Talk:Murder of Gwen Araujo/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Movie

The Lifetime Movie Network has made a movie about her. Someone would be so kind to do a little research on it and add it to this article.

More info? Rebecca 05:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Lifetimetv.com: Movies - A Girl Like Me: The Gwen Araujo Story --David Edgar 16:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I watched the movie. It was highly fictionalized. Sylvia Guerrero never testified at the trial. Most of the witnesses for the trial were completely made up. The film also didn't portray Gwen's sexual relations with the defendants. Gwen never had a boyfriend who came to family functions. The film's purpose seems to have been to promote a message against hate (which is good), but it was not an accurate portrayal of what really happened. Agrippina Minor

Clan, Klan, or Church?

In the bit immediately following the mention of Fred Phelps, a "clan" is referred to as picketing. Is this a second reference to Phelps's followers, or to the Ku Klux Klan, or to a third organization altogether? If it's referring to Phelps's followers, it would be best to say "the Westboro Baptist Church" rather than "the clan". If it's the KKK being discussed, clan should probably be spelled with a K. If it's a third organization, then what organization is it? This sentence is confusing. Kasreyn 05:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

It's bound to be the WBC, in which case I agree with your suggestion. Rebecca 06:19, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

"Family" would probably be better, since it's generally Phelps' relatives. "Clan" in that context is in the sense of an extended family. But, due to the confusion with the Klan, family would be preferable Nik42 08:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've already changed it to simply the "Westboro Baptist Church", which seems accurate enough. Thanks, though.  :) Kasreyn 08:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

gender

since Gwen Araujo was biologically male, shouldnt it refer to "him" and not "her"?

Your title answers your own question (without realizing it I assume). Gwen Araujo's gender was female, her sex was male. Gender is a cultural construct, whereas sex is biologically determined. Gwen identified socially as a female. So if you are wondering about "gender", than no, it shouldn't say "he". And as far as I'm concerned, it should refer to Gwen's gender. The Ungovernable Force 04:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

This has already been discussed. It is more appropriate to refer to Gwen as "her" because that was her gender identity and what she used. Gender identity takes preference over biological sex.

Self identification: When naming or writing an article about specific people or specific groups always use the terminology which those individuals or organizations themselves use. Transsexual people, for example, should be referred to using the personal pronouns (male, female, or another) that they themselves prefer. - Wikipedia:Naming conventions (identity)

So it is "her" and not "him." Falsetto 02:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

However, to avoid any appearance of POV, I suggest avoiding gendered pronouns unless absolutely required. --Nlu (talk) 06:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, as long as it doesn't make any of the writing awkward. Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 06:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Pronouns are inherently gendered. The guideline is there for a reason, and I will revert any attempts at introducing weasel words into this article. Rebecca 09:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

How are the use of, for example, "Araujo" to replace gendered pronouns "weasel words"? Please read that guideline before you throw these accusations around. --Nlu (talk) 16:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

It already uses "Araujo" in a number of places, as with any other article. There is no excuse for trying to weasel around the long-standing guideline. Rebecca 02:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

If you constantly use "Araujo" instead of "she" it sounds awkward. That's why pronouns exist. Like I said, don't butcher the language in the name of npov when our other guidelines say to use "she." Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 02:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Why transgender instead of transsexual?

I am by no means an expert on this case nor did I know Gwen but I have read allot. From what I have seen it seems to me that she was a transsexual. So why use the less precise term transgender in this article? (wich covers CD,DQ,GQ,TS etc. etc.) Would it not be most encyclopedic to change every occurence of transgender to transsexual? No need to tell me the logic behind the use of the word transgender , "because it is about gender and not sex...". I have heard it and agree with it. However it seems to be the case that Gwen had stated that she wanted the operation. Once someone does that even if they are latter non-op that makes them TS. Any objections?--Hfarmer 08:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I have no particular opinion on the terminology, but your definitions are, as usual, shrouded in several degrees of weird. Since when did one's operative status have anything to do with them being transsexual? Rebecca 09:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Transgender is the more umbrella term. It originally meant a person living as the other gender, whereas transexual implied surgical changes.

Clean Up

The information in general of this article seems very long and detailed, especially the day by day accounts of the second trial. In my opinion, this could be condensed considerably. Betaeleven 14:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 15:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The Trial Descriptions

Do the trial descriptions seem unnecessarily lengthy to anyone else? Do we really need this much detail? Or does everyone else think it is indeed, necessary? Maybe we should condense it? Thanks. Eirra 20:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Call to renew discussion on use of gendered pronouns in this article

I semi-protected to stop vandalism/POV-pushing (by changing "she/her" to "it"), but I do still believe that the current state of the article creates POVness concerns by its use of gendered pronouns. I continue to believe that using the non-gendered "Araujo" (or, where appropriate depending on context, "Eddie" or "Gwen") rather than gendered pronouns is more appropriate, because reasonable persons can disagree as to whether, at the time of Araujo's death, Araujo should be considered male or female (but certainly not neuter, as the "it" vandalism would suggest). --Nlu (talk) 19:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

No, they can't. Per both Wikipedia's naming conventions and WP:BLP policy (which also applies, in certain circumstances - such as this - to dead people), we should use the proper pronouns. Not to mention that trying to use "non-gendered" pronouns is profoundly ungrammatical. Rebecca 00:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not suggesting the use of neuter pronouns; doing so would indeed be ungrammatical. I am proposing using no pronouns at all; just use "Araujo," "Gwen," or "Eddie," as appropriate, throughout. --Nlu (talk) 00:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

It's still ungrammatical, not to mention unnecessary. Rebecca 00:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

How is it ungrammatical? And assuming that the current use of female pronouns is POV -- which is a point that I'd like addressed, which you didn't -- it is necessary to remove POVness. The key question again is this: does the use of the female pronouns violate WP:NPOV? If so, NPOV must override stylistic concerns. Therefore, the key operative discussion should be on whether the article's use of the female pronoun is NPOV or not. (Incidentally, I looked through WP:BLP; unless I'm missing something, BLP does not require Wikipedia to adhere to the subject's self-gender-identification; it does require adherence to the subject's self-declared sexual orientation, which is different. I also don't see any place where BLP mentions that it applies to a deceased person.) As the NPOV guideline said, "NPOV is absolute and nonnegotiable." --Nlu (talk) 01:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia naming conventions require that the pronouns she actually used for herself be used. It's there as a matter of basic respect - there is no good reason why Wikipedia should have an article that is grossly offensive to the subject and the subject's family. (This is where the WP:BLP concerns come in. The arbitration committee has repeatedly held that it applies to the dead in situations such as this.) There are no NPOV concerns here. The article uses the pronouns that both Wikipedia policy and all respected journalistic guidelines state that it should use. Rebecca 02:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I ask: where are the BLP provisions that you are referring to? Please quote them. Certainly I didn't see them in WP:BLP. Please also quote the relevant ArbCom decisions, if you are claiming that this is what the ArbCom is saying. --Nlu (talk) 05:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I've already stated this. Our naming conventions specifically state that we should use the correct pronouns for Araujo. On top of that, cases like this is precisely why the BLP policy exists: there is no good reason why Wikipedia should have an article that is grossly offensive to the subject and the subject's family. To quote from their decision in the Badlydrawnjeff case (where a proposal that BLP should only apply to the living was rejected by a majority of arbitrators) "Implicit in the policy on biographies of living people is the understanding that Wikipedia articles should respect the basic human dignity of their subjects. Wikipedia aims to be a reputable encyclopedia, not a tabloid. Our articles must not serve primarily to mock or disparage their subjects, whether directly or indirectly. This is of particularly profound importance when dealing with individuals whose notability stems largely from their being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization." What you are proposing is exactly the opposite of this - making edits that would be grossly disrespectful of the subject and offensive to the subject's family for reasons which you haven't even tried to justify. Rebecca 06:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide links? And, again, quote the portion of BLP that you believe applies to this case? --Nlu (talk) 07:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I already told you: I just took that paragraph from the committee's ruling in the Badlydrawnjeff case. I think you're just trolling now, honestly. Rebecca 07:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Which I am not familiar with -- ergo, the request for links. I don't think for you to provide a link is too much to ask.

However, that brings us back full circle. That merely means that assuming that BLP has a policy on this that it may apply to this article. You haven't quoted any BLP policy that applies to gender identity -- as i mentioned, the closest that I could find deals with sexual orientation, not gender identity. Further, you have not tried to make any reasonable arguments as to why the use of female pronouns is not POV. It may not be; I haven't made up my mind on that. But what you are doing is asserting, not arguing, and certainly not proving. (And, again, if the use of female pronouns is POV, then whatever the feelings that the family might have on this is irrelevant; NPOV must apply first.)

It also confounds me that you think the elimination of the female pronouns somehow "prolong[s] the victimization" of Gwen -- which is what the quote you gave above is about.

Your lack of ability to argue logically makes me ponder whether there may be no alternative but to request for comment on this, because you certainly haven't convinced me that your position is the correct one or consensus. --Nlu (talk) 07:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, digging deeper, I still don't think BLP applies. However, there is a guideline that I found that does appear to help your case that the female pronouns should be used -- in WP:MOS, there is a section (WP:ID) that indicates that, for the most part, the person's latest preference of name and gender identity should be preserved. That, however, still does not settle the question, because, as I discussed above, the NPOV principle overrides the MOS. So the question would be, again, whether the use of the female pronouns violates NPOV. That is a question that I haven't decided on and I think deserves further discussion, and which, unfortunately, you've been avoiding. --Nlu (talk) 07:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I pointed you to that about four different times above. Perhaps you should detail what you think these supposed NPOV concessions are. She lived as a woman; she identified as a woman; she was known as a woman. In the event there is still doubt, the whole "do no harm" idea suggests that we might, you know, take the path that isn't completely offensive to the dead. Rebecca 08:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Why do you think referring to Gwen as "Araujo" or "Gwen" (or, in the case of the discussion of childhood, "Eddie") would be offensive to the dead?

In any case, though, the potential POV problems (which you continue to refuse to address) is that there is no settled question on whether Gwen should be considered male or female. While, as mentioned above, the MOS calls for referring to Gwen as female as per Gwen's own last self-identification, there is no universal acceptance of Gwen's classification as a female. Certainly, despite the posthumous legal name change, in the eyes of the law, Gwen was still considered male, and on the charging documents against Gwen's killers, the name used was still "Edward Araujo," as the law requires. The use of the female pronouns was therefore potentially POV -- and whether it is actually POV is something that I've been calling on you to address, which you haven't. --Nlu (talk) 09:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Her legal name at this point in time is indeed Gwen Araujo, as per the court ruling obtained by her mother. To use an alternative name because of your personal beliefs, on the other hand, would be to push a POV. Rebecca 10:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I see that you are still avoiding the question. (I did not suggest above that the article should use "Eddie" or "Edward" throughout; the name was brought up to make the point that legally, there was no determination that Gwen was female.) I think a RfC will have to be necessary since you are clearly refusing to discuss the key issue here: whether the use of female pronouns is POV. I intend to file one tomorrow. --Nlu (talk) 10:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

RfC on use of female pronouns or no pronouns

Whether the guidelines in WP:NPOV, WP:MOS, and WP:BLP call for the use of the female pronouns or the avoidance of either female or male pronouns in this article.

I've reviewed the discussion above. I don't believe there is any basis to change from the feminine gender pronouns. Since the subject self-identified as female, no undue weight is being given. In fact, by changing to a male or neutral pronoun, we are giving far too much weight to the fact that she was physically male. Its also important to note that news articles discussing the incident also highly prefer the feminine pronouns and Wikipedia follows that most common usage. Also, I believe the pertinent part of the WP:BLP that you're looking for is "Do no harm". Shell ^babelfish 03:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

There is a huge gap between self-perception and real, physical self, and I believe that the fact that Mr. Araujo considered himself a female does not make him one. Proof of this is the fact that he was killed not because he was a woman, but because he was a man who passed as a woman. Of course Mr. Araujo and transgendered people in general can consider themselves whatever they want and live in whatever way they find appealing, but if I for instance say that I'm a dolphin, I doubt very much that I'll be legally considered one, no matter how strong my feelings on this issue could be. Therefore, I believe the correct and objective pronouns for Mr. Araunjo are masculine. Hpdl —Preceding comment was added at 17:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Feminine pronouns Gwen self-identified with a feminine gender (so all statements pertaining to her view of herself should reflect this). Her name was legally changed (so she should be referred to as Gwen). Her mother identifies her as her daughter(so all statements pertaining to her mother should reflect this). She was not a "male", she was a transgendered male to female. The appropriate pronouns are feminine pronouns as evident in sources (so the article should follow this common usage). The dolphin analogy is not apt, a human can't ever be a dolphin. A biological male can be a transgendered woman. Phyesalis (talk) 06:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

R.E. Feminine pronouns: usage of masculine pronouns in the article goes against Wikipedia guidelines, guidelines for journalistic writing (AP and Reuters), the legal statuses of transsexual women in all western countries (legal gender can be changed to various degrees, but this requires time and often funds. legal gender does not have to be changed for usage to change), common usage in western countries, the wishes of the deceased and her family, the current legal status of the deceased, as well as the outcome of numerous and reoccurring discussions on the matter both on this page and in general terms of wikipedia style. It is important to try to keep articles NPOV, and any discussion over pronoun usage ties into larger issues of respect for others, as well as the right of people to express their views compared to the right of others to live their lives free of discrimination and harrassment. If you want to debate this further you might be better advised to do so in the Transsexual or Transgender articles. Something we can all agree on, as wikipedians, is that just because you believe something does not make it so. 88.96.135.14 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Araujo has not even undergone a sex-change surgery. Even if he had, he'd be just a guy with a mutilated penis (I know this is a quote from South Park's Mr. Garrison, but it doesn't make it false). We should also consider that: "The terms "transsexualism", "dual-role transvestism", "gender identity disorder in adolescents or adults" and "gender identity disorder not otherwise specified" are listed as such in the International Statistical Classification of Diseases (ICD) or the American Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) under codes F64.0, F64.1, 302.85 and 302.6 respectively." Now I know someone will come up with the fact that homosexuality was also considered a mental disorder in the DSM at some point in time but it is no longer there, but the fact that transsexualism remains there in spite of the political correctness of American academia can be taken as proof that perhaps this is really a mental disorder.

On the other hand, if Wikipedia guidelines state that transgendered people should be referred to using their preferred gender, then so be it.

But by God, if I someday become famous, I'll state my species as dolphin and will force you all to refer to me as "it"! :P

Hpdl (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 00:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Lock

this article isnt locked from editeing but theres a banner. it should be removed.♠♦Д narchistPig♥♣ (talk) 23:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Unprotected - it was actually semi-protected. I've removed the protection now as it's been almost three months, and removed the template. Thanks for pointing that out - Alison ^❤ 23:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

She

This article refers to he as a she... but isn't she technically a he? I thought he just dressed and acted like a female; that doesn't make him one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amamamp (talk • contribs) 17:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Read transgender, then read the rest of the discussion on this page. This has been discussed numerous times and there is no point in debating the issue anymore. Gwen Araujo identified as female and will be referred to on Wikipedia as female. Pw33n (talk) 00:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Notability

With no disrespect intended to Gwen Araujo, her family and friends, and the LGBT community I would like to ask whether this person is notable. The guidelines for victims under Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts) says the following, "Victims of high-profile crimes do not automatically qualify as notable enough to have a stand-alone article solely based on their status as victims. Notability with regards to this is defined as satisfying some other aspect of the notability of persons guideline that does not relate to the crime in question. As such, a victim of a crime should normally only be the subject of an article where an article that satisfied notability criteria existed, or could have properly been created prior to the crime's commission. Thus, attempts at inclusion prompted by appearance in the press should not be excluded if notability can be otherwise asserted." In this case I don't think Gwen Araujo meets the notability requirements outside of the context of her murder. Even if the crime itself is notable the article should be about the murder and not a biography of the victim. An example would be Murder of Kathryn Faughey. Note that in order for the crime to be notable, it must be covered on a national or global scope; a fact that is not necessarily established here by the cited references. I am refraining from taking this to an AFD for the moment in the hopes that my concerns will be addressed by someone more familiar with the topic and another solution found.Nrswanson (talk) 14:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The article contains very little about her as a person. It is almost entirely about the murder and its aftermath. Maybe we should simply rename the article to "Murder of Gwen Araujo," slightly abbreviate the "Life" section and fold it into the "Death" section. Capedia (talk) 19:52, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

• That seems like a reasonable solution for the moment. The other issue is on establishing this as a crime with "national coverage" per Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts). The case as far as I can tell from the sources was only covered by local media in San Francisco. However, other sources may exist which indicate national coverage.Nrswanson (talk) 22:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks to work of several editors, media from other sources such as the New York Times and the Associated Press has been added, making this clearly a crime covered on a national level. So problem solved and well done everyone.Nrswanson (talk) 14:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

• Perhaps, in future, you could attempt to do such research yourself. For gods sake, there was a non-independent film made about her death - it shouldn't have been terribly difficult for you to work out the notability here. Rebecca (talk) 11:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

What is the notability of this? Did it get to the SC? Did it some precedent that was to follow in many cases (ie- Roe v. Wade, Gideon v. Wainright, Miranda v. Arizona, etc, etc) Just because it was picked up by the NYT and AP doesn't mean it had any widespread and notable national coverage. If you see their stories there are lot of fringe tales for local consumption. (see the local newspaper and you will note AP takes to covering for them too)

There is 1 line covering a lifetime movie made about her. if that's the case then tack this onto an "actual events" section in that article.

Above all remember WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Lihaas (talk) 13:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Note also the BBC reference which is an indication of international coverage.

Yes, the article should say more about the movie. Additionally we should probably also mention the "Gwen Araujo Justice for Victims Act" - see Gwen Araujo Justice for Victims Act Becomes Law. --David Edgar (talk) 13:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

You're right, Lihaas, that Wikipedia is not a memorial. The guideline to which you link states simply, "Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements." So if somebody adds content to the article about what a beautiful and special person she was, what she liked to do with her time, what kind of a friend and daughter she was, and so on, then go ahead and rip that stuff out post haste.

But WP:NOTMEMORIAL doesn't mean that high-profile murders shouldn't be covered in Wikipedia. What's important is to keep the article focused on the events leading up to the crime, the crime itself, and its aftermath. Capedia (talk) 22:35, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

This is what gets incredibly frustrating about Wikipedia sometimes. Her death was one of the most heavily publicised LGBT hate crimes (alongside Mathew Shepard and Brandon Teena, subject of Boys Don't Cry)) in the history of the United States, which is why it had a movie made about it, legislation named after the victim, and more than a bit of international coverage. Instead, we have to have arguments with people who decide that because they've never heard of her, and can't be bothered doing the most basic fucking Google search, for gods sake, that they should default to "delete". Is it so terribly hard to actually attempt to know what you're talking about before you speak? Rebecca (talk) 23:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

And yet Rebecca, if I had never raised the issue of notability in the first place do you think the article would have improved as much as it has in the last few days? Probably not. Asking questions and dialogue have just as much value as adding content. This discussion has resulted in better sources, more indepth coverage, and overall a better article.Nrswanson (talk) 04:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, and them merge. According to Capedia's new info this certainly makes it more notable. this info was missing before. It led to some precedent which is fair enough. Maybe we can merge this into the background for the Act, and then link from within to the movie. As an isolated event it would not have falled into this category.

Oh, and rebecca, go ahead and read WP:Civility. If you can't converse and need to resort to any sort of attacks then wikipedia is not the place for you. a web log might be more suitable. Lihaas (talk) 10:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

No, you need to check your facts before barging in. A woman is brutally murdered, receiving widespread attention and outrage. As a result, a telemovie is made about the film, and a piece of legislation is named after her, both also notable in their own right. Merging the murder, which received far more attention and far more coverage than either of the subsequent items, into either of those, makes zero sense unless both of a) you're totally clueless about the subject, and b) you're coming into the article hellbent on merging it before you've even done the slightest research. I'm merely suggesting that you attempt to get a clue first, and I don't think that's an unreasonable request considering that that's an encyclpedia. Rebecca (talk) 12:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Irrelevant to how the debate goes, you need be civil to get in a debate. That precludes using foul language.

FOr the rest of it, you have clearly not read the text nor the article. I explicitly said the article does have validity with the new information but it need to be incorporated (far more broadly). Re-read my comment above, turn civil, and then return. Lihaas (talk) 23:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

No, you need to do the most basic research on a subject before romping in and making assertions about it. It's nice that you now accept that the article is notable, having had other people do that research for you, but it still doesn't excuse your behaviour up to this point. Rebecca (talk) 08:41, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree a bit with Rebecca here. Even the most basic of searches would have turned up hundreds of sources. This case is still making headlines as legislation citing her goes through review process. I won't claim transphobia and homophobia here but as this is the third article today I've seen this notability nonsense on I have to question what is the motivation for targeting LGBTI hate crime victims? Hopefully it's just a very odd coincidence but I don't appreciate that effort to question notability when it certainly seems to exist. I also have issue with devaluing these people down to only their killing as the one notable thing about them - that seems awfully callous. -- Banjeboi 00:31, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I haven't been targeting LGBT articles. I have placed similar messages on articles involving the murders of heterosexual people as well (such as Doris Angleton to name just one). I'd appriciate it if you wouldn't be so suspicous. Further, if you read my comments above you would see I have no problem with this article's notability after the major improvements that have been made (which were prompted by the notability discussion so it did some good for this article). My concern is that the encyclopedia adopt a uniform approach to victims of all crimes across the encyclopedia. We have a policy in place but its relatively new so its going to take a while before all articles are properly titled/evaluated for notability.Nrswanson (talk) 00:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

rebecca (and Zapfino), if you will note wikipedia guidelines, the onus of proof is on the person adding documentation, NOT on the person question such veracity. The applied information added later was still not in the article, making it, at the point, invalid. The onus on making it notable is still on someone to add the documentation. Without such notability, it is unnotable. Lihaas (talk) 03:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

To put it politely you are quite full of it. It was plenty notable as a biography but now you're targeting it because the entire article has to be rewritten to account for her death and the resulting media and community response. I think it might be best to have other eyes on this. -- Banjeboi 03:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Uh, Lihaas, Wikipedia's notability policies apply to the subject, not to the article. In other words, what we're concerned with is whether sources exist to prove notability (which is plainly obvious here), not whether the article as currently written looks great. I'm still not sure if you're merely misguided, trying to troll us, or editing Wikipedia stoned. Either way, please knock it off. Rebecca (talk) 03:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

If someone's life has a movie made about them - it's fairly they're notable. -- Banjeboi 04:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

died/murdered

There are BLP issues, due to the fact that not all the people involved were convicted of manslaughter.

Besides murdered is a loaded term, while on a personal level I might agree that she was murdered, I do realise that the term promotes a point of view.

Died/Killed are purely factual terms, they are NPOV and the article loses nothing from their use.

The circumstances of her death and the trial are fully documented later in the article, so readers are more than capable of coming to their own conclusions.

Also consensus is very important for wikipedia, the term died had been used since 2006 - the term murdered has been introduced without any attempt to gain consensus.

Sennen goroshi (talk) 03:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Several of her killers were found guilty of murder. This, by legal definition, means that she was murdered. There are no NPOV issues in that - it's mere legal fact. Using the term "died" isn't neutral in the least; it ignores the fact that people were found guilty of killing her, and found guilty of murder - hell, it implies that she dropped dead. Nor is using the term "killed" appropriate, considering the legal verdicts - it introduces an element of bias in favour of the murderers by removing the weight carried by those verdicts. Rebecca (talk) 12:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

let's deal with this one item at a time. 1. do you have consensus to change an article from the form it has had for about 2 years? if not, obtain consensus. Sennen goroshi (talk) 16:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I for one support the use of the word murder per Rebecca's reasoning above.Nrswanson (talk) 18:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, Rebecca, you want to get technical with semantics. ("Several of her killers were found guilty of murder. This, by legal definition, means that she was murdered.") Actually, only Magidson and Merél were found guilty of murder. Two is not "several." The phrasing in the article -- "murdered by multiple individuals" -- also suggests that there were more than two murderers, and ignores the contributions to her death by people who were not found guilty of murder.

Might I suggest a compromise? How about "who was beaten and strangled to death by multiple individuals"? It's a more active voice than "who died due to an attack by multiple individuals," which Rebecca seems to think downplays the responsibility of the killers, but is more correct than "who was murdered by multiple individuals," for the reasons stated in the previous paragraph.

And everybody, please stop editing that sentence until a consensus is reached. It's ridiculous how it keeps going back and forth. Capedia (talk) 04:29, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I think either is acceptable. I wholeheartedly disagree with Rebecca's silly assertion that the language "died due to an attack by multiple individuals" implies that she simply "dropped dead." If I have to come down on one side or the other, I'd choose "died" because it is less emotionally laden and because one of the attackers plead to manslaughter. Capedia (talk) 22:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

As it stands died does not detract from the article, the article mentions who was found guilty of murder, it states that she died from the attack and consensus has been in place for two years - there are no reasons to change the article. Sennen goroshi (talk) 02:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I've restored the word murder and think it's silly that there's even an edit war over this. Isn't the article called "Murder of Gwen Araujo" and two of the four perpetrators were found guilty of murder while the other two confessed to manslaughter. AniMate 03:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

reverted Benjiboi edits

I reverted edits made by Benjiboi for multiple reasons.

Benjiboi stated that the killing was a hate crime. The jury disagreed.

Benjiboi stated that the killers "killed her because she was born biologically male." There was obviously a lot more to it than that.

Benjiboi states of the killers "two... were formers lovers, and all... had been sexually intimate with her." In fact, the article elsewhere states that only two of the killers were reported to have been sexually intimate with her, and there is no indication that any of them had they kind of relationship with her that is suggested by the term "lovers."

The fact that "the crime was national news" is not necessary to state in an introduction. It is almost implicit by the very existence of the article, and the citations further establish the point.

The fact that a TV movie was made is mentioned elsewhere in the article, and is not significant enough to warrant mention in the introduction.

The fact that it "was regularly compared to the Matthew Shephard case" is not sourced and is also inappropriate for the introduction. Capedia (talk) 04:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree, somewhat. I think hate crime has to go. It was unquestionably was a hate crime, but a jury and one of the sources for the lead (the NY Times) says otherwise. I think there's probably a more artful way of saying that they "killed her because she was born biologically male." It does seem too simplified. The sexual relationships need to be carefully defined without a doubt. The crime as national news, also unnecessary. Completely disagree about the TV movie and comparisons to Matthew Shepard. The fact that a TV movie was made about a transwoman's murder was huge, and this is another watershed murder in the LGBT community. AniMate 04:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflicted with AniMate) I think Benjiboi's lead should generally stand, as it introduces references and removed a lot of stuff which was just generally badly written. That said, I agree with a number of your points. "Hate crime" has assumed a legal meaning, and while I might disagree, we shouldn't be using the language in light of the verdict in the case. I'm not quite sure why you object to the second point (there was more to it? what?), but I agree that the text needs reworking, as "biologically male" is ambiguous (what does it actually mean?). The third is spot on; not sure why that's in the article, but it's wrong and needs to be removed.

I think it is necessary to state - and reference - both the amount of coverage her murder did receive, and the Mathew Shepard comparison (which has been made enough times that it should not be at all difficult to source); since both of these essentially establish why the case was such a notable crime. That is why the movie was made, and the laws were named after her, and all the other fallout from the murder occurred. I think Benjiboi's job on the Murder of Amanda Milan lead is a good example of how to go about this in a neutral and verifiable manner. Rebecca (talk) 04:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how Benjiboi's edits are at all an improvement on what was there before. As for the motives, it's misleading to state simply because she was born biologically male. It's not like the killers just went out and found a transgendered person and killed her out of hatred for transgendered people. It's also because she duped two of them into sexual relations when they were led to believe she was biologically female. What she did to them was reprehensible (even the prosecutor in the case concedes that her actions were "impossible to defend"). I'm not saying that this in any way excuses the killing, but it was a big part of the motive. The motivation is therefore somewhat complex, and should not be described in an oversimplified one-sentence description in the introduction. Leave the introduction the way it was; the motives for the killing are explored elsewhere in the article.

I don't feel very strongly about the mention of the TV movie in the introduction, but I do think it's best left for later in the article. It's certainly not essential to why the article is here. Ditto the Matthew Shephard comparison. And the latter definitely needs to be sourced. Capedia (talk) 05:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The murderers killed Araujo once they discovered that she was transsexual. The facts of the case as described in the article make clear that it was a "trans panic" murder and not a totally random killing; your judgement that they were "duped" is a point of view. The lead section needs to summarise the article, and we need to come up with a brief summary of what actually happened; if you think it needs to be more specific, maybe it should briefly state what occurred, and then summarise the defence they used at the trial.

I'm also ambivalent about the TV movie, but I think it does show the level of attention her death received (considering that out of the hundreds of LGBT hate crime deaths in the US in the last twenty years, only hers, Mathew Shepard's, and Brandon Teena's have been memorialised in such a way). I totally agree that the Mathew Shepard comparison needs to be sourced, but I do think it warrants mentioning, as again it makes it clearer why the article exists. Rebecca (talk) 05:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

You state: "we need to come up with a brief summary of what actually happened; if you think it needs to be more specific, maybe it should briefly state what occurred, and then summarise the defence they used at the trial." That is how the introduction is currently worded. It states simply what happened: "Araujo, a teenage transwoman, was killed by four men, two of whom she had been sexually intimate with. The four men killed her upon discovering that she was transsexual." The details of the defense are left for later in the article. I'm cool with that wording. You? Capedia (talk) 05:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

If you're fine with that wording, then no objections on this end. Rebecca (talk) 05:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, Rebecca, with regards to your most recent edit, "was murdered by four men" is certainly inappropriate. Only two were found guilty of murder. Please see my most recent comments on this subject in the "died/murdered" section on this Talk page. Capedia (talk) 05:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I do take your point here. With the text as it is now, I'm not actually opposed to using the language "killed"; while it's not great, I can't think of a better way to put that while there were four people involved, only two of them were actually found guilty of the crime, and with the new lead sentence the changes no longer impliedly claim that it wasn't a murder. Rebecca (talk) 05:20, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone will walk away after reading this article thinking that she wasn't murdered. The title of the article after all is "Murder of Gwen Araujo", and since two of the attackers were convicted of murder and the case is refered to in numerous sources as a murder trial, its an appropriate and accurate title. On a side note, good job fixing the issues between the two versions.Nrswanson (talk) 05:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I've had another reworking of the lead in an attempt to address Capedia's issues above. I know my prose can be a little bit clunky at times, but I hope I've addressed some of the concerns. Rebecca (talk) 05:29, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm not a huge fan of your most recent edit. The previous version said:

Araujo, a teenage transwoman, was killed by four men, two of whom she had been sexually intimate with. The four men killed her upon discovering that she was transsexual.

Your edit says:

Araujo, a teenage transwoman, had been sexually intimate with two men, among a group of four. Upon discovering that the woman that they had been intimate with was transsexual, the four men beat Araujo to death.

Although the information is mostly the same, I think the first version reads a little better. The one factual difference is that in the latter edit you mention the method of the killing. I don't think it's necessary to describe the method in the introduction, but if you want to do that, you should say beat and strangled, not just beat. Capedia (talk) 05:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Already reverted. I'd made that edit in light of what you'd said above; when you said you were fine with the wording as is, I reverted it as the previous one was better written. Rebecca (talk) 05:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I've reworked the hate crimes part as it was factually incorrect the way it previously suggested, I added sources to back it up as well. The bottom line was not that they weren't guilty of a hate crime but that the jury had been asked to find them guilty of a hate crime-enhancements but were unable to because the law was written poorly - at least at that time. A well-written article would drill down to show why the enhancements failed. -- Banjeboi 15:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I can agree with that addition. If the jurors said that's why didn't convict with hate crime enhancements, it would be one thing. However, the reference shows that a trans activist says that she believes the law was poorly written. Unfortunately, that makes it her opinion, not a fact. Also, the point of this and any article isn't to "drill down" why hate crime legislation failed, it's to simply layout the facts. We're not advocates, unfortunately. AniMate 16:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

It was a fairly comprehensive article covering several people's input of why the jury couldn't apply the hate crimes enhancements. And it involved more than just a trans activist. I suppose we can search for someone with more legalese who says the same thing. -- Banjeboi 01:04, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

edit war?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sennen_goroshi#.28More.29_Gwen_Araujo

I shall step back from this article, due to constant reverts. Rebecca, I suggest you do the same. You were lucky not to get reported from 3RR, as per my talk page.

Sennen goroshi (talk) 05:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

the four men beat Araujo to death

that is an improvement - makes it clear it was a violent death, but stays away from the 4 killers/2 murders issue.

however, I thought she was strangled. the above sounds great, however it might not be accurate

Sennen goroshi (talk) 05:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Oops. Thank you for pointing that out. Fixed. Rebecca (talk) 05:38, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Araujo was strangled and beaten after the discovery that she was transsexual.?? that seems a touch better, but it does not mention that the strangulation and/or beating caused her death. Have there been any reports as to which caused her death? Sennen goroshi (talk) 05:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Araujo's death was caused by strangulation and/or repeated blows after the discovery that she was transsexual.?? Sennen goroshi (talk) 05:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

According to the article: "the autopsy showed that she died from strangulation associated with blunt force trauma to the head." The introduction as currently worded states only that she was strangled. I propose one of the following:

Araujo, a teenage transwoman, was killed by four men, two of whom she had been sexually intimate with. The four men killed her upon discovering that she was transsexual.

Or:

Araujo, a teenage transwoman, was killed by four men, two of whom she had been sexually intimate with. The four men beat and strangled her to death upon discovering that she was transsexual.

Between the two of them, I have a slight preference for the former. Capedia (talk) 05:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't have much of a preference either way - if you prefer the former that's fine by me. Rebecca (talk) 05:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

"transwoman"?

I'm not entirely familiar with how this terminology is used, but "transwoman" contains "woman," and since "woman" implies an adult, I'm wondering if the same is true of "transwoman." Since Araujo was a minor when she was killed, is this appropriate? Would it be more accurate to describe her as a "transgirl" instead of "transwoman"? Capedia (talk) 06:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I've only ever really seen transgirl used in more casual terms, though it's still correct. Since she was seventeen, it might be better to just use transwoman. Rebecca (talk) 07:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

When died

I removed the bit that said they killed her when they did the initial attack. In one of the sources the trial focussed on when she did actually die - we should source it and then re-add if needed. -- Banjeboi 15:08, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Benjiboi again

Oh, come on, Benji. Rebecca, Sennen, Nrswanson and I worked really hard last night to work out a version of the introduction that is acceptable to all, and then you come along an undo our work and put in all this POV stuff again. "The jury failed to uphold the requested hate crime-enhancements due to the poorly-written hate crime law in California" is very obviously POV. Also, the details of where the body was hidden and when and how the murder came to light is far more detail than is necessary for an introduction section. Capedia (talk) 17:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I have come to this article cold off the back of this AN/I and I have to agree, this article needs a lot of work to bring it upto standard. Capedia - can you link the diff of the other version you mention? --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:01, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Why do we need this blow by blow account of the trials? what is notable about the trial? has it lead to changes in the law? I just reams of unsourced run of the mill commentary. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:20, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Not sure we need a blow by blow account, but the fact that there were so many mistrials is clearly relevant. Also, the mistrials and the fact that none of the perpetrators were convicted of hate crimes lead to the Gwen Araujo Justice for Victims act. I will agree, however, that a lot more work needs to be done here. AniMate 18:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Capedia, please focus on the content and not the contributor. This article was recently moved from being a biography to being about only her murder - the entire lede had to be reworked. It's also been perpetually tagged - for notability and references and I have done nothing but try to add content and sources to address this. If you would dialog first and then work towards deleting material you might be less frustrated with the process. -- Banjeboi 01:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Benjiboi, I didn't mean anything personal. My objections were to the content you added, and I explained why. Capedia (talk) 02:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Who had sexual relations with Araujo?

In the lead, it is stated, "Araujo, a teenage transwoman, was killed by four men, two of whom she had been sexually intimate with." Later in the article, it is stated, "Cazares [was] the only defendant to testify at that first trial and the only defendant who never had a physical relationship with Araujo." So which is it? Did she have sexual relations with two of them, or with three of them? Capedia (talk) 20:31, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I think we should scrub the whole section down to the facts of the trial, who was convicted, the verdicts etc and then build back up from there. there is so much unsourced material in there, it's hard to know where to start otherwise. --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Jaron Nabors wasn't a defendant, so Cezares was the only defendant who didn't have sex with her. AniMate 20:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I get it. Thanks. Capedia (talk) 20:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Narrative Therapy

Narrative Therapy: Making Meaning, Making Lives by Catrina Brown, Tod Augusta-Scott. The use of this as a reference isn't immediately clear to me - what does it say about this particular case? --Cameron Scott (talk) 01:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

That books discusses how the defendents saw the revelation of her transsexuality as threatening their heterosexuality - because I had sex with someone who had male genitalia I had gay sex. -- Banjeboi 01:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. --Cameron Scott (talk) 01:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Removed from lede

“ They put Araujo's body in a truck for a four-hour drive and buried her near the Sierra Nevada mountains. The murder went unreported for days. Two weeks after the body was buried, Jaron Nabors, one of the four attackers, led authorities to the gravesite in "exchange for his guilty plea to voluntary manslaughter and a promise to testify at the trial". ”

The above was removed from the lede. This article is about the murder. That her body was driven for four hours, buried; unreported for days and the body undiscovered for two weeks and only found after a plea bargain were all compounding factors in this crime and certainly notable enough for a mention in the lede. Per WP:LEDE I think it should be replaced. -- Banjeboi 01:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so - the lead covers that she was beaten, strangled and murdered - the fine detail can come later. --Cameron Scott (talk) 01:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Disagree, these are salient points impacting the investigation, trial, public perception and sentencing. -- Banjeboi 01:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Really? You think the reaction to the case would be any different if the body had been buried four minutes away instead of four hours away? Would it be any different if, say, somebody had seen them loading the body into the trunk and reported it right away instead of the murder going undiscovered for a few days? These details may have had a minor impact on the trial and the sentencing, but I don't understand why you think they are so essential to the case that they merit description in the lede. Capedia (talk) 02:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

These issues speak directly to motivation, premeditation and complicity. That the body was driven four hours and concealed; that her disappearance went unreported for days speaks to cultural issues - which we may or may not know - and that her body was only found as after a plea bargain was struck are signs of how the judicial system works and informs on the typo of evidence the prosecution had to work with. If you insist on dehumanizing Araujo to being only notable for being brutally murdered then the lede needs to refocus on the salient points of the murder. If you prefer we could change it back to a biography and the murder details can be housed in more chronological order. -- Banjeboi 04:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

name of article

Gwen Gale changed the title of the article back to "Gwen Araujo" because of a "non-consensus move." I was under the impression that we had a consensus here, and the change was made because the article is about her death and its aftermath, not about the person. Per WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E, the article should cover the event, not the person. Titling the article "Gwen Araujo" suggests that the article is a biography, and invites editors to add information about the person that is not relevant to the event and its aftermath. Did anybody object to the name change from "Gwen Araujo" to "Murder of Gwen Araujo"? Capedia (talk) 19:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Could you please post a diff showing consensus for moving this article to Murder of X title format? Thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:33, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

There's no such a thing as a "diff showing consensus".

A diff showing the consensus (click the blue links), as in "I was under the impression that we had a consensus here." Thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree with move-back. This is an article about a notable murder case, not a biography. --Damiens.rf 19:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Not supported by WP:Title. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Which specific bit? --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Title#Use_the_most_easily_recognized_name: Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.

This is justified by the following principle:

The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists.

Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject.

• Hence, Murder of X is neither easy nor second nature, will almost always have a reader coming to the content through a redirect and is not the name this topic is known by in most reliable sources. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:47, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The discussion about the original name change has been archived.

"Murder of" is a very common convention. I don't know how to find out exactly how many, but when I type it in the search box, it lists the first ten matches alphabetically, and they're all in the A's. If there are 10 just in the A's, there are probably well over a hundred overall.

The concern with the title "Gwen Araujo" is that it may lead people to believe that the article is supposed to be about the person rather than the event, and thereby encourage editors to add content that is not appropriate because, per Wikipedia guidelines, the article should be about the event and not the person. Araujo is not a notable person except for the circumstances of her death and its aftermath.

Unfortunately, WP:BIO1E does not give any specific guidance on how to name the article. However, it does state that there should be an "article on the event itself" and that a "separate biography" is "unwarranted."

I don't see it as necessarily a bad thing that people will mostly be coming to the article via a redirect. Thanks to the redirect, the article is still easy to find, and when the reader arrives at the article, he will see that the title of the article is actually "Murder of Gwen Araujo," which will let him know that the article is about the event and not about the person. Capedia (talk) 20:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think readers care at all about your take on whether the article has to do with the crime or the person, since crimes are about people. Rather, I think many readers will tend to be nettled by the fussiness with the name and wonder what stirred it up. "Erm, yeah, I know they were murdered. Yeah, I know that's why they're famous, so the article will be mostly about the crime." WP:title doesn't support this twisted naming and I still haven't been given a diff to the claimed consensus. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the fact that you are the only person complaining on this talk page says something. The people who have actually been involved in editing this article support the "Murder of Gwen Araujo" title. "Murder of..." is a common naming convention so I don't think your WP:Title arguement holds water.Nrswanson (talk) 22:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

There aren't many editors here. I'm likely one of the few who is even aware of this, is all. Either way, the number of editors discussing WP:Title has nothing to do with its meaning. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

So should we go through and change the literally over a thousand articles (do a search) entitled "Murder of..." articles? I don't think so. As for consensus, we have one here but it just isn't the one you like. I don't think your interpretation of WP:Title is meant to include titles that can easily be misinterpreted or misconstrued simply becuase they are the most likely thing someone is going to type in a search. That's why we have redirects.Nrswanson (talk) 22:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree - this should go back to "murder of..." --Cameron Scott (talk) 22:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I don't want to go on about this (and won't much longer, no worries). I'm even willing to move it back if only to keep the peace, but thousands of articles called Murder of X? A lengthy dropdown menu box search shows maybe 200. A Google string search shows less in the first 10 pages of results. Your assertion looks to me like it's more than an order of magnitude too high. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for overstating this issue (I did an internal search that came back with more hits but I guess I did it wrong), but I still think the lesser numbers display a common naming convention. Consider also articles like "kidnapping of..." or "(Name) murder case" and the numerous other similar naming conventions. Your title arguement would have to address these as well which it doesn't. Regardless, I think consensus here is for "Murder of Gwen Araujo".Nrswanson (talk) 23:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I guess y'all know I don't like this. Maybe I've stirred up something more to think about, at least. Meantime I'll move it back. Heh. Maybe when we run into each other again sometime we'll get lucky and somehow stumble into agreeing on something :) Gwen Gale (talk) 23:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree with Gwen Gale and i think other editors who have been chased away from editing here do as well. There has been a persistent and apparently ongoing effort to dehumanize this murder victim - as well as a few other LGBT hate crime victims on Wikipedia - that is both chilling and tenditious. That sourced content is repeatedly deleted, that items are reworded to change the meanings and the attackers crimes mitigated in various ways that promote an anti-LGBT agenda should concern editors here. I fully invite administrative overview on the edits and editors here and similar articles but i certainly won't hold my breath that it happens. -- Banjeboi 02:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, give me a break. This has nothing to do with "dehumanizing the victim." It has to do with keeping the name of the article consistent with the subject of the article, and not encouraging editors to add inappropriate content.

And what "anti-LGBT agenda" are you referring to? Name one change that an active editor of this article has made that shows any indication of anti-LGBT bigotry. Capedia (talk) 06:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes that's it, we are evil evil people. How about you grow up a bit and assume a little bit of good faith on the part of your fellow editors? I only noticed this article because of your comments at AN/I - thank you for allowing me to become part of this "ongoing effort dehumanize this murder victim", the chance to do that makes all of my time at wikipedia worthwhile. As for admin overview I welcome it - all I see here is a group of editors, sourcing material, removing guesswork and weasel words and doing general clean-up. If you see something else - well... --Cameron Scott (talk) 02:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Significant coverage from multiple reliable sources, a made for TV movie, a memorial fund, and she passes the google test: 40k+ hits. She appears to be notable in her own right. Which notability guideline does she fail? Queerudite (talk) 04:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

To answer your question, wikipedia's guidelines regarding victims says the following, "Victims of high-profile crimes do not automatically qualify as notable enough to have a stand-alone article solely based on their status as victims. Notability with regards to this is defined as satisfying some other aspect of the notability of persons guideline that does not relate to the crime in question. As such, a victim of a crime should normally only be the subject of an article where an article that satisfied notability criteria existed, or could have properly been created prior to the crime's commission. Thus, attempts at inclusion prompted by appearance in the press should not be excluded if notability can be otherwise asserted." All of the above content is not related to her life prior to her tragic murder but to her death and her status as a victim.Nrswanson (talk) 05:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

To answer your question more accurately ... none. the proposed and contentious guideline quoted above are under construction. There is no need or policy to mitigate her life and legacy down to the murder alone. As for the anti-LGBT bias I'll let others who have the stomach and patience to deal with that. I've only seen overt instances from a couple of the editors on the three articles - that I'm currently aware of - that brought these issues t my attention but sadly homophobia isn't unique to Wikipedia and isn't rare here either. -- Banjeboi 22:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah that's it we are all homophobes. You want to put up or shut up? Let's have the specifics? who? what edits? where? diffs? Because the way you talk out of the side of your mouth about your fellow editors is pretty fucking low. If you want to make it about the editors, provide the evidence of misconduct, otherwise quit with the attempts to sling shit. --Cameron Scott (talk) 22:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Cameron Scott, I don't know you and have not, as far as I'm aware, looked into your edit history. i have no interest in doing so but also will not apologize for being concerned about other editors conduct here and on similar articles. Perhaps I should have just kept my concerns to myself but I felt that they were warranted here and elsewhere. I have reported many folks as their editing broke more obvious vandalism or other disruptive behaviour but frankly homophobia/transphobia are pretty far down on many admins list of concerns and digging through user and article histories to provide subjective proof is time-consuming, disheartening and emotionally draining. If you want to be offended that is your issue, i find homophobia quite offensive but I also accept that similar to other forms of hatred on wikipedia it has to go well into other behavioral issues before much, if any, action occurs. Do I want to prove to you, or anyone that some of our fellow editors are conducting themselves as I have stated - no. Can I - I think so. But it's even more of a time-suck than the edit-warring on these subjects has already been. I know that eventually a good article will emerge and it will be at Gwen Araujo - it would be better for Wikipedia if that happened sooner than later but I'm in no rush. -- Banjeboi 23:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

• Please see Talk:Matthew_Shepard#Renaming_of_anti-LGBT_victims. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

page protected

I have protected this article for one week owing to edit warring. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:00, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

first trial

The first trial section of this is still completely unsourced - do none of the exists sources mention it? --Cameron Scott (talk) 22:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Male versus Female

A major missing component to this article is the correct description regarding sex. Editors here have claimed "Gwen" was a female through the use of she instead of he in the article. With the individual being both biologically and physically male, this article appears to ignore fact. If I go to a doctor, claim I am female, but am a male, I'm still considered a male. Can we at least modify the content which consists of blatant disregard for fact to use the proper sex. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.192.225.28 (talk) 23:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Transgender people are referred to by the pronouns of their target gender, not the pronouns of their birth gender. It's not radical politics; it's just simple basic politeness — gender is a matter of what's in your head, not a matter of what's dangling between your thighs. Bearcat (talk) 04:09, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Potential Source -- Appellate Opinion

A lot of the unsourced assertions in the article can now be sourced to the California Court of Appeal opinion affirming the convictions against Magidson and Morel, issued today (May 13, 2009). See People v. Morel (Cal.Ct.App. May 13, 2009, A113056).. Since I have no desire to edit the article further personally at this moment (I will say this — I was extremely frustrated by those who chose to be legally inaccurate in their edits for advocacy reasons, even though Wikipedia is not a soapbox), I am not going to insert the references myself, but anyone should feel free to do so. I'd certainly be more than happy to explain certain parts of the opinion which may include legal jargon, but please make any requests for me to do so on my talk page. --Nlu (talk) 16:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, I am not going to move the article myself, since I think a consensus is required, but I also believe "Murder of Gwen Araujo" is POV as an article name. First, at the time of the death, Gwen was not Gwen legally (and the legal charging documents in this case did not refer to her as Gwen Araujo, but Edward Araujo). Second, and perhaps more importantly, neither Cazares nor Nabors was convicted of murder, but only of manslaughter. Sure, Morel and Magidson were convicted of murder, but "Murder of Gwen Araujo" would certainly imply that it was legally a murder as to all of the guilty parties, which is not true. --Nlu (talk) 16:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

This article is called "Murder of..." because it's about the murder. The title does not implies that everyone mentioned in the article is a murderer.

Also, I believe we should mention the victim by its more common name (that I believe to be Gwen). It doesn't matters that she/he wasn't called like that at the time. As a matter of fact, Pope Benedict XVI wasn't called Pope Benedict XVI during the early life of Pope Benedict XVI. --Damiens.rf 21:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

There's a long-standing guideline that we use the name a person uses themselves to refer to them on Wikipedia - it's basic BLP stuff, really. Rebecca (talk) 01:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

At the time of Gwen's death, she was referring to herself as Lida. --Nlu (talk) 13:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

No, she was going by Gwen. There is no evidence that she referred to herself by that name except to her murderers. Furthermore, her mother's posthumous changing of her legal name to "Gwen" settles the issue beyond doubt for Wikipedia purposes. Rebecca (talk) 14:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at the Court of Appeal opinion. --Nlu (talk) 03:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at Wikipedia's guidelines. Rebecca (talk) 05:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

If there is not a consensus among editors let me chime in. Her name was Gwen, the case is known as the Gwen Araujo murder. And yes, exactly , her name was changed to Gwen Araujo. DarlieB (talk) 19:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Other names?

Is it particularly necessary for this article to include Gwen Araujo's birth name? 69.244.221.134 (talk) 00:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

It is pretty unusual to have a postumous name change as happened here and as well as that it is part of the court events. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nirame (talk • contribs) 19:50, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

removed link to Dylan Vade article

I removed a link to a Dylan Vade article from the External Links section. Vade's argument is that it is as reasonable to assume that a person's apparent gender and biological gender are different as it is to assume that they are the same. It's a completely idiotic position, and I assume it's a fringe position. I can't imagine there are a lot of people who think that way. Unless someone can show me I'm wrong, I don't think that link belongs in the article.

Vade's other point is a claim that the defense argued that Gwen deserved to die, which is simply libelous. Capedia (talk) 04:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

You have grossly misrepresented the meaning and spirit of that article. I find your ease of mischaracterizing their points and labeling their views as "libelous" quite alarming. From a quick read it seems Vade's point is that no one deserves to die because someone perceives them to be masking their birth gender. Araujo didn't tell then she was born male and they didn't tell her they were homophobic enough to kill someone. Her point about the defense team? That they are utilizing "transgender/gay panic" - a legal defense that allows for LGBT people to be killed because - y'know the killer paniced that their heterosexuality was at risk. -- Banjeboi 04:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• No issue of sexual deception - article by Dylan Vade, former co-director of the Transgender Law Center

The Trials

The section on the trials is very confusing. What happened at the first trial? Why did there have to be a second trial? What were the sentences for those convicted at the second trial? The jury could not reach a verdit for one defendant. What happened to that defendant? Was there a new trial? Did the prosecutor decide to not retry? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.194.170.167 (talk) 02:50, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Name

This article makes passing allusions to the fact that Gwen Araujo's chosen name was not the name she'd been given at birth. But it doesn't state this directly, or say what it was. Wikipedia policy says that she should be consistently identified as female, and that's as it should be. But I am aware of no Wikipedia policy which requires – or justifies – suppressing the name she was given at birth (and her legal name throughout her life).

I just dug thru the history and found her given name: Edward, Jr. It was removed on the grounds that it was supposedly "insulting to transsexual people in general". That grandiose proclamation is not justified (plenty of trans people are OK with their given names being known). Araujo in particular didn't want to be called Edward, but she was, and it is emphatically not Wikipedia's responsibility to suppress information about a person just because the subject might have preferred that we didn't mention it. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 15:19, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Murder of Gwen Araujo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090515165010/http://cbs5.com:80/crime/transgender.teen.murder.2.1009236.html to http://cbs5.com/crime/transgender.teen.murder.2.1009236.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:04, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Murder of Gwen Araujo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120218211657/http://www.tampabaycoalition.com/files/225GewnAraujoFourArticles.htm to http://www.tampabaycoalition.com/files/225GewnAraujoFourArticles.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090131142859/http://www.gpac.org:80/violence/news.html?cmd=view&msgnum=0476 to http://www.gpac.org/violence/news.html?cmd=view&msgnum=0476
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120218211909/http://www.transgenderzone.com/library/st/fulltext/59.htm to http://www.transgenderzone.com/library/st/fulltext/59.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:03, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Birth name

The assertion that Gwen Araujo was never notable under her legal/birth name "Edward" is incorrect. She was widely reported about under that name, both following her death and during the trial of her killers. Obscuring the name serves no encyclopedic purpose, and if someone comes to this article after searching for "Edward Araujo" (or one of the variations that redirect here), they should be given confirmation in the lede that they've arrived at the article about that person. Remember: our first duty is to the readers, not the preferences of the subject. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 19:21, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

MOS:BIRTHNAME: "In the case of transgender and non-binary people, birth names should be included in the lead sentence only when the person was notable prior to coming out" (emphasis added). I'm moving the name to a later sentence in the lede. - Charlotte Aryanne (talk) 23:03, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I find your solution awkward, and it's inconsistent with how Wikipedia articles are normally written, but it achieves the intent of the guideline – that people who became notable under another name have that name presented prominently in the lede – so I won't contest it. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 01:09, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Murder of Gwen Araujo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090201000001/http://www.ebar.com/news/article.php?sec=news&article=153 to http://www.ebar.com/news/article.php?sec=news&article=153
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090203141117/http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20040601-0012-ca-transgenderkilling.html to http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20040601-0012-ca-transgenderkilling.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140222012346/http://www.ktvu.com/news/news/timeline-for-gwen-araujo-murder-trials/nKQ5m/ to http://www.ktvu.com/news/news/timeline-for-gwen-araujo-murder-trials/nKQ5m/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.law.ucla.edu/williamsinstitute/press/LawyersDebateGayPanicDefense.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.eqca.org/site/apps/s/content.asp?c=kuLRJ9MRKrH&b=4096757&ct=5197507
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150623111549/http://www.eqca.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=kuLRJ9MRKrH&b=8951121&ct=13726343 to http://www.eqca.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=kuLRJ9MRKrH&b=8951121&ct=13726343

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:49, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Article about "trans-panic" defense

I removed a dead link to what was supposed to be a copy of an article on the trans-panic defense from a law journal. (It might have been a copyright violation anyway; in fact, that may be why it's now a dead link.) Does anybody have a citation (even without a link) to the original article? --Orange Mike | Talk 13:53, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Five and a half years later ... this is the original citation that was removed:

[http://www.homestead.com/Jaimesite/Trans_Panic.pdf Legal Analysis of Trans Panic Defense from Boston College Third World Law Journal]

... here is what I believe is the original article (same journal source, and written in 2005, so it should have existed in 2012:

• Steinberg, Victoria (May 2005). "A Heat of Passion Offense: Emotions and Bias in "Trans Panic" Mitigation Claims". Boston College Third World Law Journal. 25 (2). Retrieved 1 April 2018.

Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 20:35, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Repeated inappropriate addition of person-related categories

I've twice had to remove a number of person-related categories from this article and thus I'm taking the time to spell out Wikipedia policy here. This article is about an event - the murder of Gwen Araujo, not about Araujo the individual. Thus, each any every category here has to pertain to an event, not an individual. It is still possible to add categories for Araujo, but this have to be placed on the "Gwen Araujo" redirect and I have already taken the time to move them there. As stated previously, the policy page for this is at WP:RCAT. To be clear, it doesn't matter if editors want these cats to be more visible by having them placed in the article, its simply against policy to do so and so not allowed. Furthermore, supposedly "invisible" categories do serve a purpose becasue readers can easily view a category and see all the various entries within it (those which redirect are shown in italics).--Shakehandsman (talk) 04:38, 17 September 2018 (UTC)