:18, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

MJL, I appreciate this argument. However, I would say these list serve a different purpose than Wikipedia does, in a somewhat similar sense to the way WP:NOTNEWS (sorry for repeatedly quoting the same policy...) approaches the content published by news media (even the best of them). --JBchrch (talk) 16:42, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

@JBchrch: No, no. That's a fair point I have not actually considered. It doesn't exactly convince me of Proposal B, but I can see where you are coming from now. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:43, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

@JBchrch: I think we could consider additional criteria to keep the list from being unwieldy or indiscriminate, like requiring sources other than local crime news, or an HRC-type list plus another independent source, as long as we make it very clear the list is incomplete and provide stats and links to more complete coverage. What we can't do is base inclusion on anti-trans motives -- it's arbitrary, not source-based, and the results are highly misleading. Jd4v15 (talk) 19:42, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Jd4v15, let me be a bit uncharitable with you here and say that this sounds like a "list of famous murders of transgender people", which would be horrifying (of course I understand that this is not what you intended). Regarding What we can't do is base inclusion on anti-trans motives, I disagree: I'm far from being trans-activist, but transgender people being killed for being transgender is a known social problem (trans panic etc.) so I think such a list would be warranted. --JBchrch (talk) 21:16, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

@JBchrch: No, fatal violence against trans people is a known social problem. The cases you're talking about -- "trans panic" murders, officially-designated hate crimes, etc. -- are only a subset of that violence, and not necessarily representative (for example, broader social discrimination means trans women of color in the US are more vulnerable to fatal violence in general as a result of their identity, regardless of whether someone kills them "for being trans"). By all means let's note those cases, but focusing exclusively on them, contrary to the practice of reliable sources, is misleading and non-neutral. Jd4v15 (talk) 03:06, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

• Comment There is a fatal flaw in Proposal A as it makes an unacceptable distinction between different equally-reliable and equally-verifiable sources, in order to use two different inclusion criteria simultaneously. Specifically, the proposed criteria is any transgender person who is killed as long as the killing is reported in list format, but if it is reported in traditional article format then gender-identity based motive is required. That's not an acceptable dichotomy as inclusion criteria applies to the list item, not the source. Proposal A is not a viable option. Paisarepa 16:18, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

  IMO Proposal A seems like the only viable option in that it lets us walk a line between recording any and every transgender person who is killed and keeping our current, overly-tight inclusion criteria. Proposal A would, I believe, produce something very similar to a list of "independently notable incidents of fatal violence against trans people", but it would prune that list to

  1) incidents that are explicitly motivated by the victim's trans status or

  2) incidents that RS decide are relevant to the overall phenomena of anti-trans killings

  I see your point that limiting that determination of relevance to list-based sources seems a bit arbitrary. Perhaps we could word it in a more flexible fashion?. Srey Sros^talk 16:53, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't mean it isn't workable in practice, I mean it violates WP:RS which no amount of consensus here on this page can overturn. Proposal A is not acceptable for consideration. Paisarepa 17:02, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Some editors stipulate that trans people homicides under Proposal B be investigated as a hate crime; at the same time, they don't want to admit that formal classification as a hate crime is mandatory for inclusion into the list!--2601:C4:C300:1BD0:7C6B:5717:3201:B979 (talk) 19:25, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Your comment is not remotely relevant to the topic being discussed in this thread. Paisarepa 19:29, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Proposal B is impractical. Therefore, Proposal A is a working solution.--2601:C4:C300:1BD0:7C6B:5717:3201:B979 (talk) 19:36, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Proposal A is a blatant violation of WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Paisarepa 00:31, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

How so? I don't really see your logic here. Is the issue that the inclusion criteria consider the format of the sources each entry would come from? I could see the argument that requiring they come from a list could be a heavy-handed way of implementing a principle of "explicitly anti-trans killings and other killings RS consider relevant", but if that's the only issue a simple rewording could fix the problem and accomplish exactly the same effect. I'm afraid I don't see at all how WP:NPOV connects here. What am I missing?

Looking at WP:LISTCRIT, this proposal seems to implement two of the questions suggested by the guideline in a very straightforward manner:

1. Would I expect to see this person or thing on a list of X?
2. Is this person or thing a canonical example of some facet of X?

Question 2 is handled by the "RS-determined anti-trans motive" case, and question 1 by the "RS inclusion on a similar list"/"RS consider incident relevant to the overall concept" case.

Of course, we'll have to change the title of the article to something that describes the overall phenomenon rather than our current narrow criteria, but that should be secondary to deciding what content we actually want in the article. Srey Sros^talk 01:25, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

• If you look at the history, you'll see that the list operated under the standard set by version A for years with no issues. Obviously inclusion in the list will require sources that past WP:RS, like any other material in Wikipedia, so the argument that it will contain every single killing isn't a serious issue; but the version we had prior to the move a year ago (almost exactly a year ago, in fact) was stable and largely uncontroversial, and it was moved with relatively little discussion after a consensus among a tiny number of editors. Since the move the page and its talk has been a constant flashpoint of unproductive bickering, which I think makes it clear that the change introduced more problems than it solved. --Aquillion (talk) 16:47, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I guess I need a little clarity here. My understanding is that Proposal A puts forth criteria to be imposed if the title of the article is changed. Since we can't do a move request through this RFC, I think that means we'd have to have a separate move request and, if that move request goes through, then impose the new criteria. I'm fine with all of that. But if the move request fails then the article should simply stay as it is. The current standards work fine for the current title.OrdinaryDecent (talk) 03:28, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

That would be overly bureocratic. Anyone can move a page through the move tool ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_killed_for_being_transgender ), in this case the whole page is protected so only editors with more than 300 edits can do it, but still, there's no such requirement that a separate rfc should be passed. --TZubiri (talk) 03:34, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't mean a second RFC, I mean a move request. Renaming a page is one of the things specifically stated as "What not to use the RfC process for" on the WP:RFC page laying out how the process works. I agree that it seems needlessly bureaucratic but it's one of Wikipedia's standards.OrdinaryDecent (talk) 05:41, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I mean, does the order of consensuses really matter? Proposal A suggests some new inclusion criteria, with the understanding that we'd have to change the name as part of adopting those criteria. I can't imagine a situation where we come to a consensus to change the inclusion criteria here and then somehow fail to get consensus to update the title to reflect those new criteria. Srey Sros^talk 05:51, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

It matters enough for Wikipedia to have an explicitly stated policy on it. And I can absolutely envision a scenario in which a weak consensus is reached on a major change to the article and it gets contested shortly afterwards on the grounds that it wasn't done in accordance with proper procedure. Particularly on a highly-charged topic like this one.OrdinaryDecent (talk) 16:35, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Not all moves require move requests. If this RFC reaches a clear consensus and it seems like the title that implements that consensus is uncontroversial, then moving it will be uncontroversial and will not require an RM. If there's controversy over what specific title best implements the RFC's outcome, then we'll hold a discussion and perhaps eventual RMs for proposed titles at that point. --Aquillion (talk) 16:47, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. Can anyone comment if sources similar to the annual HRC list for the U.S. exist for transgender deaths in other countries? If not, it would seem that, at least for now we are talking about adding over a hundred U.S. enries to the page, creating a substantial regional imbalance. It might be reasonable to consider splitting off a separate page for the U.S. entries, with its own criteria, if it turns out that comparable sources do not exist for other regions. Nsk92 (talk) 21:07, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Transgender Europe (TGEU) has published Name list Oct 2018 – Sep 2019 (pdf). Transgender Europe (TGEU) includes American transphobic deaths as well.--2601:C4:C300:1BD0:EC7E:15A0:8540:BA1 (talk) 21:41, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

That is the single most thorough global list for that time period that I've ever seen. Following that title leads me to the TDoR lists which would fit the definition under Proposal A. If we're using TDoR lists then that'll be probably something close to 1000 entries total.OrdinaryDecent (talk) 21:52, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Proposal C

Leave this page and scope unaltered, but create a new article called "List of transgender people killed". In order to avoid duplication of content, just collect basic information and references, linking to the short bios in the original list if they exist. Contentions about notability, significance or indiscriminate scope would belong on the new page.--TZubiri (talk) 03:17, 19 March 2021 (UTC) --TZubiri (talk) 03:17, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I think I have to oppose this proposal, as it feels like a WP:POVFORK. The hurdle to overcome POVFORK here would be to establish that the two articles are about two different things that are both independently notable, and I don't really see that here. The overall phenomenon of anti-transgender killings is the concept at hand, and I feel like what we have here is a question of how to approach that topic, rather than a question of what topic to approach. Srey Sros^talk 05:44, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

You raise a good point regarding notability for two articles, but I would argue that this huge comment section is an indication that both are notable.

Regarding POV fork, this doesn't seem to be a POV issue, are you proposing that each decision corresponds to a POV? What would that be in each case?

If you believe the topic should be anti-transgender killings, why are you proposing the list include murders where no source ever states any relation to their transgender status? Even something as common as "The family suspect her transgender identity might have been the cause of the murder" would be sufficient, including articles that fail to meet that criteria as an anti-transgender murder I don't understand.--TZubiri (talk) 08:56, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

A couple points:

1. Just because editors disagree on the inclusion criteria of an article does not mean that the two inclusion criteria represent independently notable concepts. To establish independent notability would require RSs treating them as independently notable, and I haven't seen that.
2. Each proposed criteria doesn't necessarily correspond to any POV other than "I think the inclusion criteria should be X". However, resolving a content dispute by forking an article into two different versions seems to run afoul of the guideline.
3. I believe that the inclusion criteria for this list ought to follow the sources that we have, and that the criteria proposed in proposal A accomplish this. I've discussed above why I support proposal A rather than B, but the main point I want to make here is that I think proposal C is not compliant with WP guidelines.

Srey Sros^talk 23:46, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Maybe you mean WP:CONTENTFORK then, there's no POV here, that section speaks about resolving POV disputes by forking. In any case, it still wouldn't be a fork, in this dispute there are two subjects, one of which is a subset of the other, so there's an intersection and there would be some duplication, but most of the content wouldn't be duplicated, you wouldn't argue that Fruit and Banana are content forks.

Fork it, I don't think the article would survive, as you say it might be an indiscriminate collection. So it's best to run the experiment on a separate article, without ruining an existing one.--TZubiri (talk) 02:36, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps it doesn't quite fit under the umbrella of the WP:POVFORK section (it fits if we consider this a question of due weight, but not if we consider this a question of notability), but my argument is the same. Fruit and Banana are independently notable concepts, but "murdered trans people" and "people murdered for being trans" don't seem to be. Srey Sros^talk 04:37, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tseals2.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request

For 2020s, under 2022, please add Doski Azad of Duhok, Iraqi Kurdistan. https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2022/feb/21/kurdish-transgender-woman-shot-by-brother-had-been-hiding-from-family 2600:100C:A202:469C:149C:AF19:79C0:7EC8 (talk) 02:53, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done AwfulReader (talk) 08:25, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Discrepancy between Title and Actual Content

The current title "List of people killed for being transgender", implies that it is confirmed that the murders are due to the cause of the victim being transgender. In reality the majority of the evidence provided is claims by friends or family and speculation by advocacy websites (is this what is generally considered to be "gossip"). A good deal of the article needs to be removed to remain in line with the title, or have any sort of credibility. JSory (talk) 00:25, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

That is an issue of content that can be addressed by editing. You are welcome to remove entries you think do not fit into the scope. Just make sure you provide an edit summary with the reasoning so that others can understand why you made the edit. Regards SoWhy 09:45, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

discrepancy between Laticia/Lawrence King

this page lists King as transgender, but on their Wikipedia page (which is hyperlinked) they are referred to strictly with he/him pronouns. should they be included in this list when it's presently unclear on Wikipedia if they were ever trans to begin with? 70.20.56.77 (talk) 05:18, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Possibly, according to one comment in the talk page "The majority of sources I found refer to the child as Larry, even as they acknowledge his brief interest in being called Leticia. The problem is that there just isn't enough information for anyone to know for sure what he intended by that - was he joking? trying to irritate the teacher? being gender non-confirming? exploring something he might have not wanted to commit to? expressing a sincere desire to fully identify as a female?" (CC) Tbhotch^™ 17:47, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Since this list is for victims of homicides where the motive was the trans-status of the victim, I removed this entry for now until someone can provide a reliable source that King was actually transgender and that this was the reason for his murder. Regards SoWhy 20:33, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

List error

Marsha P. Johnson was not mentioned in the 90s section, and there were many other trans murders in the 80s and 90s 193.203.152.230 (talk) 13:23, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

'In December 2002, a police investigation resulted in reclassification of Johnson's cause of death from "suicide" to "undetermined".' (CC) Tbhotch^™ 15:04, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Out of scope cleanup, 2010s

I removed the following entries for being out of scope in the 2010s section, mostly, because the sources contain no confirmation that the victims transgender status was the motive for the killing:

• Brayan Sánchez Zárate (motives unknown per source)
• Rita (cis woman according to source, so she was not killed for being transgender)
• Agnés Torres Hernández (no motive confirmed in source)
• Evon Young (even the source in the article admits that the motive is conjecture and speculation)
• Mary Jo Añonuevo (no motive in source)
• Kimberly Sody (killer and motive unknown per source)
• Mahadevi (killed for "troubling" passengers according to source, not for being transgender)
• Keeta Bakhsh (no motive in source)
• Sabi Beriani (no motive confirmed in source)
• Aniya Parker (alledged motive is pure speculation per source: "has left some trans advocates believing...")
• Marcela Duque (no motive given in source)
• Pamela Moreno (source indicates robbery gone wrong as motive)
• Ty Underwood (failed verification, all the source says is "has to be a hate crime")
• Hande Öncü (worked openly as a transgender sex worker and was killed after having sex with a client who then robbed her; no confirmation in source that the killer acted because she was transgender)
• Brian Golec (detransitioned before death, so killing cannot have been for being transgender)
• Fernanda "Coty" Olmos (no motive confirmed, source even admits that this is speculation ("suggests that it is a transphobic crime"))
• Diana Sacayán (killer unknown and motive speculation per source ("...the suspicion that Diana might have been the victim of hate crime...")
• Hande Kader (killer and motive unknown per source)
• Jesusa Fidel Ventura Reyes (no motive confirmed in sources)
• William Lound (not transgender according to sources)
• Raina Aliev (killer unknown and sources include no evidence of motive)
• Dandara dos Santos (no motive confirmed in source)
• Alaska Contreras Ponce (no motive confirmed in source)
• Jhoana Hernandez (kidnapping gone wrong according to source)
• Muhlaysia Booker (no motive confirmed in source)
• Kiki Fantroy (source clearly says perpetrator acted because she turned him down)
• Bee Love Slater (killer unknown and no motive confirmed in sources)
• Carly VG (killer and motive unknown per source)
• La Becky (killers were alledgedly looking for her but there is no confirmation that this was because of her being transgender)

While I sympathize with the idea of giving transgender people killed a voice, this article has per consensus a clear scope, so we cannot list just any person who was killed and transgender unless we also have a reliable source confirming that they were killed for being transgender. Regards SoWhy 11:10, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

There absolutely is not consensus about the proper scope of this article. Many of us have repeatedly pointed out serious problems with the standard you are choosing to apply, only to be ignored. I know you're editing in good faith, but please don't claim to be representing an actual consensus. Jd4v15 (talk) 18:39, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Removal of material

in this edit, and in a prior edit, cited historical material has been removed. I have reverted it once. I am not about to get into an edit war over the re-removal. Instead we need to discuss it.

The removal, both times by X-Editor is of this short, cited paragraph:

In 2020, ABC News "independently confirmed 34 violent deaths of transgender and gender non-conforming people in 2020 at the time of publication." This was published by Good Morning America.

I understand there to be a general, consensus based rule that cited material is not removed without substantive reason in the edit summary and often not without discussion. WP:BRD applies.

The first removal had no commentary in the edit summary. The edit reverting my reversion has the summary "Undid revision 1096314457 by Timtrent (talk) outdated content".

To me the content appears to be relevant, and would have been relevant even had it been referring to something many years ago, not simply a couple of years ago. It is, surely, a significant (and cited) piece of Transgender history in this geography, Thus, under BRD, the edit was bold, I have reverted it. It has been remade, and now we are starting the discuss it. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:20, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

I've added back the content. X-Editor (talk) 20:46, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

@X-Editor Do you wish to discuss it further? You are most welcome to, as is anyone with an interest in this article. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:27, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Nope. I'm fine with keeping the content. X-Editor (talk) 21:34, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

@X-Editor I am personally grateful to you. Thank you. I would close this down, but you have raised a point of interest, and it probably should stay open for a period and be closed, if closed it will be, by an uninvolved editor. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:37, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

No problem. X-Editor (talk) 23:05, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Reflist - Removal of material

References

Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2023

Please add Julie Berman to this list.

https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2019/12/27/activist-julie-berman-remembered-as-a-champion-for-trans-rights.html

https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2023/03/08/man-sentenced-to-life-in-gratuitous-and-brutal-murder-of-toronto-trans-activist-julie-berman.html?source=read-more

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Julie_Berman 2604:3D08:4A82:3800:959A:4B8D:2954:8ACE (talk) 23:19, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. From the recent source, No motive was established for the murder. Crown attorney Heather Keating said at Harnack’s sentencing hearing last month that it was a “significant fact” that Harnack did not know when he first met Berman that she was transgender, and pointed out that the murder happened “shortly after” sexual contact. “From the Crown’s perspective, we simply don’t know and won’t know whether Julie’s gender identity played any role in her death,” Keating said last month. Sources need to explicitly link the killing to the victim being transgender. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:28, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 March 2023

Julie Berman needs to be on this list.

https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2019/12/27/activist-julie-berman-remembered-as-a-champion-for-trans-rights.html

https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2023/03/08/man-sentenced-to-life-in-gratuitous-and-brutal-murder-of-toronto-trans-activist-julie-berman.html?source=read-more

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Julie_Berman 2604:3D08:4A82:3800:467:9578:13B0:3B88 (talk) 04:22, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: the sources provided note a lack of clarity on the motivation for the murder. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:43, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

This is a perfect example of how this article has been rendered completely useless and hopelessly biased by the unjustified and arbitrarily narrow scope imposed without consensus by a small number of editors. According to the prosecutor, "it was a 'significant fact' that Harnack did not know when he first met Berman that she was transgender, and pointed out that the murder happened 'shortly after' sexual contact." But because the trial did not explicitly establish a motive, some editors are deliberately excluding it from the article, even though it is exactly the kind of case that people ought to be hearing about when they come to Wikipedia to learn about trans victims of homicide. --Jd4v15 (talk) 18:18, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

@Jd4v15: The scope of the article was not "imposed without consensus", on the contrary, it is the consensus that emerged from multiple discussions that featured many editors. Before the last deletion discussion, the standards of inclusion were lower and because of that, it was almost deleted but only kept because the consensus was that the problems (including the overly broad inclusion criteria) could be addressed by editing. Talk:List of people killed for being transgender/Archive 1 contains a lot of this discussions you might want to read up on before claiming that there is no consensus. Regards SoWhy 19:50, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm amazed that you would point to the very long history of unresolved disagreements over the proper scope of this article and say that there is a consensus. Multiple editors have raised serious and substantive concerns over the present scope of the article both before and after it was put in place by the March 2020 name change. There was disagreement over the name change at the time (as the June 2020 discussion above clearly indicates), and at least one of the editors who supported it subsequently changed their position. That is not consensus.

But even if there had been consensus in the past, the scope would still be problematic today. It has resulted in a biased article that significantly misrepresents the subject by applying an arbitrary and impossibly high standard for inclusion. The vast majority of cases where a person is "killed for being transgender" do not include an official public declaration of the perpetrator's motives, yet that is effectively the standard that's being used. The fact that high-profile trans victims of homicide like Brianna Ghey and Julie Berman aren't on the list, despite their obvious relevance for potential readers of this article, is a sign that the current scope is not working. Jd4v15 (talk) 20:56, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Also noting that Archive 2 and Archive 3 contain a lot of prior discussion of proper scope since the name change. Jd4v15 (talk) 21:09, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

@Jd4v15: The current article is explicitly about people killed for being transgender. This logically requires that their gender identity played a role in their death. There is no bias or misrepresentation there. We also don't need an "official public declaration", we just need a reliable source to verify it.

You are of course free to argue that the list should be changed to include all transgender people who were killed, regardless of motive, although it seems problematic to reduce victims to their gender identity if their gender identity played no role in what they did or what happened to them. For neither Brianna Ghey nor Julie Berman there is any reliable source that could be used to verify that they were targeted because they were transgender. Furthermore, we have to remember that - no matter how hard that is - WP:BLP also applies to the perpetrators (and especially those not convicted yet) and this imho includes ascribing a hateful motive to someone's (alleged) actions (cf. WP:BLPCRIME).

That said, if you believe consensus should change, please start a new discussion with a {{rfc}} tag below and make sure to outline what inclusion criteria you think the list should use in future. Regards SoWhy 10:37, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Possible resource for this page

Investigation by Insider on 175 cases of trans homicides in the U.S., from 2017-2021. Funcrunch (talk) 04:54, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Fransuá Pinchi

Fransuá Pinchi was a peruvian transgender woman who was killed in September of 1989 or 1990 (some sources change the dates) by the terrorist group Túpac Amaru Revolutionary Movement, months before, the same group had murdered 8 men in a clandestine gay club, all part of a "Social Cleansing" https://elpais.com/elpais/2016/04/01/planeta_futuro/1459513097_580273.html?outputType=amp https://elcomercio.pe/eldominical/actualidad/arte-frente-odio-noticia-523233-noticia/?outputType=amp 38.25.7.100 (talk) 23:15, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Removal of content

I'm intending on removing entries where it is not clear that the victim was killed for being transgender as it doesn't appear that the RFC two years ago was ever closed or came to a consensus to define specific inclusion criteria. I wanted to inform users here beforehand so that there is a place for any objections. Willbb234 14:57, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Add brianna ghey

Brianna ghey's constant bullying and subsequent murder for being transgender should be included on this list 2A01:CB11:5FD:E200:80C0:997:424D:6881 (talk) 23:03, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources saying that she was murdered for being transgender? I haven't seen any presented at the article Talk page. Newimpartial (talk) 04:02, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Which is still the case, but adding her to this list has just been raised there again. Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 22:11, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 February 2023

February 11th 2023 Brianna Ghey was stabbed to death in a park in Warrington UK Angel Delight (ASD) (talk) 22:48, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. You'll need to provide sources demonstrating that they were killed for being trans. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:54, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Given the social climate around Brianna Ghey's murder, I strongly support adding her to this page, linking to her current event page and adding the addendum "Motive for her murder is under current investigation. Coverage of her death included The Times titling their article with her deadname, sparking controversy over media coverage of transgender individuals."

If it is found that her death was not motivated by her identity, it can be removed later. 66.219.235.165 (talk) 07:09, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

This list is for individuals which reliable sources have reported were killed for being transgender. In Brianna's case, all sources that I read make it clear that the motive has not been determined yet, so we cannot add it. I understand where you are coming from and personally, I suspect you are right, but unfortunately Wikipedia cannot operate on speculation and we especially cannot add something based on speculation just because we can remove it later. Last but not least, the presumption of innocence in WP:BLPCRIME also extends to motive. Regards SoWhy 08:40, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

If highly prominent trans victims of homicide don't meet this article's requirements for inclusion, perhaps the requirements need to change. Jd4v15 (talk) 18:44, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

@Jd4v15: This article is literally called "List of people killed for being transgender". As mentioned in the last discussion of the scope above, listing every death no matter the motive would most likely violate WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTDIRECTORY (see also WP:SALAT for details). It would also imho reduce transgender people to their gender identity, implying that transgender people are somehow a special group of humans who cannot do anything (or have anything done to them) that is not related to their gender identity. Regardless though, the consensus is what it is, so at this moment, her inclusion is not possible until reliable sources confirm that her gender identity was (part of) the motive. You are welcome to try and start a WP:RFC to change the requirements though. Regards SoWhy 19:30, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Agree with SFR and SoWhy. Until a motive for Brianna Ghey's killing has been established by RS, we do not include her on this list. Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 22:07, 11 August 2023 (UTC) PS: I got here because the issue has been raised again on Brianna's talkpage, which I monitor. Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 22:14, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Brianna Ghey’s death should not be added to the list in this article unless/until reliable sources say that she was killed for being transgender. Sweet6970 (talk) 22:20, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Restore Serena Angelique Velázquez Ramos and Layla Pelaez Sánchez

Incredibly straightforward case with Reliable Sources unambiguously indicating that they were killed for being transgender. Their inclusion isn't even vaguely controversial. Any objections? OrdinaryDecent (talk) 22:22, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

I object – the reports only say that the police were investigating the killings as hate crimes, and one of the sources includes …. one of the men confessed to his participation in the "vile" crime and admitted it was done for "reasons of revenge" by "repudiating the sexual orientation of the victims." Being transgender is not a sexual orientation, so this source actually contradicts the idea that the killings were because the victims were transgender. Sweet6970 (talk) 22:57, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

A lot of people confuse sexual orientation with transgender identity, unfortunately. Can you post a link to the source of your quote so I can see it in context? Funcrunch (talk) 00:23, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

The sources used for this when these killings were in the article are [3] and [4]. It is the second which refers to ‘sexual orientation’. Neither of them gives a definite statement that these were hate crimes – the sources are just quoting comments from a police officer.Sweet6970 (talk) 10:23, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

I believe that your perception that there's some ambiguity here is extremely non-standard. If you feel strongly that this is incorrect, I suggest you escalate the issue through the Wikipedia dispute resolution system. Perhaps with a Request for comment. OrdinaryDecent (talk) 14:26, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

The first source quotes the police captain saying "We are classifying it as a hate crime because they were socializing with the victims, and once they found out they were transgender women, they decided to kill them". There is no ambiguity here. That the same police captain mentioned sexual orientation in the second source does not make the motive for these killings more ambiguous. Both victims should be restored to this article. Funcrunch (talk) 18:22, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

We don’t have any reliable source saying that they were killed because they were transgender. If this was a standalone article, we could only say that it was reported that a police officer said it – we could not say it in wikivoice. So these killings should not be in this list, which is in wikivoice. Sweet6970 (talk) 10:30, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Concur. This seems straightforward. CMacMillan (talk) 22:59, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

The list criterion stated at the top of the article is "people who were killed for being transgender". If we reworked that to be "people who may have been killed for being transgender", I think we could reasonably included cases like these. As it is, we shouldn't be making a wikivoice statement about the motive of a killing until there's been either a judicial finding of fact or an overwhelming consensus in reliable sources. Those don't exist for these two killings. More recent reliable sources have talked about the delay in processing the charges as itself a potential manifestation of anti-trans sentiment, but we can do little here but wait for a court decision. I think the main thing holding us back from including similar cases is the list criterion, and I'd be in favor of starting up that discussion again. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:20, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

A list of people who ‘may have been killed for being transgender’ would have no encyclopaedic value. Sweet6970 (talk) 13:42, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

I could see it being very valuable, depending on the specific inclusion criteria we could develop, but it doesn't make sense to get into it if we're not really getting into it. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:55, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Given that there hasn't really been a true consensus on the title of the article or the appropriate inclusion criteria, I'd suggest that this article would be an excellent candidate for the Wikipedia dispute resolution system. If no one else takes the initiative on that, I guess I can start that process some time soon. OrdinaryDecent (talk) 15:01, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree dispute resolution might eventually be needed, but most DR processes start with thorough local discussion. Want to start the ball rolling in a new section. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:36, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

This is not a new discussion; discussion about the inclusion criteria for the list have been going on for as long as this article has been in existence (see the archives). Funcrunch (talk) 16:48, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Funcrunch, and I am aware of those prior discussions. It's still not advisable to jump right into higher levels of DR, since it's been years since the last discussion. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:50, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 6 June 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved (non-admin closure) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 22:55, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

---

List of people killed for being transgender → List of unlawfully killed trans people – Each death can't be proved and won't be proved in a court of law. The title "killed for being trans" presumes an unreasonable criterion. 2601:C4:C300:1BD0:708E:2510:279C:4124 (talk) 18:21, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose and speedy close. With only a minor alteration, this RM is just a repetition of the recently-concluded one (#Requested move 20 March 2020). That RM established that there is no encyclopedic value to a list of people killed who just happen to be transgender. The encyclopedic value is in a list of those whose status was a proximate cause. Yes, this means a lot of names no longer belong, and that's the point. -- Netoholic @ 19:58, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

So many unarmed trans people being killed isn't a coincidence. The "killed for being transgender" is a furtive move to eviscerate the article after the failed attempts to delete the article.--2601:C4:C300:1BD0:708E:2510:279C:4124 (talk) 22:02, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

The last AfD was specifically closed noting "overly broad criteria for inclusion, problems with the article title". Without the changes, its quite possible another AfD would delete this list noting that very little had been done to address the problems after multiple years. This title and scope may in fact be saving this list from complete deletion. I suggest focusing on finding reliably-sourced inclusions under the current scope. -- Netoholic @ 02:19, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for confessing to your dogged attempts to delete this article for so many years.--2601:C4:C300:1BD0:708E:2510:279C:4124 (talk) 02:32, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per above. This was the agreed-upon title in a very recent RM. Paintspot Infez (talk) 01:31, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - revised list fits title well. Hundreds of people die every day, some of them trans - simply being a unlawfully killed trans person is not criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. AntiChirality (talk) 15:49, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support - No single oppose is going by notability established by RS. I see several RS that list killed trans people without the added criteria and discuss the murders as an issue that happens for a multitude of reasons, see Forbes, The Hill, NBC, USA Today, Newsweek, CNN, etc. These sources, as do research oriented sources I can pull, discuss multiple reasons for these murders and show that there are systemic issues leading to higher murder rates for trans women that are also very notable, like homelessness, lack of employment except in sex trade, disrespect by police. The other issues with the current title is it talks to a mental state of the murderer that we are indirectly inferring. The wording also is informal, not the type we'd likely see in well-written RS (check out this quick search from Google News, note the sources are mostly opinion pieces.) In RS you'd be more likely to see wording like murders where transphobic bias was a factor. Also on this being a move request that happened recently after a previous one, I'll note that the move that changed the title to it's current one also happened after frequent prior attempts to change it failed. I suspect it only went through due to editors like myself burning out on the same discussion happening frequently. Rab V (talk) 19:43, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support - I regret supporting the move to the current title as I see that is now being used as an excuse to completely gut this article, by establishing an impossibly high standard of proof that a person's trans status was the primary motive in their killing. Funcrunch (talk) 20:36, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

• The current edition of this article includes those whose trans status *may* have been a motive in their killing. This is a generous reading of the title and a shorter list is not necessarily a poorer article for it. Simply being a trans person killed is not notable enough for inclusion in a page that leads the reader to draw the conclusion they were killed for being trans. AntiChirality (talk) 01:22, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

So the Human Rights Campaign list of trans people killed is a reach, huh?--2601:C4:C300:1BD0:708E:2510:279C:4124 (talk) 01:32, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

• Yes. Wikipedia is not the HRC and not an advocacy group for transgender activists. Please refer to WP:Memorial and WP:DIRECTORY. AntiChirality (talk) 02:47, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• If someone's trans status contributed to their death, find reliable sources that state such. If it didn't contribute to their death, then there is no point (other than violating WP:NOTMEMORIAL) in singling them out from the WP:RUNOFTHEMILL reports of violent deaths across the population. If LGBT equality means anything, it means being treated the same as any other segment of the population... and that means if someone is killed, we don't create a list to based on an arbitrary personal status. We don't have a list of killed gay men/women, nor a list of killed redheads, or killed black people, or killed stutterers. Those would be the definition of WP:INDISCRIMINATE, just as moving this back to the old scope would be. -- Netoholic @ 02:52, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Do not confuse equality with equity. There is no historical record of violent physical attacks on people with red hair or speech impediments. Funcrunch (talk) 07:03, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

P.S. Regarding "we don't have a list of killed gay/men women": See List of people executed for homosexuality in Europe and Gay bashing. Funcrunch (talk) 07:09, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

You do realize that you are making Netoholic's point for him there? List of people executed for homosexuality in Europe is a list of people executed because of their (alleged) homosexuality. It's not a list of all homosexual people executed. Similarly, Gay bashing is about "attack, abuse, or assault" because of a person's (perceived) LGBT status. Regards SoWhy 07:29, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

WP:NOTMEMORIAL requires that the subject meets notability requirements, and that shouldn't be a problem. Similar with WP:INDISCRIMINATE's requirement that"data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources." Agree HRC is likely not an RS. Rab V (talk) 03:00, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

• HRC's mission is advocacy. However noble, that is not what Wikipedia is about. By its own criteria, the list itself includes people who may be victims of transphobia, but it also includes people who may have been made vulnerable by marginalization, poverty, etc. In Wikipedia terms, it's a memorial, and its scope is suitable some place other than Wikipedia. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

What's wrong with advocating against killing trans people? Is CNN wrong for running the 2019 list? At least 22 transgender people have been killed this year. But numbers don't tell the full story at CNN --2601:C4:C300:1BD0:708E:2510:279C:4124 (talk) 00:19, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support - When I commented on this article before, I was unaware of the last RFM. I agree that the change seems to have been, intentionally or unintentionally, a crippling blow to the article. The new title would give us room to make this article what it actually is, and not set a nearly impossible bar in an attempt to empty it out. Parabolist (talk) 22:29, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose return to the previous main title header which was moved to the present title two months ago, on April 2. "Unlawful killing" is a term used in English law, but not throughout the English-speaking world. An exchange [above] highlighted possible confusion regarding the term — "Support are there "lawfully killed trans people"? Axem Titanium (talk) 19:43, 20 March 2020 (UTC) Comment: Self defence, capital punishment, euthanasia... jamacfarlane (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2020 (UTC)". I would, however, support an all-inclusive header such as List of killed transgender people or List of transgender people who were killed and do, indeed, include those, if any, who died as a result of euthanasia, capital punishment or someone claiming self defense. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 00:38, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per last time and Netoholic. Every person's death is tragic in its own way but not every person's death is worthy of inclusion or we venture into WP:INDISCRIMINATE territory with no way out. While per Transgender#Population figures the number of transgender people is hard to pin down, one estimate mentioned in that article is that 0.3% of all people in the EU are transgender. Extrapolating to worldwide population, that would ~24 million people (the real number is probably much higher). Every year, approx. 7 out of 100,00 people are killed unlawfully worldwide. That means, approx. 1,700 transgender people are killed unlawfully every year. The proposed scope (by moving the article) would include every one of those deaths, no matter why they were killed. Regards SoWhy 07:50, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support. The current discussion clearly shows that the move to the current title did not reflect an actual consensus among editors. In addition, several people who supported the move at the time have changed their position. Yet the article's scope and content are being changed despite the lack of consensus. I'm not a fan of the old title, but I think we should revert the move and go back to the previous title/scope until we have a clearer consensus on what this article should be. --Jd4v15 (talk) 17:59, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Death of Nex Benedict

Nex Benedict was murdered for being non binary. Does this count for the purpose of this article or do we need a separate "List of people killed for being non binary" page? 98.116.173.242 (talk) 01:00, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

According to the article Death of Nex Benedict the cause of death has not yet been established, and Police also stated that Benedict did not die of a traumatic injury. Therefore, it is completely inappropriate to refer to the death as a murder and there should be no reference to the death in this article unless and until it has been legally established that the death comes within the criteria for being included in this article. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:57, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

@Sweet6970

Many reliable sources have made the connection between Nex's gender identity and the attack. While police have claimed that preliminary autopsy results do not indicate trauma as the cause of death, many reliable sources have also call that statement into question. I do not think it is inappropriate to make the connection between the attack and Nex's death, as well as the connection between the attack and Nex's gender identity.

Can you please clarify what is the burden of proof required to meet the bar of this article? 98.116.173.242 (talk) 15:54, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Sweet. For now, IP98, the list criterion is "people who were killed for being transgender". Reasonable interpretation of the criterion might be "people who are described in reliable sources as having been killed for being transgender (including nonbinary)". If you're aware of reliable sources that say in their own voice that Benedict was killed and that the killing was caused by their nonbinary status, please bring them here for discussion (and probably also Talk:Death of Nex Benedict). Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:12, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

This has the potential to be added to the list in the future, but not yet. The cause of death hasn't been established yet, nor has anyone been arrested, charged, or convicted. I suspect it will be some time before the particulars of this death are established. We can re-evaluate it in the future though once that happens. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:56, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Oh, for heaven’s sake, LilianaUwU – either provide a reliable source saying this was a murder, or self-revert. Sweet6970 (talk) 18:41, 23 February 2024 (UTC) LilianaUwU

Ugh, fine. It's just that you've refactored a comment (well, header) of someone else, which as far as I know is not bound by sourcing - it's just the opinion of a random IP that it's a murder. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 18:51, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

FYI, talk page headers don't belong to anyone in particular, and anyone is free to edit them for reasons of accuracy or neutrality. See WP:SHOWN. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:29, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Removal of Carla Leigh Salazar

Carla Leigh Salazar should be removed. The sources listed for the murder unequivocally state, "the motive for the killing is not clear." As the suspect died before trial and pleaded not guilty, Carla does not belong on this list. Randomdude87 (talk) 20:27, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree: done. Sweet6970 (talk) 21:19, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Removal of Venus Xtravaganza

Venus Xtravaganza should be removed as the killer is unknown. This goes against the scope of the article which specifically excludes murders with unknown killers. Randomdude87 (talk) 21:57, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

 Done Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:33, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Removal of Simmie Lewis Williams Jr

Victim is only identified as gay man by one source, referred to as a "boy" by his mother, and seemingly only included because he was wearing women's clothing at the time. Disputed transgender identity, unsolved murder, so no motive. It doesn't fit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Randomdude87 (talk • contribs) 00:17, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

The sources are clear that the victim was a gay man. There is nothing to evidence a transphobic motive for this killing. So I am deleting this item. Sweet6970 (talk) 10:48, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria - cisgender people killed because they were suspected to be trans

I'm aware of the past discussions on the inclusion criteria in the archives, however none seem to have touched upon this. Does the inclusion criteria for this list include cisgender people who were killed because they were thought to be trans?

A recent example of this is Michelle Dionne Peacock, whose attacker reportedly described the victim as a male acting like a woman during police questioning. As far as I'm aware, that case is still pending so I don't think we should include it yet, but if the attacker is convicted and it is proven that Peacock was killed because she was thought to be trans, would this be valid for inclusion in this list? Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:36, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I don’t have any objection in principle to changing the criteria for inclusion in this article, provided this is agreed by other editors. But if we are to include any such killings, we’d have to change the title of the article. Do you have a suggested revised title? Sweet6970 (talk) 15:10, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Would we have to change the title? The current title is list of people killed for being transgender, arguably killing someone because you suspect them to be trans is the same as killing them because they are trans, so it seems in scope to me. The perpetrator is killing the victim because they perceive them to be trans, whether or not the perpetrator knows for certain that the victim is trans is kinda immaterial, as the intent was to kill a trans person.

I guess though you could call it list of people killed for being or suspected of being transgender, but that seems rather verbose and kinda redundant. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:25, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I disagree that the title should remain unchanged if the content of the article is changed. This would have the result that the title of the article would become a falsehood. How about as a new title: List of people killed for being perceived as transgender? Sweet6970 (talk) 15:42, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I would favor adding such cases to the list. On the title issue: WP:NCLIST gives some wiggle room, saying

The title is not expected to contain a complete description of the list's subject ... Instead, the detailed criteria for inclusion should be described in the lead, and a reasonably concise title should be chosen for the list.

Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:29, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I think there's a difference between the title not being a "complete description" and the content being completely different than what the title implies or represents. The recent example given would be a killing related to gender, I think? One could easily say the woman was killed for being a masculine-presenting woman in the eyes of this one man (to the point he believed she was a male). Although do we even know the victim wasn't trans herself given it's an unfalsifiable state of mind? Randomdude87 (talk) 22:55, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, we know the victim wasn't trans. The sourcing on this killing indicates that she was cisgender. While the accused has yet to be convicted, he did tell investigators he believed the victim to be "a male acting like a woman" (per PinkNews, Fox59, and Huffington Post).

If the accused is convicted, I would argue that the victim was killed for being trans even if she wasn't actually trans, and that this is a case of mistaken gender identity. That seems like it would be in scope for this article. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:07, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

When police shoot an unarmed suspect because they mistakenly believe his phone was a gun, the victim wasn't shot for having a gun. And no, we don't know the victim wasn't trans. Pink News is not a good source and doesn't validate the victim's gender identity. Fox59 does not reference anything indicating as such and makes no reference to "cisgender." Huffington Post simply says "Peacock was a 59-year-old cisgender woman" without explaining how they came to this conclusion. Are we to just assume someone's gender identity by default? I don't agree the perpetrator mistook her gender identity; he mistook her sex, evidenced by your quote. Due to this, I find it likely the sources are referring to her natal sex in their rebuttal, not how she viewed her own gender. They're saying, "but she wasn't a male trying to present as a women like he thought." The victim wasn't killed on the basis of her gender identity which is what the article is about. Randomdude87 (talk) 00:54, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

PinkNews is is a generally reliable source on Wikipedia. There is no requirement in WP:RS that reliable sources must show their working for how they assert certain facts.

Are we to just assume someone's gender identity by default? No, we go by what is stated in reliable sources. For the moment, it's verifiable to multiple reliable sources that the victim was cisgender. That may change in the future, but we can address that when that happens.

I don't agree the perpetrator mistook her gender identity; he mistook her sex, evidenced by your quote. The specifics of this case don't really matter right now, because I'm merely using this as a framing example for asking a hypothetical. I'm not saying we should include this article now, and in fact I've said in my original comment that we should not include it yet. The question I asked in my original comment is if the attacker is convicted and it is proven that Peacock was killed because she was thought to be trans, would this be valid for inclusion in this list?

Setting aside for the moment that broad speculation on a live criminal proceeding is not the purpose of an article talk page like this, speculation on the exact outcome of the case beyond the scope of the question doesn't really matter. This is because if the attacker is either not convicted, or it is proven that the victim was killed for any other reason, it would be inherently out of scope of this article. The only thing I'm interested in is whether or not a cisgender person who was killed, because their killer thought they were trans or non-binary, would be in the scope of this article. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:54, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

1) PinkNews is a partisan source, which should be used with care. It does not say that Peacock was killed because her killer thought she was trans – that is the editorialising of the headline – which is to be expected in such a biased source.

2) What the story in PinkNews actually says is…. Earl told investigators Peacock was a “a male acting like a woman”… . A male acting like a woman is not necessarily trans – it may be a man who is acting in an unmasculine way. So this statement does not provide any evidence that the alleged killer thought the victim was trans.

Sweet6970 (talk) 14:12, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Respectfully, you're focusing on the wrong point of my question. I'm not asking if we should add Peacock to the article now, I'm only using Peacock's circumstances as a starting point for this hypothetical situation. The usefulness here is that Peacock's case has the potential to be one where the accused killed her because he thought she was trans. The exact motivations behind her death of course remain to be determined, as the accused is still awaiting trial. I don't dispute that it's possible that PinkNews and The Advocate are wrong here, that Peacock was killed for some other reason, but you shouldn't also dispute until the case has been tried that they might also have it right. That's an open question for the criminal justice system to determine.

In any case, the question I'm asking is, if a cisgender person is killed because their killer(s) thought they were trans, would they be in scope of this list? Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:58, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I know that you have moved to discussing whether, hypothetically, if a cisgender person is killed because their killer(s) thought they were trans, would they be in scope of this list? The reason I made my comment at 14:12 today is because I am concerned at your attitude to sources. My concern has been reinforced by your latest comment : I don't dispute that it's possible that PinkNews and The Advocate are wrong here, that Peacock was killed for some other reason, but you shouldn't also dispute until the case has been tried that they might also have it right. Sideswipe, PinkNews does not say (except in a headline, which doesn’t count for Wikipedia) that Peacock was killed because her killer thought she was trans – so your suggestion that if it turns out that she was, then PinkNews would be correct, is false. And I am not ‘disputing’ the reason why she was killed: I am saying we don’t have a source saying why she was killed. Please do not make assumptions about my thoughts on this aspect – I do not have an opinion on it, since there is not enough information available. Sweet6970 (talk) 19:24, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

PinkNews does not say (except in a headline, which doesn’t count for Wikipedia) that Peacock was killed because her killer thought she was trans – so your suggestion that if it turns out that she was, then PinkNews would be correct, is false I'm afraid this is incorrect. The PinkNews article states in the fifth paragraph of its body As per reporting by Fox59, Earl told investigators Peacock was a “a male acting like a woman” – implying he believed, incorrectly, that she was trans.

I know that you have moved to discussing whether I haven't moved to this, I've been asking this question since I started this discussion. Please see my original comment on 28 January where I asked Does the inclusion criteria for this list include cisgender people who were killed because they were thought to be trans?

I am saying we don’t have a source saying why she was killed. I know, I have also said the same thing. Respectfully, you seem to be under an impression that I'm advocating for including Peacock now. I am not. I have explicitly said in my comment on 28 January that As far as I'm aware, that case is still pending so I don't think we should include it yet, and on 27 February where I said I'm not saying we should include this article now (emphasis from original). I thought I had been clear that Peacock clearly does not meet the inclusion criteria at this time. The only reason I have brought her case up is in its usefulness as an illustrative example that has the potential to be a case where a cisgender person was killed because they were thought to be trans. Key word, potential.

The only thing I'm interested in, since I started this discussion, is whether or not a cisgender person who was killed because they were thought to be trans is or is not in scope of this list. That is all. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:16, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

The only thing I'm interested in is whether or not a cisgender person who was killed, because their killer thought they were trans or non-binary, would be in the scope of this article. Fair enough. I do think it's relevant to the hypothetical to challenge what language constitutes confirmation of this motive, though. Previous killings are included as transgender-specific, despite language from the perpetrator indicating sexual orientation as their motive. If all is needed to reliably confirm this motive is an advocacy group to "interpret" it that way, the list loses credibility and accuracy, in my opinion. Maybe this should be a separate discussion, though. To answer your question re: because their killer thought they were trans or non-binary, I now think maybe, although still leaning towards no. If random people are being killed for being transgender, everybody is afraid of being a target. To me, this invalidates the reasoning for having specific hate crime classification to begin with (the added fear that a group is solely being targeted due to their membership). And as an aside, I don't agree that non-binary people should be included unless they also specifically identified as transgender, which many do not. Perhaps a specific page for that, or maybe changing this page title to use a larger umbrella term? Randomdude87 (talk) 18:52, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. “A man acting like a woman” could be an effeminate man, to the mind of the killer. If we have no source saying the person was killed for being transgender, then their death does not belong here. Zanahary (talk) 00:57, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm also fine with adding cases like that to the list despite the title. It should be clear in the description of those cases that they were not in fact trans, just thought to be trans by their assailant. Loki (talk) 02:13, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Remove Özge Bilir

Not killed for being transgender, killed in a argue whit a boyfriend..

https://tdor.translivesmatter.info/reports/2020/11/10/ozge-bilir_utrecht-netherlands_9ca1f2b4 Moooosy (talk) 14:43, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

The source provided here confirms that this killing was not because the victim was transgender, so I am deleting Bilir from the article. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:52, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Add Fred Martinez, Jr. to list

2001 - Fred Martinez, Jr. (also known as FC Martinez) was a 16-year-old Two-Spirit individual found dead in June of 2001. Their murderer, 18-year-old Shaun Murphy, confessed to the crime later that year and was sentenced to 40 years in prison in 2002. [1] [2] CakesGoSupernova (talk) 15:57, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

 Done Wikishovel (talk) 16:37, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I don’t have access to the Washington Post, but I see that the Journal says: A Farmington man who admitted in the early 2000s to beating and killing Fred “F.C.” Martinez Jr., what some have considered a hate crime against the LGBTQ community, has been released from prison on parole. I don’t think this is enough to add to our list, because we would be saying in wikivoice that Martinez was killed for being transgender, when the Journal does not confirm this. Sweet6970 (talk) 21:07, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Both sources given by CakesGoSupernova indicate the source was an anonymous tip to police. In addition, they conflict with one another. Beyond that, they only affirm the potential motive was his gay sexual orientation, which is not a gender identity. Randomdude87 (talk) 21:42, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

It's hard to be sure, due to the age of the sources and some of the original reporting having gone offline in the years since the conviction, but The Advocate somewhat supports the assertion that Martinez was killed for being trans where it says that Murphy could not be charged with a hate crime because, at the time, Colorado's hate-crime statutes did not cover crimes based on gender identity or expression. An article by High Country News about a documentary released about the killing also indirectly supports this where it says The hate crime opened up frank discussions about perceptions of gender among Navajos. It's all a bit weak sauce, but...

What I find most convincing however is that TDoR include Martinez on their list of people killed for being transgender, and the TDoR list is I believe part of the inclusion criteria. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:26, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

The Advocate is not an unbiased source. It both states that he was the youngest person to die of a hate crime and then immediately contradicts it by stating it wasn't classified as a hate crime. It disingenuously implies that the only reason it wasn't a hate crime is due to lack of statutes related to gender. This is false and misleading. You can still find plenty of the original reporting online that make it clear that sexuality was the focus and it also wasn't on the books in hate crime legislation: https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2001/09/01/gay-youths-death-shakes-colo-city/98d8eab5-4afb-41b9-b83c-35d69d7cc88e/

Nothing in the Advocate link provided supports trans-identity being the motivating factor, including the quoted section. If anything, it affirms that sexual orientation was the issue, highlighting the "beat up a fag" quote and referencing the killer's mother being a lesbian. Everyone refers to him as both Fred and gay. I see no reason it should be on the TDoR list either. Randomdude87 (talk) 00:28, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

The Advocate is considered a generally reliable source on Wikipedia. There's no requirement in WP:RS that sources must be unbiased to be used, as WP:BIASED states sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for information about a topic.

It disingenuously implies that the only reason it wasn't a hate crime is due to lack of statutes related to gender. Actually The Advocate are correct here. Gender identity (or as stated in the law, transgender status) wasn't covered under Colorado's hate crime laws until the passing of House Bill 05-1014 in 2005. It would have been impossible under the statute at the time of Murphy's trial for him to be convicted of an anti-trans hate crime, as the trial and conviction of Murphy happened in 2002. As a side note, the first successful conviction under the anti-trans hate crime statute in the state was for the murder of Angie Zapata in 2009 (CNN).

highlighting the "beat up a fag" quote Your or my interpretation of that quote doesn't really matter. What matters is how reliable sources interpreted it.

I see no reason it should be on the TDoR list either Then you may wish to contact the folks at TDoR who compile that list, and request that they remove it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:15, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

There is no clear source saying that Martinez was killed for being transgender – the Journal quotes the murderer saying he “beat up a fag”. This does not require any special interpretation – we are not adding his name to a list of people killed for being homosexual. But it shows that there is no evidence that he was killed for being transgender. In this list article, we are saying in wikivoice that he was killed for being transgender, when we don’t have reliable sources saying so, and when one source not only does not mention this, but implies another motive. This is in breach of Wikipedia policy. Sideswipe9th, instead of suggesting that Randomdude87 should take this up with TdoR, you should provide a reliable source saying this murder was motivated by transphobia. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:52, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

The question is, is inclusion in TDoR's list part of the inclusion criteria for this article? My understanding is that, after the RfC 2 years ago, inclusion in the TDoR list, along with several others like the HRC annual lists, is part of the inclusion criteria for this list. The inference here is that we consider the TDoR list to be a reliable source? Am I mistaken?

As for another reliable source, please see this 2008 paper from Sexuality Research and Social Policy. While it discusses how the racial element of the case was downplayed and suppressed in the national media, which ironically enough covers the "beat up a fag" quote, which in its original context was actually "bug smashed a joto" (joto being a derogatory Spanish term for a gay or effeminate man), it remarks heavily on how Martinez was murdered for his gender identity. This quote: For these reasons, we cannot say that Martinez was killed primarily because he was gay and transgender but also because he was Navajo and poor; this additive approach fails to account for the ways in which the racial and class dimensions of identity are produced by and through the other. sums up the multifactoral nature of Martinez death, with gender being one of the factors. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:32, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

The Advocate's assertion regarding the absence of gender in Colorado's hate crime laws isn't being challenged. I'm disputing, 1) the implication that this omission of transgender identity is the sole reason it wasn't classified as a hate crime, and 2) that a general "hate crime" conviction should allow inclusion to this list; specific transgender status/identity must be clarified. Given that sexual orientation was also absent from legislation, one cannot conclusively infer that the lack of hate crime charges is due to absence of transgender status specifically. Reporting from WaPo, two months after the killing, underscores the imperative of updating Colorado's hate crime laws to encompass sexual orientation, suggesting it was the motivation behind the killing.

Per your link, House Bill 05-1014 states the following:

(b) "SEXUAL ORIENTATION" MEANS A PERSON'S ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED ORIENTATION TOWARD HETEROSEXUALITY, HOMOSEXUALITY, BISEXUALITY, OR TRANSGENDER STATUS.

As this page is for people killed for being transgender, not their sexuality, it's important to establish how we're reliably confirming the motive behind the killing. Sexual orientation and transgender identity are treated as distinctly separate entities (the former being used previously to exclude other deaths from this list). It seems inherently problematic that cited legislation conflates sexual orientation with transgender status, seemingly classifying it as a subset of the former. To me, this calls into question whether Angie Zapata's murder should be included, as well, but I'll limit this thread to Fred Martinez.

Your or my interpretation of that quote doesn't really matter. What matters is how reliable sources interpreted it.

How a third party interprets another's motive for something seems incredibly shaky for a definitive list (especially if they overrule quotes from the perpetrator that use known pejorative terms to denigrate homosexuals). Regardless, I'm new to contributing so am admittedly unfamiliar with the process involved. I'll research the links provided on how sources are graded so I can better suggest changes in the future. Thank you. Randomdude87 (talk) 13:21, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Per your link, House Bill 05-1014 states the following It does. However House Bill 05-1014 was the bill that added that text to Colorado Revised Statute 18-9-121. Prior to that bill, 18-9-121 did not contain the text OR TRANSGENDER STATUS. Because the statute prior to that bill did not contain any reference to transgender status, it was impossible for anyone in that state to be convicted of an anti-trans hate crime prior to 2005. According to Dave Kopel, writing January 2003 there had been numerous unsuccessful bills since 1991 to amend Colorado statute to include reference to trans people (using the language of the time, transsexual and transvestite). That is, quite literally, the sole reason it was not classified as a hate crime.

How a third party interprets another's motive for something seems incredibly shaky for a definitive list It is not our role as Wikipedia editors to interpret primary sources, we call that original research, something which is forbidden by policy. How independent and secondary reliable sources interpret primary sources, like criminal trial records is how we include content in any Wikipedia article. Per policy Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources, and to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. This is because Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to ... avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:10, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Once again: Sideswipe, do you have a source saying Martinez’s killing was motivated by transphobia? Sweet6970 (talk) 19:28, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Patience my friend, it takes time to write out a full reply. I have just replied to this above. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:34, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for providing the Birkbeck paper by Lamble. But this is thoroughly equivocal. It seems to be mostly saying that the racial element was ignored. It also says on p13 Although some would argue that the 40-year jail term to which Shaun Murphy was eventually sentenced is evidence that Martinez’s death did not go unnoticed, the media coverage suggested that this response was mainly owing to the public outrage over what was perceived as an attack spurred by homophobia, not a case of racialized violence.

So at this point in the paper, it is saying that (a) the racial aspect was ignored, and (b) the killing was perceived to be motivated by homophobia.

I was not aware that there had been an RfC about TDoR as a source, but I don’t see how this could override the general requirement of verifiability, especially when this article is entirely in wikivoice. This paper also speaks disapprovingly about TDoR. On p15, referring to the ‘narratives’ provided by TDoR for deaths of transgender people, it says: These narratives speak not to the honoring of life, but to the fetishization of death. Also on p15: As Ross described TDOR, It sure makes for a powerful street performance: candles, tears, hugs, and snuggles over cardboard pictures of butchered members of a marginalized minority produces emotionally charged images. But it functions, both theatrically and politically, to benefit a privileged subsection of the trans community. (quoted in Namaste, 2005, pp. 92–93)

So I still don’t think we have a source saying that this killing was because Martinez was transgender. But perhaps we could include it with a note that transphobia was one of the motivations?

Sweet6970 (talk) 20:35, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

So at this point in the paper, it is saying that (a) the racial aspect was ignored, and (b) the killing was perceived to be motivated by homophobia. On A yes. On B, no. The paper is quite clear earlier in its text that part of the reason for Martinez being killed was because he was two-spirit: For these reasons, we cannot say that Martinez was killed primarily because he was gay and transgender but also because he was Navajo and poor on page 32 states this. The takeaway from this sentence is that Martinez was killed for multiple reasons, being gay and transgender were two of those reasons, race and colonialism were others.

Where the quotation from page 34 comes into it is where the paper is critiquing how the media coverage and resulting public outrage focused on a single facet of the killing; homophobia. While it is true that homophobia was a cause, this paper also states that transphobia and racism were also causes.

I would be satisfied that the quotation on page 32 would support the content on Martinez, if it is felt that the other sources do not. I don't think a note that transphobia was one of the motivations is needed however, as the paper explicitly states that one of the reasons why Martinez was killed was because he was transgender (see quote on page 32). We could easily include the direct quotation from page 32 via the |quote= parameter in the {{cite journal}} template however. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:04, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Again, I respectfully disagree with your interpretation regarding That is, quite literally, the sole reason it was not classified as a hate crime. Whether a killing meets the threshold of "hate crime" is not the distinction needed for this list. It needs to be a killing specifically due to someone's transgender identity.

The linked PDF you're referencing makes it clear that protections against sexual orientation, specifically for homosexuals, ALSO weren't provided at the time, supporting my initial point: Almost every year since 1991, bills have been offered in the Colorado Legislature to broaden Colorado’s “Ethnic Intimidation” statute. The bills would turn the statute into a “hate crime” statute, bring homosexuals, transsexuals, transvestites, the elderly, and the disabled within its scope. It is further stated a paragraph below: Often, public debate on the Colorado bills revolves around whether homosexuals should “count” as a special group covered by the law. If the Colorado perennial becomes law, other groups will make claims for similar special status.

The quoted part of the other PDF highlights sexual orientation or the fact he was an effeminate man as motives. Neither of those reflect transgenderism as the motive, either. In the succeeding section, it goes on to affirm my initial points again: At the onset of investigation, Montezuma County Sheriff Joey Chavez stated that detectives were “looking at the boy’s sexuality, as well as the fact that he was Native American, as possible motives in the crime”. But race quickly disappeared as a relevant factor. [...] The outrage over the Martinez murder was subsequently channeled into lobbying efforts to reform Colorado’s bias-crime statutes to include sexual orientation. So again, sexual orientation was not included in the existing laws either, refuting the notion that the only reason it wasn't a hate crime was lack of transgender inclusion.

The PDF by Dave Kopel also cites the frequent inflation of hate crime killings by advocacy groups. It repeatedly points this out throughout the paper: Nevertheless, some advocacy groups continue to exaggerate the extent of hate crimes. Just my opinion, but this is exactly what I see happening in this case. In the original reporting (that you seemed to earlier suggest was meaningful), it's overwhelmingly clear that sexual orientation was the motive. But because recent advocacy groups you're citing "interpret" it their own way, now it fits. He was killed due to sexual orientation, race, gender, being a "two-spirit" and colonialism? The term "two-spirit" itself is a neologism created by advocacy groups that many indigenous people have vehemently rejected. Your own sources repeatedly contradict these narratives, quoting authorities who eliminated race as a factor. Whether you or anybody else interprets it that way shouldn't overrule the actual detectives in charge of the investigation, in my opinion at least.

I really think the rules for acceptance into this list should be better refined to avoid this exact issue. There is a 0% chance you won't be able to find SOME advocacy group claiming tragic murders for their own cause. We are dealing with another person's motivations, which is very difficult to ascertain in the first place. Whether a source is reliable or not is relevant on their trustworthiness to report facts, not to interpret the mind state or behavior of someone else. The most reliable source ever isn't more reliable than the killer's own words or the detectives and court systems prosecuting the crime. Randomdude87 (talk) 09:50, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Whether a killing meets the threshold of "hate crime" is not the distinction needed for this list. True, but it is a distinction that you brought up for some reason. You said the implication that this omission of transgender identity is the sole reason it wasn't classified as a hate crime Everything that followed on this was my responding to the point that it was impossible per the law at the time for Martinez' murder to be classified as a hate crime.

It needs to be a killing specifically due to someone's transgender identity. Correct.

But because recent advocacy groups you're citing "interpret" it their own way, now it fits Words change meaning over time. Sometimes new words are created, old words fall out of favour. Newer sources about a topic will often describe it in contemporary terms, in no small part because of linguistic change. That being said, I would not consider The Advocate to be an advocacy group, despite its name. It's a very longstanding and highly reputable LGBT magazine. Likewise I wouldn't consider an academic published in a peer reviewed journal to be an advocacy group either.

Whether you or anybody else interprets it that way shouldn't overrule the actual detectives in charge of the investigation, in my opinion at least. As in all things on Wikipedia, what matters is how reliable sources cover any given topic or point. If modern sourcing says that Martinez was killed because they were transgender, then that meets the inclusion criteria for this article. In this case, we have an academic source that states that Martinez being trans was one of several reasons why they were killed. That's all we need to include it in this list. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:24, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

True, but it is a distinction that you brought up for some reason. No, The Advocate initiated that point, and I highlighted its misleading nature. Your defense of it as supporting the transgender motive was incorrect, especially when you claimed That is, quite literally, the sole reason it was not classified as a hate crime. This is inaccurate. Hate crime laws for sexual orientation were also not applicable, which would have been a more likely charge. I've backed this with ample evidence, but we seem to be at an impasse if you disagree. what matters is how reliable sources cover any given topic or point. I referenced a WaPo article from that time, clearly indicating sexual orientation as the motive. That's actual coverage of the topic. If modern sourcing says that Martinez was killed because they were transgender, then that meets the inclusion criteria for this article Why would modern sources be inherently more accurate? While Wikipedia favors recent sources, it's likely because they'd offer updated, improved information; this does not apply here.

The WaPo piece, contemporary to the events, detailed with quotes from involved parties, is overwhelming in stating sexual orientation as the motive. It also accurately recognized Martinez's gender identity so this potential wasn't simply ignored. If the DA states, barring a confession in the case, the motive for the slaying may never be clearly established, Wikipedia's policy seriously can't favor what someone completely disconnected from the case theorizes a decade later, can it? A reputable source fact-checks information and reliably reports things. Reliably reporting the facts would be omitting the article because no motive was ever established. Again, I feel clarification is needed on what decides motive if it's not the only people society actually appoints to determine that: the courts or the killers. What determines motive should rely on judicial and investigative conclusions, not external speculations.

Nevertheless, in the interest of fairness, I found a more suitable source from that period for your argument. It's still from The Advocate and just another uninvolved party theorizing, but if that's all Wiki needs, I think it's a better citation for your case. "Everything so far leads us to believe [Martinez] was targeted for transgressing gender," says Denise de Percin, executive director for the Colorado Anti-Violence Project, based in Denver. "People who transgress gender and whose expression is not considered normal are the ones who are most often targeted for bias-motivated violence." Randomdude87 (talk) 08:31, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

For these reasons, we cannot say that Martinez was killed primarily because he was gay and transgender but also because he was Navajo and poor This is actually a negative statement, that Martinez was not primarily killed because he was transgender. We really need a positive statement from a reliable source that he was killed for being transgender. There does not seem to be a consensus that this death should be included in this article, which means that the entry should be deleted. Sweet6970 (talk) 23:13, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Eh? It's only a negative statement insofar as Martinez being gay and trans were the only reasons they were killed. When read in full this is a positive statement that there were multiple reasons for why Martinez was killed, their sexuality and gender identity were two of those reasons, their racial and socio-economical status were two other reasons. That is more than enough for inclusion in this list. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:26, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

If we leave the motives for a crime open to anyone's interpretation, this list becomes meaningless. Speculation can be abused by trans-advocates to inflate the numbers, as well as those writing articles to muddy the waters to exclude them. Randomdude87 (talk) 21:43, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Sideswipe: we cannot say that Martinez was killed primarily because he was gay and transgender is a negative statement.

I agree with Randomdude87 – Martinez should be deleted from the list.

Sweet6970 (talk) 23:46, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

is a negative statement I don't understand how you've reached this conclusion. How is it a negative statement? Is it, or is it not saying that there were multiple reasons for why Martinez was killed? And is it or is it not saying that his being gay and transgender were two of those reasons?

The inclusion criteria for this list are not that being transgender must be the sole reason a person was killed. If that were the case, that we could only include people who were killed for the sole reason of being transgender, then there are a lot of names we'd have to remove. Being transgender has to be one of the reasons why a person was killed before they can be included, but there can be other reasons as well. Recent example we're both familiar with, Murder of Brianna Ghey. Her being trans was a secondary motive for one of the two killers, with the primary motive for that killer being sadism. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:12, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Being transgender has to be one of the reasons why a person was killed before they can be included, but there can be other reasons as well. You are describing "List of people possibly killed for being transgender and a few other reasons (at least according to some PDF I found)". I kind of think it should be the sole reason a person was killed (or at least the reason for an initial negative contact that escalated into a killing). Being specifically targeted for no reason other than your trans-identity is the reason these killings are notable and need to be remembered. Many of these cases are extremely far from that. Randomdude87 (talk) 00:32, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

If you think that a person only meets the inclusion criteria for this list if the sole reason for their killing was because they were trans, then feel free to start a new discussion below on redefining the inclusion criteria. As it stands right now, the inclusion criteria allow for that to be one of any number of reasons for why the person was killed. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:52, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

If we leave the motives for a crime open to anyone's interpretation, this list becomes meaningless. If a high quality source, like a peer reviewed research paper, states that a person was killed for being transgender, then that is a perfectly valid reason to include that person in this list. It's fully in line with how we consider WP:V and WP:RS. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:16, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't agree. A source should be reporting facts, not speculation. A peer-reviewed paper doesn't establish motive, it establishes what someone speculates motive could be. The court systems and/or perpetrators can establish motive, other can only speculate. Randomdude87 (talk) 00:21, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a compendium of what reliable sources say about a topic. If statements in reliable sources aren't sufficient to establish motive, then we shouldn't be using motive as the standard for inclusion in this list. Jd4v15 (talk) 22:58, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 28 February 2024

Please change list of 2020 to include Nex Benedict, a Choctaw nonbinary 16 year old, who was killed February 8, 2024 by three female classmates in the Owasso High School women's bathroom. They had been bullied by these students for a long time due to their nonbinary identity.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68405972 Bacillus Anthra-TRANS (talk) 19:32, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: @Bacillus Anthra-TRANS: Per the BBC story and Death of Nex Benedict, Benedict died after an incident at their high school, but there is no cause of death reported yet to say that they died because of the incident (attack). Given the tag for out-of-scope entries on the list, I am against inclusion on the list, at least until there is a finding that the death was as a result of the attack. —C.Fred (talk) 19:51, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

In order to add Nex Benedict to the list, it would be necessary to show (a) that they were killed and (b) that this was for being transgender. According to the information currently available, neither of these things is established. Sweet6970 (talk) 23:02, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Here we have a very prominent case of a person who may have been killed for being trans. There has been a great deal of public discussion about the extent to which the victim's trans identity was a factor in their death. That discussion is directly relevant to anybody who wants to learn about the subject of this page -- and yet nobody reading this page will hear about it, because we're not allowed to mention it. In effect, we are misinforming Wikipedia users by failing to include highly relevant information due to an overly strict standard of inclusion. Jd4v15 (talk) 23:33, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Remove Hilario López Ruiz?

I'm using google translate, so I would like a Spanish speaker to verify: I believe Hilario López Ruiz was killed for being gay, not for being trans. —Of the universe (say hello) 03:48, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

The source is unclear. It does confirm that Ruiz was a travesti (which Google and DeepL mistranslate as transvestite), and implies that she may have been a sex worker. It says she was approached for services, while dressed as a woman, but the customer was homophobic and discovered she was a homosexual ("al descubrir que era un homosexual"). The customer then allegedly beat and asphyxiated her.

I can see why from reading it with machine translation you'd come away with the impression she was killed for being gay. Travesti are often perceived to be gay men, and often misdescribed as transvestites. As the source is unclear, I've tried searching for others on the killing. Unfortunately I've not been able to turn up anything bar the eswiki version of this article, which uses the same source that we do. It's possible that a print newspaper covering Ciudad Juárez or Tezonapa might have more information on this, but I've been unable to find it. As such, because the source is unclear I'll be removing it from the article, but I am open to restoring it if clearer sourcing can be found. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:29, 11 March 2024 (UTC)