This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
The statement in dispute is this:"The Native Women's Association of Canada believe the number to be as high as 4,000 victims since 1980". I went to the Native Women's Association of Canada website and according to their own fact sheet "NWAC has gathered information about 582 cases of missing and murdered Aboriginal women and girls". As I read through the website, I see nothing about 4,000 victims. There is a mention that the number may be inaccurate, and that there are likely undocumented cases.
The number of 4000 missing women is 3000 more than what the RCMP found. If the methodology of the police, native activists, the media, social workers, everyone is so off that 3000 women can be missing or murdered, then we have a major issue on our hand. What was the methodology flaw that so many people have made in counting missing and murdered women that resulted the number being off by 300% of the estimate? Since Patty Hajdu, the person who cited the statistic, claims to care for native women, then her priority should be telling the police, other activists, the media, anyone who will listen about these MISSING THREE THOUSAND WOMEN.
The thing is the statistic of 4000 women is based on one person, at one time, in one article. It seems to be a personal opinion and not even the opinion of the organization she represent. If anyone feels this statistic should stand, then someone should provide any organization that is citing numbers around 4000, or an explanation as to how the number was calculated, or the flaws in the methodology of previous statistics. DivaNtrainin ( talk) 23:07, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
(The below comment was moved to the appropriate section, there has been no editing of the content) - — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:DivaNtrainin ( talk • contribs)
DivaNtrainin, why are you deleting sourced content about the higher numbers? If you are aware of the many issues surrounding the inquiry, you must know about the inadequacies and frustrations happening. You reverted under the guise of just this "crisis" discussion. I have amended it to note that the source says this is the number claimed by activists and families, not the police. But given the conflict between authorities and families on this issue, both need to be represented here for NPOV. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 17:05, 22 October 2017 (UTC) DivaNtrainin ( talk) 21:24, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
@ DivaNtrainin: so in addition to refactoring others' talk page comments you are ignoring what's in the sources themselves and talk page consensus. Here we have two of us disagreeing with you. You do not have consensus to keep reverting. You are now edit-warring. (also pinging @ Velella:) - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 21:56, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
(Moved DivaNtrainin's comment below here from my talk page. Article talk is the place for this) - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 18:44, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Specifically I will edit the article tomorrow with this edits unless you provide some criticism against it, that is not how we do things. See WP:CONSENSUS and WP:NODEADLINE. You need to get consensus first, and if you do make WP:BOLD edits that people have expressed doubts about you should not be surprised when they get reverted. Fyddlestix ( talk) 21:03, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
The reason that I have removed the word "crisis" and replaced it with the term "social issue" is because "crisis" is a weasel word. I agree that missing and murdered women has negative affects on a community, but just because something is bad or wrong or negative, doesn't mean it qualifies as a crisis. The term crisis has very specific connotations. It suggests a specific event with a specific start and end. For example, the crisis in Puerto Rico started with Hurricane Maria and will end at a defined point, say when all utilities are back on board. That doesn't mean that Puerto Rico will be fully recovered, but it will no longer be a "crisis".
However, if you feel that the case of missing and murdered indigenous women meets the definition of crisis, please explain. It is ok to put a weasel word in a Wikipedia article as long as you put qualifiers, context, or supporting information with it. If you provide more context, we can insert sentences explaining the crisis into the body of the article. In fact, it may even justify putting a whole section into the article, explaining that. However, the context has to be more than saying "murder is bad. murder affects a community". Everyone knows that. Even the Wikipedia article for murder doesn't need to mention that. We are looking for well-researched, well-studied argument for explaining why this meets the definition of crisis. DivaNtrainin ( talk) 01:08, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
We should stick with crisis. Sorry but this is extremely well documented: [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]. A very wide range of sources use the term "crisis" rather than weasel terms like "issue" to describe the problem of MMIW, we can not and should not be removing it because one (or two) editors don't like it. Fyddlestix ( talk) 03:14, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
If hundreds to thousands of white people had been murdered, I don't think there would be a debate, or a demand to explain why the word "crisis" is warranted. I think this is a systemic bias issue. @ Fyddlestix: I'll go over the sources, but I can see just by the URLs that the word "crisis" is used. I think we have support for using the word. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 16:45, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
The lead mentions this is a critical issue for indigenous communities in both Canada and the US, but the article is all about Canadian data, activism, issues, and projects. This may be appropriate in terms of organizations mobilized, the specific cases related to the Highway of Tears, and the recent Canadian National Inquiry, but shouldn't there at least be a paragraph on the situation in the US? The Lead is supposed to summarize the article. Parkwells ( talk) 16:18, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
I am beginning to compile sources to make a section on this issue specifically focused on the US. I'm inclined to believe that the situation is just as serious in both countries, but I will just start with a small section and see where it goes. My intentions are to get to the point where this information on the US can be worked into larger sections which are currently dominated by Canadian statistics. Any ideas about how to make this transition smoother would be appreciated, as this is the first article I've edited, ever.
Anon notmax (
talk)
02:43, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Annie Mae Aquash is listed under "See Also" but she was a politically prominent leader of AIM in the US. While it has been proven that she was murdered by other Native Americans, I don't think her case is typical of those covered in this article, which tend to be marginalized women. Parkwells ( talk) 22:41, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Missing and murdered Indigenous women. 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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:44, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
In general I wonder if this article should add "Canada" to its title. What do you think? Fred ( talk) 15:47, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I made a recent edit to the section titled Washington State House Bill 2951. I also added a new citation to support my edit. Here it is: [1] The other inline citation in this section [58] is no longer valid as it leads to an error page. It doesn't support the information in that section and isn't helpful to users who may want to find out more about the bill. I am a new Wikipedia contributor and I'm wondering if it's okay to go ahead and delete this citation? I am hoping to get some feedback from those who have been working on the article.
Myself and a couple of other contributors are part of an English class and we are doing research now to be able to update the article, primarily the US Initiatives section as there is a lot currently happening concerning this issue that we believe will enhance the article. We look forward to discussing with the rest of the contributors!
Agoatsay ( talk) 01:30, 31 March 2019 (UTC)agoatsay
All - I was wondering about changing the title to "Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls." Adding "and Girls." There are a few references and sections in this article that include "and Girls." In fact, some of the studies and bills include "and Girls" for both the US and Canada. Source 13 - About us - National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls Source 32 - Urban Indian Health Institute Source 57 - Recognizing the National Day of Awareness for Missing and Murdered Native Women and Girls What do you all think about adding it to the title? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CuseFan99 ( talk • contribs) 01:01, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
There seems to be some serious edit warring to introduce unsourced information into the lede. I cannot find anywhere in the third party source or in the primary source of:
I give up on having the editor fix their own work, so I changed it to "according to activists "thousands of cases" of missing and murdered Indigenous women over the last half-century were not properly investigated due to alleged police bias." For this I reference "In her wake came thousands of cases of deaths and disappearances that activists say were not properly investigated." from the source. Of 19 ( talk) 23:03, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Does anybody have any sources (other then the 2015 RCMP report) that describe any demographics of the perpetrators of the murders. If a certain group is being targeted, and words like genocide are being thrown around, then it would only make sense that the most important thing to know would be who is doing the targeting. I've read the reports and supplemental material. There's plenty of excellent references showing past actions by the Canadian government that point to them as a major cause of these deaths. What I'm failing to find is any sources of information that explain why it is currently occurring. I could not find any information in the report on who is currently responsible for these murders. If it's being caused by people that are part of the group itself, that would require a completely different response then caused by those outside that group. It just seems that the demographics of those committing the murders currently would be of the utmost importance, but the sources of information on this are incredibly sparse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecaftuls ( talk • contribs) 17:50, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
I provided well sourced reasoning for my changes, you ignored that and changed it back. You failed to provide any counter to my sourced reasoning for making the change, therefore I believe the edit warring is entirely from your side. SpoonLuv ( talk) 14:31, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
I have been accused of vandalism for removing the information about the majority of sexual assaults on indigenous women being from non-indigenous men. This page is about missing and murdered, not sexually assaulted. There is little correlation between sexual assault and murder [3]. The only specific statistic for murders appears to show an oposite correlation [4]. The section on this page incorrectly infers that non indigenous people may be the primary culprits regarding the murdering of indigenous women which just isn't true. The majority of violence against indigenous people occurs on the reservation, and from indigenous people [5], this includes murder. Inferring that non-indigenous people are the direct cause of the murders is destructive to the subject, and falsely paints a narrative that prevents the issue itself from being improved upon. It steers the narrative away from the likelihood that non-indigenous peoples indirect actions are likely the cause of a significant portion of the issue at hand. [6] [7]. Including statistics for a different and unrelated crime is clearly not useful to include in an article about a specific issue. Sexual assault is very low down on the list of things leading to murder. A robbery is 38 times more likely to result in a murder [8]. If information about unrelated crimes to the subject of the article is important, wouldn't statistics on robbery be 38 times more important to include? The admin that removed the content asked me to explain why I was removing content properly when doing so in the edit summary. I thoroughly explained why I did it in both the article and their talk page, yet they accused me of vandalism, after doing exactly what they asked me to do. Then immediately after undoing my edit, the articles protection level was raised. Please help me reach consensus and keep articles on Wikipedia non-biased and factually driven. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpoonLuv ( talk • contribs) 14:01, 9 July 2019 (UTC) SpoonLuv ( talk) 14:08, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
References
As an interested reader... - unsigned comment by 108.178.149.234 on 01:48, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
|
---|
As an interested reader who believes this is a genuinely serious matter, I felt increasingly incredulous once I passed the "Final report June 3, 2019" header. One gets the sickening impression this entire subject is being hijacked by those attempting to further their own personal agendas, not actually get to the heart of the matter and help solve this complex crisis. Being a victim of violence myself, I KNOW how serious this is. Violence forever alters your life and not in a good way. For instance, the very first sentence after the "Final report" headline strains the imagination. Do people really believe the state, which of course must be Canada, engages in "actions and inactions rooted in colonialism and colonial ideologies" that are "built on the presumption of superiority" and which are "utilized to maintain power and control over the land and the people by oppression and in many cases, by eliminating them?" Really? Do people actually believe this? I sure don't. Why do Wikipedia's editors feel they have to wait until they find a wildly ridiculous - and utterly misleading - comment buried on page 54 to try and highlight the report's "findings?" I have family who have lived in Canada for many, many decades and never, ever did I have the impression Canada is "oppressing" anyone, let alone engaged in "eliminating them." Things are just as bad right after this, when someone quotes the "inquiry's chief commissioner" Marion Buller, by first writing "...the high level of violence directed at FNIM women and girls is" and then using what must be the quote "caused by state actions and inactions rooted in colonialism and colonial ideologies." Again, who in their right mind believes the state is "causing" this?! One might argue the state's inaction on various levels is a contributing factor, but it sure isn't the state raping and killing these women and girls. Using such statements as an opening on the findings of this report smacks of pure opportunism. Of course "the state" is to blame for these killings. Not the actual murderers! How come I didn't realize such an obvious "epiphany?" Interestingly, no one bothers to discover why so many commission members felt obliged to resign. Could it be they saw it being used by others to push their own, personal bias? If Marion Buller isn't pushing a personal agenda, then someone picked the wrong lines to quote, especially for use in the opening paragraphs about the report. Then we have the blanket assertion that tribal authorities cannot prosecute non-native Americans (in the US). Well, Wikipedia's editors conveniently overlooked that such is no longer quite the case as of 2013, which is clearly stated in the article used as its source. Skipping over more boatloads of obvious, blatant agenda (and I do mean boatloads), we also have someone alleging the US Department of Justice said that "96 percent of Native women who experienced sexual violence in their lifetime had a non-Native perpetrator." 96%???!!! Well, talk to non-Native Americans who work and live among Native-Americans to get a something of a clue. That statement is 100% sick horse diarrhea. But let us stick to verifiable facts. The U.S. DOJ did not say this. Instead, the authors of the report were not DOJ officials. The report was funded by a grant from the federal government and the DOJ itself says right on the report "The opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this report are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Department of Justice." Why didn't the “editor” bother to fact-check such an obviously preposterous statement? I k-n-o-w what is happening to these women and girls is worse than outrageous. And I would love to see the matter comprehensively addressed. But the authors and/or editors of the Wikipedia article are not doing the cause any favors, and, I fear, neither are many who are pretending to care. I also do not believe Native-Americans on the whole appreciate 2SLGBTQQIAs piling onto their plight. That was the last thing I expected to see on such a sobering topic. If that's necessary, then why stop there? What about African-Americans? Hispanic-Americans? Muslim-Americans? Jews? Gypsies? Violence against the homeless? Violence on campus? Violence against illegal immigrants? Violence by illegal immigrants? Violence in Chicago?? Heck, why not violence in prisons, especially as "the state" is "causing" these murders, not, apparently, the poor, innocent creeps whose DNA are found all over these victims and are locked up for it. It's as if Wikipedia's editors - and a number of those charged with researching these heinous crimes - view their audience, their fellow citizens, as brainless simpletons who won't see the wool being pulled over their eyes. I didn't want my outrage at what's been happening to these people replaced by outrage over how it is being chronicled, but that is what happened. As someone once so famously said, "Have you no shame???" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.178.149.234 ( talk) 01:48, 24 July 2019 (UTC) |
I have removed information about unrelated crimes. Please discuss the disputed content here. The information provided has made no attempt to verify how the information provided relates to the subject matter of the page. It just appears to be a random comment made in hopes of skewing NPOV. SpoonLuv ( talk) 17:07, 17 October 2019 (UTC) 17:06, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
So can't that 6 percent be added to qualify the existing text rather than having the whole thing removed? Would it not make sense to point this out in the article itself? There might be other qualifications that could also be made, like history of past abuse. My point is that I think there's room for a compromise here that can work for both of you. El_C 17:25, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
@ SpoonLuv: while the matter is under dispute, observing WP:ONUS is probably best. The contested material constitutes longstanding text (I think), so sticking with the status quo ante while the matter remains unresolved is recommended. Certainly, the edit warring that both of you have engaged at is a problem that can lead to sanctions. So please be wary about that, both of you. At any case, I protected the page for a week, so that will leave plenty of time to discuss — if need be, dispute resolution requests is also always a handy resource. El_C 17:35, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
The sourcing in the article is clear on the connection between sexual assault and women going missing and turning up murdered. If we're sticking with the status quo ante, that would be the longstanding version prior to Spoonluv's blanking of the sourced content. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 21:03, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Here are quotes from some of the reliable sources Spoonluv has been removing. They have been stable for months. There was never any consensus to remove any of this, so Spoonluv's words about consensus are backwards:
The endemic violence against Indigenous women cannot be separated out from the disappearances and murders, in either the investigations or journalism on the issue, in either the US or Canada. Spoonluv's issues were initially with non-Native perpetrators being named, and he tried to remove this content for that reason. Now he's changed his reasons, but is blanking the same content as he did in the spring. (When he was editing under a username that was blocked for offensiveness). - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 23:32, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Reverting to stable version and inserting this paraphase and source from the report Indigenous girl linked above in the first section that was blanked: "In the United States, one study found that sixty-six out of 506 MMIWG cases were tied to domestic and sexual violence," So:
In the United States, unlike other demographics where perpetrators are most likely to be from the victim's own community and ethnic group, Indigenous women are usually sexually assaulted, stalked, and preyed upon by non-Natives. [1] [2] [3] In the United States, one study found that sixty-six out of 506 MMIWG cases were tied to domestic and sexual violence, [4] and another that 84 percent of Native American women experience violence in their lifetimes. [5]
References
Two-thirds of assaults or rapes against Native American women are committed by white and other non-Native American people, but prosecution is difficult because non-Native men can't be arrested or prosecuted by tribal authorities if the assault occurs on a reservation.
A Department of Justice report says 96 percent of Native women who experienced sexual violence in their lifetime had a non-Native perpetrator.
Sixty-six out of 506 MMIWG cases that UIHI identified were tied to domestic and sexual violence.
- CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 00:01, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
@ El C: Here is also the Indigenous women's section from the Violence against women article. I'd also add some of these sources on rape and murder to the US section. And either way, this should be back on the status quo version while any of this is discussed. I'm stunned we're even discussing this, as Spoonluv, who initially came here to blank content under the name "ecaftuls" (read it backwards) only edits this by blanking with misrepresentative edit summaries.
In the United States, Native American women are more than twice as likely to experience violence than any other demographic. [1] [2] One in three Native women is sexually assaulted during her life, and over 85% of these assaults are perpetrated by non-Natives. [1] [3] The disproportionate rate of assault to indigenous women is due to a variety of causes, including but not limited to the legal inability of tribes to prosecute perpetrators who are not tribal members. Tribes currently cannot exercise criminal jurisdiction over non-Natives. In theory, tribes can send cases to the federal level in order to prosecute non-Natives, but the majority of these cases are thrown out. [4] As a result of this, many reservations have become popular destinations for rapists and serial killers. [5] Multiple versions of the Violence Against Women Act have attempted to address this issue, but these sections have often been removed from official versions of the act. Although the 2013 version of the act does allow tribes to prosecute non-Natives for domestic violence and violating restraining orders, it does not allow prosecution of perpetrators of incidents not included in a bought of domestic violence. [6]
References
- ^ a b Roe, Bubar; Jumper Thurman, Pamela (2004). "Violence against native women". Social Justice. 31 (4 [98]): 70–86. JSTOR 29768276.
{{ cite journal}}
: Invalid|ref=harv
( help)- ^ Ramirez, Renya (2004). "Healing, violence, and Native American women". Social Justice. 31 (4 [98]): 103–116. JSTOR 29768279.
{{ cite journal}}
: Invalid|ref=harv
( help)- ^ Chekuru, Kavitha (6 March 2013). "Sexual violence scars Native American Women". Al Jazeera. Retrieved 9 May 2016.
- ^ Bachman, Ronet; Zaykowski, Heather; Kallmyer, Rachel; Poteyeva, Margarita; Lanier, Christina (August 2008). Violence against American Indian and Alaska native women and the criminal justice response: what is known. National Institute of Justice. Retrieved 10 May 2016. NCJ 245615 Pdf.
- ^ Gettys, Travis (6 April 2015). "Outsiders have been raping Native American women with 'impunity' — but legal loophole may finally close". The Raw Story. Retrieved 10 May 2016.
- ^ "Introduction to the Violence Against Women Act (The Violence Against Women Act – Title IX: Safety for Indian Women)". tribal-institute.org. Tribal Law and Policy Institute, Tribal Court Clearinghouse. March 2013. Retrieved 10 May 2016.
- CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 18:32, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
@CorbieVreccan The very fact that you continuously bring up a username I created a long time before I was serious about editing content is unnecessary and far from constructive. If you believe that particular information has anything to do with the validity of my sourced argument, please explain. Furthermore, I never changed my original reason for having issues with this content. That is your personal projection. You continue to attack me far more then you represent the issue. If you need to include attacks with your message, please re-examine the importance of your message.
I don't see anything in those quotes that significantly links the two crimes.
Regarding your addition: and another that 84 percent of Native American women experience violence in their lifetimes. [1] the link you cited is dead. I can't see the original content, but this link seems to have the same quote: [2]
If that is the case, the article is not referring to non-natives as the perpetrators for that statistic, which would mean that putting it in a paragraph specifically talking about that is most definitely a synthesis violation.
In your proposed edit, you also included domestic violence, which also does not have a specific link to the rest of the paragraph, and did so when the source you linked also provides a specific number more directly related to this paragraph by providing the specific numbers for sexual assault related murders.
In response to this information being up for a long time, that doesn't make it right. Saying that something should remain the same because it's been that way for a long time is a big reason this subject is an issue in the first place.
Here is my proposal: Keep the paragraph removed from the lead, as I don't think 6% of a situation is the best representation of the overall situation. If it is important to include a different crime that has the potential to lead to murder, then there are far more representative ones to choose from.
Under the statistics for the united states, restore that paragraph with these changes:
In the United States, unlike other demographics where perpetrators are most likely to be from the victim's own community and ethnic group, Indigenous women are usually sexually assaulted by non-Natives. [3] [4] [5] One study found that 25 out of the 506 cases (6%) were victims of sexual assault at the time of their death. [6] SpoonLuv ( talk) 19:29, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
References
Two-thirds of assaults or rapes against Native American women are committed by white and other non-Native American people, but prosecution is difficult because non-Native men can't be arrested or prosecuted by tribal authorities if the assault occurs on a reservation.
A Department of Justice report says 96 percent of Native women who experienced sexual violence in their lifetime had a non-Native perpetrator.
You both seem to have two competing versions — why not launch an RfC to see which one of these enjoys consensus? El_C 20:46, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
This should be back on the status quo version while any of this is discussed
— I agree that it should, but it's not going to. Not while the page is protected, at least. I cannot justify editing the protected page accordingly (from a policy standpoint). Hopefully, once the page is unprotected, the convention of adhering to
WP:ONUS and
WP:BRD is something SpoonLuv is willing to respect.
El_C
20:54, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
I've responded multiple times. To say I haven't responded is WP:GASLIGHTING. You insisted that others besides you (implying editors in good standing, not driveby IPs) were blanking the sourced content. You claimed normal summation of content to avoid copyvios was synthesis. In the malformed RfC below you are claiming that the (cited by multiple RS sources) stats of percentage of assault by non-Natives is "targeting a demographic". You claimed that there is no connection between assault and murder, and other bizarre things. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 18:52, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
{{
rfc|pol}}
Dispute over POV and whether statistics for demographics of perpetrators of sexual assault should be used to potentially illustrate demographics of murder when complete statistics of demographics for perpetrators of murder is unavailable.
Current version — lead:
In the United States, unlike other demographics where perpetrators are most likely to be from the victim's own community and ethnic group, Indigenous women are usually sexually assaulted, stalked, and preyed upon by non-Natives. [1] [2] [3] In the United States, one study found that sixty-six out of 506 MMIWG cases were tied to domestic and sexual violence, [4] and another that 84 percent of Native American women experience violence in their lifetimes. [5]
Current version — body:
According to an article by judge Ruth Hopkins, [6] in the United States, unlike other demographics where perpetrators are most likely to be from the victim's own community and ethnic group, Indigenous women are usually sexually assaulted by non-Natives. [1] According to the South Dakota Public News Service, in the United States, "[t]wo-thirds of assaults or rapes against Native American women are committed by white and other non-Native American people, but prosecution is difficult because non-Native men can't be arrested or prosecuted by tribal authorities if the assault occurs on a reservation." [2] According to a May 26, 2019 article in the Arizona Daily Star, based on a Department of Justice report, "96 percent of Native women who experienced sexual violence in their lifetime had a non-Native perpetrator." [3]
Proposed version — lead:
<Blank current version: lead> Removed the information entirely as this article is about murder, and the lede should be about the subject of the article, not a different crime. This information is also repeated in the body content.
Proposed version — body:
In the United States, unlike other demographics where perpetrators are most likely to be from the victim's own community and ethnic group, Indigenous women are usually sexually assaulted by non-Natives. [1] [2] [3] One study found that 25 out of the 506 cases (6%) were victims of sexual assault at the time of their death. [7] SpoonLuv ( talk) 19:29, 24 October 2019 (UTC) SpoonLuv ( talk) 19:25, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
As I note above, this RfC should be about providing a clear choice between the two competing versions (version X vs. version Y, in detail). Suggest re-drafting. El_C 19:06, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
We don't have accurate stats on sexual assault for these women and girls, for the same reason there isn't a good conviction rate. See the Murder of Tina Fontaine. Serial killers and rapist/murderers are dumping women's bodies in water [see Drag the Red], feeding them to Pigs Robert Pickton, and in other horrific ways desecrating their bodies to wash away or destroy DNA evidence. From Anna Mae Aquash to Tina Fontaine, when dealing with psycho-sexual serial killers who know about forensics, rape kits are useless. This is a horrible thing, and anyone who knows the subject matter knows about this aspect of it. To call it "a POV push" to point out how difficult it is get accurate data here is insensitive to say the least. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 19:55, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
@ SpoonLuv: where in the sources I provide does it say, as you just claimed, "the sources provided state that sexual assaults led to 6% of the murders."? I want an exact citation. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 20:00, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
UIHI identified 96 cases that were tied to broader issues such as domestic violence, sexual assault, police brutality, and lack of safety for sex workers. In this report, domestic violence includes intimate partner violence and family violence. Forty-two (8% of all cases) cases were domestic violence related, and 14% of domestic violence fatalities were victims aged 18 and under. Three victims were pregnant at their time of death. At least 25 victims (6% of all cases) experienced sexual assault at the time of disappearance or death, 18 victims (4% of all cases) were identified as sex workers or victims of trafficking, and 39% of victims in the sex trade were sexually assaulted at the time of death.
References
Two-thirds of assaults or rapes against Native American women are committed by white and other non-Native American people, but prosecution is difficult because non-Native men can't be arrested or prosecuted by tribal authorities if the assault occurs on a reservation.
A Department of Justice report says 96 percent of Native women who experienced sexual violence in their lifetime had a non-Native perpetrator.
Sixty-six out of 506 MMIWG cases that UIHI identified were tied to domestic and sexual violence.
This RfC is about the two proposals above. Please comment on specific issues that you see bwith one or the other, or which one you believe should be included and why.
I believe proposal B should be used in the lede as an the lede of an article about murder, should be about murder, not other crimes that may lead to a small percentage of those murders. This information is already covered in the body of the article. I also believe that the text from proposal B in the body of the article should be used as it removes POV wording and purposely ambiguous terms. SpoonLuv ( talk) 19:31, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Let's delist it. Why do we need an RfC on whether it's OK to blank sourced content? If you really want this, El C, my "proposal" is the edit I just did. Per discussion and abundant examples above by Indigenous girl and myself, I have added additional sourcing on the connections between sexual assault / sex trafficking and the women who go missing and wind up murdered. This was already sourced in the article, in sources that Spoonluv removed. That's why I reverted him. This content is now full of more sources and quotes. The stable, status quo content is re-instated, though the part of it from the lede has been moved down to the US section to replace redundant content there, and newer content, partially adapted/imported from the Violence against Women article, has replaced it in the lede. The content is substantially the same, but it is now based on exact quotes in the sources, so close as to be risking copyvio if the statistics weren't so oft-quoted. The text is actually brief. But I idiot-proofed it with chunky quotes in the footnotes, so it looks way longer in the diff view than it actually is. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 20:30, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
<!--...-->
- see
WP:RFCEND#Duration.tlx|
that I added; but please also make sure that
WP:RFCBRIEF is observed - Legobot will choke on it as it stands, since there are more than 6,500 bytes between the {{
rfc}}
and the next valid timestamp. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
21:40, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Missing and murdered Indigenous women has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add image Stop the killing.jpg as a thumb on top of page Noahedits ( talk) 19:48, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
I found some of the shuffling around of citations weakened the third para of the lede. I did take User:Elielgu's critique of using a Raw Story source onboard and found different citations for the points. Elielgu also suggested another source did not support the info it was attached to. The source did support it but lacked proper specificity to locate the information so I corrected that bit in the cites. Cheers, Mark Ironie ( talk) 22:11, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
The page Presidential Task Force on Missing and Murdered American Indians and Alaska Natives was recently created. I'm not seeing a notability reason to justify a standalone article. Would make a much better section addition to this article imo. Sulfurboy ( talk) 21:30, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
@ Guavabutter:, I'm hesitant to wholesale revert as you clearly put a lot of work into this, but you've also made some odd additions, like hyphenating "Native-American", which we don't do on WP. I'm also not sure the lede is an improvement. I will need some time, later on, to go over all of these extensive changes, but I'm concerned some of the sourcing and details may have also been lost in the deletions. I'm going to need time to review all of this, but I'd like you to make sure you're sticking to the M.O.S. and other conventions used in the article. Could you also let us know here what it was you cut? Because the way you rearranged so much of it in one large edit is making it hard to parse. Thanks. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 19:38, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
This article claims that there is a human rights crisis where indigenous women are disproportionately affected by murder and other forms of violence. In order to validate such a claim, it is necessary to prove that indigenous women are murdered and/or go missing significantly more often than:
Throughout this article, there are repeated instances of statistics supporting point A, but no statistics supporting point B. With a Google search, I could only find one article providing statistics that compare rates of violence against indigenous women to those against indigenous men; I have copied the link here: https://www.proquest.com/openview/71fe2859676f5fdade60d8c1e873ed6b/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=1996357 The research claims that "Indigenous males are the most likely to be murdered in Canada". Unless that claim can be debunked, I recommend that this article acknowledge the opposing perspective, which suggests that this crisis should be viewed with a gender neutral point of view, with statistics to support it. JuicyGang ( talk) 16:51, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
The article states that the rate of violence is double that of any other group, but there are no numbers to back that up and no citation. What is the homicide rate for Native American women in the US? In Canada, the article offers an estimate of 5 per 100K, which is more than double the rate for US women overall (2 per 100K). Jonathan Tweet ( talk) 01:06, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
The statement in dispute is this:"The Native Women's Association of Canada believe the number to be as high as 4,000 victims since 1980". I went to the Native Women's Association of Canada website and according to their own fact sheet "NWAC has gathered information about 582 cases of missing and murdered Aboriginal women and girls". As I read through the website, I see nothing about 4,000 victims. There is a mention that the number may be inaccurate, and that there are likely undocumented cases.
The number of 4000 missing women is 3000 more than what the RCMP found. If the methodology of the police, native activists, the media, social workers, everyone is so off that 3000 women can be missing or murdered, then we have a major issue on our hand. What was the methodology flaw that so many people have made in counting missing and murdered women that resulted the number being off by 300% of the estimate? Since Patty Hajdu, the person who cited the statistic, claims to care for native women, then her priority should be telling the police, other activists, the media, anyone who will listen about these MISSING THREE THOUSAND WOMEN.
The thing is the statistic of 4000 women is based on one person, at one time, in one article. It seems to be a personal opinion and not even the opinion of the organization she represent. If anyone feels this statistic should stand, then someone should provide any organization that is citing numbers around 4000, or an explanation as to how the number was calculated, or the flaws in the methodology of previous statistics. DivaNtrainin ( talk) 23:07, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
(The below comment was moved to the appropriate section, there has been no editing of the content) - — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:DivaNtrainin ( talk • contribs)
DivaNtrainin, why are you deleting sourced content about the higher numbers? If you are aware of the many issues surrounding the inquiry, you must know about the inadequacies and frustrations happening. You reverted under the guise of just this "crisis" discussion. I have amended it to note that the source says this is the number claimed by activists and families, not the police. But given the conflict between authorities and families on this issue, both need to be represented here for NPOV. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 17:05, 22 October 2017 (UTC) DivaNtrainin ( talk) 21:24, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
@ DivaNtrainin: so in addition to refactoring others' talk page comments you are ignoring what's in the sources themselves and talk page consensus. Here we have two of us disagreeing with you. You do not have consensus to keep reverting. You are now edit-warring. (also pinging @ Velella:) - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 21:56, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
(Moved DivaNtrainin's comment below here from my talk page. Article talk is the place for this) - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 18:44, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Specifically I will edit the article tomorrow with this edits unless you provide some criticism against it, that is not how we do things. See WP:CONSENSUS and WP:NODEADLINE. You need to get consensus first, and if you do make WP:BOLD edits that people have expressed doubts about you should not be surprised when they get reverted. Fyddlestix ( talk) 21:03, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
The reason that I have removed the word "crisis" and replaced it with the term "social issue" is because "crisis" is a weasel word. I agree that missing and murdered women has negative affects on a community, but just because something is bad or wrong or negative, doesn't mean it qualifies as a crisis. The term crisis has very specific connotations. It suggests a specific event with a specific start and end. For example, the crisis in Puerto Rico started with Hurricane Maria and will end at a defined point, say when all utilities are back on board. That doesn't mean that Puerto Rico will be fully recovered, but it will no longer be a "crisis".
However, if you feel that the case of missing and murdered indigenous women meets the definition of crisis, please explain. It is ok to put a weasel word in a Wikipedia article as long as you put qualifiers, context, or supporting information with it. If you provide more context, we can insert sentences explaining the crisis into the body of the article. In fact, it may even justify putting a whole section into the article, explaining that. However, the context has to be more than saying "murder is bad. murder affects a community". Everyone knows that. Even the Wikipedia article for murder doesn't need to mention that. We are looking for well-researched, well-studied argument for explaining why this meets the definition of crisis. DivaNtrainin ( talk) 01:08, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
We should stick with crisis. Sorry but this is extremely well documented: [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]. A very wide range of sources use the term "crisis" rather than weasel terms like "issue" to describe the problem of MMIW, we can not and should not be removing it because one (or two) editors don't like it. Fyddlestix ( talk) 03:14, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
If hundreds to thousands of white people had been murdered, I don't think there would be a debate, or a demand to explain why the word "crisis" is warranted. I think this is a systemic bias issue. @ Fyddlestix: I'll go over the sources, but I can see just by the URLs that the word "crisis" is used. I think we have support for using the word. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 16:45, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
The lead mentions this is a critical issue for indigenous communities in both Canada and the US, but the article is all about Canadian data, activism, issues, and projects. This may be appropriate in terms of organizations mobilized, the specific cases related to the Highway of Tears, and the recent Canadian National Inquiry, but shouldn't there at least be a paragraph on the situation in the US? The Lead is supposed to summarize the article. Parkwells ( talk) 16:18, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
I am beginning to compile sources to make a section on this issue specifically focused on the US. I'm inclined to believe that the situation is just as serious in both countries, but I will just start with a small section and see where it goes. My intentions are to get to the point where this information on the US can be worked into larger sections which are currently dominated by Canadian statistics. Any ideas about how to make this transition smoother would be appreciated, as this is the first article I've edited, ever.
Anon notmax (
talk)
02:43, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Annie Mae Aquash is listed under "See Also" but she was a politically prominent leader of AIM in the US. While it has been proven that she was murdered by other Native Americans, I don't think her case is typical of those covered in this article, which tend to be marginalized women. Parkwells ( talk) 22:41, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Missing and murdered Indigenous women. 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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:44, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
In general I wonder if this article should add "Canada" to its title. What do you think? Fred ( talk) 15:47, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I made a recent edit to the section titled Washington State House Bill 2951. I also added a new citation to support my edit. Here it is: [1] The other inline citation in this section [58] is no longer valid as it leads to an error page. It doesn't support the information in that section and isn't helpful to users who may want to find out more about the bill. I am a new Wikipedia contributor and I'm wondering if it's okay to go ahead and delete this citation? I am hoping to get some feedback from those who have been working on the article.
Myself and a couple of other contributors are part of an English class and we are doing research now to be able to update the article, primarily the US Initiatives section as there is a lot currently happening concerning this issue that we believe will enhance the article. We look forward to discussing with the rest of the contributors!
Agoatsay ( talk) 01:30, 31 March 2019 (UTC)agoatsay
All - I was wondering about changing the title to "Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls." Adding "and Girls." There are a few references and sections in this article that include "and Girls." In fact, some of the studies and bills include "and Girls" for both the US and Canada. Source 13 - About us - National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls Source 32 - Urban Indian Health Institute Source 57 - Recognizing the National Day of Awareness for Missing and Murdered Native Women and Girls What do you all think about adding it to the title? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CuseFan99 ( talk • contribs) 01:01, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
There seems to be some serious edit warring to introduce unsourced information into the lede. I cannot find anywhere in the third party source or in the primary source of:
I give up on having the editor fix their own work, so I changed it to "according to activists "thousands of cases" of missing and murdered Indigenous women over the last half-century were not properly investigated due to alleged police bias." For this I reference "In her wake came thousands of cases of deaths and disappearances that activists say were not properly investigated." from the source. Of 19 ( talk) 23:03, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Does anybody have any sources (other then the 2015 RCMP report) that describe any demographics of the perpetrators of the murders. If a certain group is being targeted, and words like genocide are being thrown around, then it would only make sense that the most important thing to know would be who is doing the targeting. I've read the reports and supplemental material. There's plenty of excellent references showing past actions by the Canadian government that point to them as a major cause of these deaths. What I'm failing to find is any sources of information that explain why it is currently occurring. I could not find any information in the report on who is currently responsible for these murders. If it's being caused by people that are part of the group itself, that would require a completely different response then caused by those outside that group. It just seems that the demographics of those committing the murders currently would be of the utmost importance, but the sources of information on this are incredibly sparse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecaftuls ( talk • contribs) 17:50, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
I provided well sourced reasoning for my changes, you ignored that and changed it back. You failed to provide any counter to my sourced reasoning for making the change, therefore I believe the edit warring is entirely from your side. SpoonLuv ( talk) 14:31, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
I have been accused of vandalism for removing the information about the majority of sexual assaults on indigenous women being from non-indigenous men. This page is about missing and murdered, not sexually assaulted. There is little correlation between sexual assault and murder [3]. The only specific statistic for murders appears to show an oposite correlation [4]. The section on this page incorrectly infers that non indigenous people may be the primary culprits regarding the murdering of indigenous women which just isn't true. The majority of violence against indigenous people occurs on the reservation, and from indigenous people [5], this includes murder. Inferring that non-indigenous people are the direct cause of the murders is destructive to the subject, and falsely paints a narrative that prevents the issue itself from being improved upon. It steers the narrative away from the likelihood that non-indigenous peoples indirect actions are likely the cause of a significant portion of the issue at hand. [6] [7]. Including statistics for a different and unrelated crime is clearly not useful to include in an article about a specific issue. Sexual assault is very low down on the list of things leading to murder. A robbery is 38 times more likely to result in a murder [8]. If information about unrelated crimes to the subject of the article is important, wouldn't statistics on robbery be 38 times more important to include? The admin that removed the content asked me to explain why I was removing content properly when doing so in the edit summary. I thoroughly explained why I did it in both the article and their talk page, yet they accused me of vandalism, after doing exactly what they asked me to do. Then immediately after undoing my edit, the articles protection level was raised. Please help me reach consensus and keep articles on Wikipedia non-biased and factually driven. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpoonLuv ( talk • contribs) 14:01, 9 July 2019 (UTC) SpoonLuv ( talk) 14:08, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
References
As an interested reader... - unsigned comment by 108.178.149.234 on 01:48, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
|
---|
As an interested reader who believes this is a genuinely serious matter, I felt increasingly incredulous once I passed the "Final report June 3, 2019" header. One gets the sickening impression this entire subject is being hijacked by those attempting to further their own personal agendas, not actually get to the heart of the matter and help solve this complex crisis. Being a victim of violence myself, I KNOW how serious this is. Violence forever alters your life and not in a good way. For instance, the very first sentence after the "Final report" headline strains the imagination. Do people really believe the state, which of course must be Canada, engages in "actions and inactions rooted in colonialism and colonial ideologies" that are "built on the presumption of superiority" and which are "utilized to maintain power and control over the land and the people by oppression and in many cases, by eliminating them?" Really? Do people actually believe this? I sure don't. Why do Wikipedia's editors feel they have to wait until they find a wildly ridiculous - and utterly misleading - comment buried on page 54 to try and highlight the report's "findings?" I have family who have lived in Canada for many, many decades and never, ever did I have the impression Canada is "oppressing" anyone, let alone engaged in "eliminating them." Things are just as bad right after this, when someone quotes the "inquiry's chief commissioner" Marion Buller, by first writing "...the high level of violence directed at FNIM women and girls is" and then using what must be the quote "caused by state actions and inactions rooted in colonialism and colonial ideologies." Again, who in their right mind believes the state is "causing" this?! One might argue the state's inaction on various levels is a contributing factor, but it sure isn't the state raping and killing these women and girls. Using such statements as an opening on the findings of this report smacks of pure opportunism. Of course "the state" is to blame for these killings. Not the actual murderers! How come I didn't realize such an obvious "epiphany?" Interestingly, no one bothers to discover why so many commission members felt obliged to resign. Could it be they saw it being used by others to push their own, personal bias? If Marion Buller isn't pushing a personal agenda, then someone picked the wrong lines to quote, especially for use in the opening paragraphs about the report. Then we have the blanket assertion that tribal authorities cannot prosecute non-native Americans (in the US). Well, Wikipedia's editors conveniently overlooked that such is no longer quite the case as of 2013, which is clearly stated in the article used as its source. Skipping over more boatloads of obvious, blatant agenda (and I do mean boatloads), we also have someone alleging the US Department of Justice said that "96 percent of Native women who experienced sexual violence in their lifetime had a non-Native perpetrator." 96%???!!! Well, talk to non-Native Americans who work and live among Native-Americans to get a something of a clue. That statement is 100% sick horse diarrhea. But let us stick to verifiable facts. The U.S. DOJ did not say this. Instead, the authors of the report were not DOJ officials. The report was funded by a grant from the federal government and the DOJ itself says right on the report "The opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this report are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Department of Justice." Why didn't the “editor” bother to fact-check such an obviously preposterous statement? I k-n-o-w what is happening to these women and girls is worse than outrageous. And I would love to see the matter comprehensively addressed. But the authors and/or editors of the Wikipedia article are not doing the cause any favors, and, I fear, neither are many who are pretending to care. I also do not believe Native-Americans on the whole appreciate 2SLGBTQQIAs piling onto their plight. That was the last thing I expected to see on such a sobering topic. If that's necessary, then why stop there? What about African-Americans? Hispanic-Americans? Muslim-Americans? Jews? Gypsies? Violence against the homeless? Violence on campus? Violence against illegal immigrants? Violence by illegal immigrants? Violence in Chicago?? Heck, why not violence in prisons, especially as "the state" is "causing" these murders, not, apparently, the poor, innocent creeps whose DNA are found all over these victims and are locked up for it. It's as if Wikipedia's editors - and a number of those charged with researching these heinous crimes - view their audience, their fellow citizens, as brainless simpletons who won't see the wool being pulled over their eyes. I didn't want my outrage at what's been happening to these people replaced by outrage over how it is being chronicled, but that is what happened. As someone once so famously said, "Have you no shame???" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.178.149.234 ( talk) 01:48, 24 July 2019 (UTC) |
I have removed information about unrelated crimes. Please discuss the disputed content here. The information provided has made no attempt to verify how the information provided relates to the subject matter of the page. It just appears to be a random comment made in hopes of skewing NPOV. SpoonLuv ( talk) 17:07, 17 October 2019 (UTC) 17:06, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
So can't that 6 percent be added to qualify the existing text rather than having the whole thing removed? Would it not make sense to point this out in the article itself? There might be other qualifications that could also be made, like history of past abuse. My point is that I think there's room for a compromise here that can work for both of you. El_C 17:25, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
@ SpoonLuv: while the matter is under dispute, observing WP:ONUS is probably best. The contested material constitutes longstanding text (I think), so sticking with the status quo ante while the matter remains unresolved is recommended. Certainly, the edit warring that both of you have engaged at is a problem that can lead to sanctions. So please be wary about that, both of you. At any case, I protected the page for a week, so that will leave plenty of time to discuss — if need be, dispute resolution requests is also always a handy resource. El_C 17:35, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
The sourcing in the article is clear on the connection between sexual assault and women going missing and turning up murdered. If we're sticking with the status quo ante, that would be the longstanding version prior to Spoonluv's blanking of the sourced content. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 21:03, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Here are quotes from some of the reliable sources Spoonluv has been removing. They have been stable for months. There was never any consensus to remove any of this, so Spoonluv's words about consensus are backwards:
The endemic violence against Indigenous women cannot be separated out from the disappearances and murders, in either the investigations or journalism on the issue, in either the US or Canada. Spoonluv's issues were initially with non-Native perpetrators being named, and he tried to remove this content for that reason. Now he's changed his reasons, but is blanking the same content as he did in the spring. (When he was editing under a username that was blocked for offensiveness). - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 23:32, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Reverting to stable version and inserting this paraphase and source from the report Indigenous girl linked above in the first section that was blanked: "In the United States, one study found that sixty-six out of 506 MMIWG cases were tied to domestic and sexual violence," So:
In the United States, unlike other demographics where perpetrators are most likely to be from the victim's own community and ethnic group, Indigenous women are usually sexually assaulted, stalked, and preyed upon by non-Natives. [1] [2] [3] In the United States, one study found that sixty-six out of 506 MMIWG cases were tied to domestic and sexual violence, [4] and another that 84 percent of Native American women experience violence in their lifetimes. [5]
References
Two-thirds of assaults or rapes against Native American women are committed by white and other non-Native American people, but prosecution is difficult because non-Native men can't be arrested or prosecuted by tribal authorities if the assault occurs on a reservation.
A Department of Justice report says 96 percent of Native women who experienced sexual violence in their lifetime had a non-Native perpetrator.
Sixty-six out of 506 MMIWG cases that UIHI identified were tied to domestic and sexual violence.
- CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 00:01, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
@ El C: Here is also the Indigenous women's section from the Violence against women article. I'd also add some of these sources on rape and murder to the US section. And either way, this should be back on the status quo version while any of this is discussed. I'm stunned we're even discussing this, as Spoonluv, who initially came here to blank content under the name "ecaftuls" (read it backwards) only edits this by blanking with misrepresentative edit summaries.
In the United States, Native American women are more than twice as likely to experience violence than any other demographic. [1] [2] One in three Native women is sexually assaulted during her life, and over 85% of these assaults are perpetrated by non-Natives. [1] [3] The disproportionate rate of assault to indigenous women is due to a variety of causes, including but not limited to the legal inability of tribes to prosecute perpetrators who are not tribal members. Tribes currently cannot exercise criminal jurisdiction over non-Natives. In theory, tribes can send cases to the federal level in order to prosecute non-Natives, but the majority of these cases are thrown out. [4] As a result of this, many reservations have become popular destinations for rapists and serial killers. [5] Multiple versions of the Violence Against Women Act have attempted to address this issue, but these sections have often been removed from official versions of the act. Although the 2013 version of the act does allow tribes to prosecute non-Natives for domestic violence and violating restraining orders, it does not allow prosecution of perpetrators of incidents not included in a bought of domestic violence. [6]
References
- ^ a b Roe, Bubar; Jumper Thurman, Pamela (2004). "Violence against native women". Social Justice. 31 (4 [98]): 70–86. JSTOR 29768276.
{{ cite journal}}
: Invalid|ref=harv
( help)- ^ Ramirez, Renya (2004). "Healing, violence, and Native American women". Social Justice. 31 (4 [98]): 103–116. JSTOR 29768279.
{{ cite journal}}
: Invalid|ref=harv
( help)- ^ Chekuru, Kavitha (6 March 2013). "Sexual violence scars Native American Women". Al Jazeera. Retrieved 9 May 2016.
- ^ Bachman, Ronet; Zaykowski, Heather; Kallmyer, Rachel; Poteyeva, Margarita; Lanier, Christina (August 2008). Violence against American Indian and Alaska native women and the criminal justice response: what is known. National Institute of Justice. Retrieved 10 May 2016. NCJ 245615 Pdf.
- ^ Gettys, Travis (6 April 2015). "Outsiders have been raping Native American women with 'impunity' — but legal loophole may finally close". The Raw Story. Retrieved 10 May 2016.
- ^ "Introduction to the Violence Against Women Act (The Violence Against Women Act – Title IX: Safety for Indian Women)". tribal-institute.org. Tribal Law and Policy Institute, Tribal Court Clearinghouse. March 2013. Retrieved 10 May 2016.
- CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 18:32, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
@CorbieVreccan The very fact that you continuously bring up a username I created a long time before I was serious about editing content is unnecessary and far from constructive. If you believe that particular information has anything to do with the validity of my sourced argument, please explain. Furthermore, I never changed my original reason for having issues with this content. That is your personal projection. You continue to attack me far more then you represent the issue. If you need to include attacks with your message, please re-examine the importance of your message.
I don't see anything in those quotes that significantly links the two crimes.
Regarding your addition: and another that 84 percent of Native American women experience violence in their lifetimes. [1] the link you cited is dead. I can't see the original content, but this link seems to have the same quote: [2]
If that is the case, the article is not referring to non-natives as the perpetrators for that statistic, which would mean that putting it in a paragraph specifically talking about that is most definitely a synthesis violation.
In your proposed edit, you also included domestic violence, which also does not have a specific link to the rest of the paragraph, and did so when the source you linked also provides a specific number more directly related to this paragraph by providing the specific numbers for sexual assault related murders.
In response to this information being up for a long time, that doesn't make it right. Saying that something should remain the same because it's been that way for a long time is a big reason this subject is an issue in the first place.
Here is my proposal: Keep the paragraph removed from the lead, as I don't think 6% of a situation is the best representation of the overall situation. If it is important to include a different crime that has the potential to lead to murder, then there are far more representative ones to choose from.
Under the statistics for the united states, restore that paragraph with these changes:
In the United States, unlike other demographics where perpetrators are most likely to be from the victim's own community and ethnic group, Indigenous women are usually sexually assaulted by non-Natives. [3] [4] [5] One study found that 25 out of the 506 cases (6%) were victims of sexual assault at the time of their death. [6] SpoonLuv ( talk) 19:29, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
References
Two-thirds of assaults or rapes against Native American women are committed by white and other non-Native American people, but prosecution is difficult because non-Native men can't be arrested or prosecuted by tribal authorities if the assault occurs on a reservation.
A Department of Justice report says 96 percent of Native women who experienced sexual violence in their lifetime had a non-Native perpetrator.
You both seem to have two competing versions — why not launch an RfC to see which one of these enjoys consensus? El_C 20:46, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
This should be back on the status quo version while any of this is discussed
— I agree that it should, but it's not going to. Not while the page is protected, at least. I cannot justify editing the protected page accordingly (from a policy standpoint). Hopefully, once the page is unprotected, the convention of adhering to
WP:ONUS and
WP:BRD is something SpoonLuv is willing to respect.
El_C
20:54, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
I've responded multiple times. To say I haven't responded is WP:GASLIGHTING. You insisted that others besides you (implying editors in good standing, not driveby IPs) were blanking the sourced content. You claimed normal summation of content to avoid copyvios was synthesis. In the malformed RfC below you are claiming that the (cited by multiple RS sources) stats of percentage of assault by non-Natives is "targeting a demographic". You claimed that there is no connection between assault and murder, and other bizarre things. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 18:52, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
{{
rfc|pol}}
Dispute over POV and whether statistics for demographics of perpetrators of sexual assault should be used to potentially illustrate demographics of murder when complete statistics of demographics for perpetrators of murder is unavailable.
Current version — lead:
In the United States, unlike other demographics where perpetrators are most likely to be from the victim's own community and ethnic group, Indigenous women are usually sexually assaulted, stalked, and preyed upon by non-Natives. [1] [2] [3] In the United States, one study found that sixty-six out of 506 MMIWG cases were tied to domestic and sexual violence, [4] and another that 84 percent of Native American women experience violence in their lifetimes. [5]
Current version — body:
According to an article by judge Ruth Hopkins, [6] in the United States, unlike other demographics where perpetrators are most likely to be from the victim's own community and ethnic group, Indigenous women are usually sexually assaulted by non-Natives. [1] According to the South Dakota Public News Service, in the United States, "[t]wo-thirds of assaults or rapes against Native American women are committed by white and other non-Native American people, but prosecution is difficult because non-Native men can't be arrested or prosecuted by tribal authorities if the assault occurs on a reservation." [2] According to a May 26, 2019 article in the Arizona Daily Star, based on a Department of Justice report, "96 percent of Native women who experienced sexual violence in their lifetime had a non-Native perpetrator." [3]
Proposed version — lead:
<Blank current version: lead> Removed the information entirely as this article is about murder, and the lede should be about the subject of the article, not a different crime. This information is also repeated in the body content.
Proposed version — body:
In the United States, unlike other demographics where perpetrators are most likely to be from the victim's own community and ethnic group, Indigenous women are usually sexually assaulted by non-Natives. [1] [2] [3] One study found that 25 out of the 506 cases (6%) were victims of sexual assault at the time of their death. [7] SpoonLuv ( talk) 19:29, 24 October 2019 (UTC) SpoonLuv ( talk) 19:25, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
As I note above, this RfC should be about providing a clear choice between the two competing versions (version X vs. version Y, in detail). Suggest re-drafting. El_C 19:06, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
We don't have accurate stats on sexual assault for these women and girls, for the same reason there isn't a good conviction rate. See the Murder of Tina Fontaine. Serial killers and rapist/murderers are dumping women's bodies in water [see Drag the Red], feeding them to Pigs Robert Pickton, and in other horrific ways desecrating their bodies to wash away or destroy DNA evidence. From Anna Mae Aquash to Tina Fontaine, when dealing with psycho-sexual serial killers who know about forensics, rape kits are useless. This is a horrible thing, and anyone who knows the subject matter knows about this aspect of it. To call it "a POV push" to point out how difficult it is get accurate data here is insensitive to say the least. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 19:55, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
@ SpoonLuv: where in the sources I provide does it say, as you just claimed, "the sources provided state that sexual assaults led to 6% of the murders."? I want an exact citation. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 20:00, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
UIHI identified 96 cases that were tied to broader issues such as domestic violence, sexual assault, police brutality, and lack of safety for sex workers. In this report, domestic violence includes intimate partner violence and family violence. Forty-two (8% of all cases) cases were domestic violence related, and 14% of domestic violence fatalities were victims aged 18 and under. Three victims were pregnant at their time of death. At least 25 victims (6% of all cases) experienced sexual assault at the time of disappearance or death, 18 victims (4% of all cases) were identified as sex workers or victims of trafficking, and 39% of victims in the sex trade were sexually assaulted at the time of death.
References
Two-thirds of assaults or rapes against Native American women are committed by white and other non-Native American people, but prosecution is difficult because non-Native men can't be arrested or prosecuted by tribal authorities if the assault occurs on a reservation.
A Department of Justice report says 96 percent of Native women who experienced sexual violence in their lifetime had a non-Native perpetrator.
Sixty-six out of 506 MMIWG cases that UIHI identified were tied to domestic and sexual violence.
This RfC is about the two proposals above. Please comment on specific issues that you see bwith one or the other, or which one you believe should be included and why.
I believe proposal B should be used in the lede as an the lede of an article about murder, should be about murder, not other crimes that may lead to a small percentage of those murders. This information is already covered in the body of the article. I also believe that the text from proposal B in the body of the article should be used as it removes POV wording and purposely ambiguous terms. SpoonLuv ( talk) 19:31, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Let's delist it. Why do we need an RfC on whether it's OK to blank sourced content? If you really want this, El C, my "proposal" is the edit I just did. Per discussion and abundant examples above by Indigenous girl and myself, I have added additional sourcing on the connections between sexual assault / sex trafficking and the women who go missing and wind up murdered. This was already sourced in the article, in sources that Spoonluv removed. That's why I reverted him. This content is now full of more sources and quotes. The stable, status quo content is re-instated, though the part of it from the lede has been moved down to the US section to replace redundant content there, and newer content, partially adapted/imported from the Violence against Women article, has replaced it in the lede. The content is substantially the same, but it is now based on exact quotes in the sources, so close as to be risking copyvio if the statistics weren't so oft-quoted. The text is actually brief. But I idiot-proofed it with chunky quotes in the footnotes, so it looks way longer in the diff view than it actually is. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 20:30, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
<!--...-->
- see
WP:RFCEND#Duration.tlx|
that I added; but please also make sure that
WP:RFCBRIEF is observed - Legobot will choke on it as it stands, since there are more than 6,500 bytes between the {{
rfc}}
and the next valid timestamp. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
21:40, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Missing and murdered Indigenous women has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add image Stop the killing.jpg as a thumb on top of page Noahedits ( talk) 19:48, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
I found some of the shuffling around of citations weakened the third para of the lede. I did take User:Elielgu's critique of using a Raw Story source onboard and found different citations for the points. Elielgu also suggested another source did not support the info it was attached to. The source did support it but lacked proper specificity to locate the information so I corrected that bit in the cites. Cheers, Mark Ironie ( talk) 22:11, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
The page Presidential Task Force on Missing and Murdered American Indians and Alaska Natives was recently created. I'm not seeing a notability reason to justify a standalone article. Would make a much better section addition to this article imo. Sulfurboy ( talk) 21:30, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
@ Guavabutter:, I'm hesitant to wholesale revert as you clearly put a lot of work into this, but you've also made some odd additions, like hyphenating "Native-American", which we don't do on WP. I'm also not sure the lede is an improvement. I will need some time, later on, to go over all of these extensive changes, but I'm concerned some of the sourcing and details may have also been lost in the deletions. I'm going to need time to review all of this, but I'd like you to make sure you're sticking to the M.O.S. and other conventions used in the article. Could you also let us know here what it was you cut? Because the way you rearranged so much of it in one large edit is making it hard to parse. Thanks. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 19:38, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
This article claims that there is a human rights crisis where indigenous women are disproportionately affected by murder and other forms of violence. In order to validate such a claim, it is necessary to prove that indigenous women are murdered and/or go missing significantly more often than:
Throughout this article, there are repeated instances of statistics supporting point A, but no statistics supporting point B. With a Google search, I could only find one article providing statistics that compare rates of violence against indigenous women to those against indigenous men; I have copied the link here: https://www.proquest.com/openview/71fe2859676f5fdade60d8c1e873ed6b/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=1996357 The research claims that "Indigenous males are the most likely to be murdered in Canada". Unless that claim can be debunked, I recommend that this article acknowledge the opposing perspective, which suggests that this crisis should be viewed with a gender neutral point of view, with statistics to support it. JuicyGang ( talk) 16:51, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
The article states that the rate of violence is double that of any other group, but there are no numbers to back that up and no citation. What is the homicide rate for Native American women in the US? In Canada, the article offers an estimate of 5 per 100K, which is more than double the rate for US women overall (2 per 100K). Jonathan Tweet ( talk) 01:06, 26 October 2021 (UTC)