Talk:Femicide

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 January 2019 and 3 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ktoyama18, Sshor.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 August 2020 and 17 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jazmin558. Peer reviewers: JasleneS.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2021 and 12 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kyleehickey, GAnderson8.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Nia Dokes.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:16, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments
This article does not read like feminist propaganda, as the person below thought. It reads like anti-feminist propaganda. This article is ridiculous. Reading below, it seems it was entirely re-written by some college students who wanted to claim that femicide is not a legitimate concept. This entry badly needs to be re-written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.1.160.206 (talk) 20:16, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

This article reads like feminist propaganda. If it can't be rewritten NPOV then it should be deleted. And since the term is designed as form of extreme POV propaganda I doubt it could ever be NPOV. Further, I find the term utterly superfluous. This clearly falls under the definition of homicide in its current form. By simply reversing the genders, you end up with yet another nonsensical term - Masicide which is not only not discussed in the article, but it too is again superfluous. This reads like feminist propaganda and I don't see a viable home for such vitriol on Wikipedia. --

I would hate to see this page deleted from Wiki --Survivor 01:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

"In addition to the other categories of hate crime, gender is increasingly being included as a status category in State and Federal hate crime laws. The current study explored how prosecutors view gender as a status category in hate crime law, specifically in terms of their knowledge of gender-bias violence and their willingness to charge violence against women as a hate crime... The authors recommend adopting an advocacy approach that supports the notion of violence against women as an issue of power and control while at the same time educates and encourages prosecutors and the public to adopt a hate crime perspective on violence against women. " (McPhail & DiNitto 2005) Violence Against Women: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal

Engendering Hate Crime Policy: Gender, the "Dilemma of Difference," and the Creation of Legal Subjects by Valerie Jenness "discusses what feminist legal scholars refer to as "the dilemma of difference" that is inherent in hate-crime policy in the United States...

The author addresses how the dilemma of difference has been managed in the formulation of hate-crime policy in the United States, as it simultaneously addresses the ways in which gender is both distinct from and similar to other status provisions recognized in hate-crime law, i.e., race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc." (Jenness 2003) Journal of Hate Studies

Wouldn't the policies of the Taliban when they ruled Afghanistan be considered femicide or gendercide? Now they own Afghanistan lol — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:249:8181:3980:C0B4:6007:DFBD:B7B3 (talk) 22:58, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Gendercide of men
I'm going to delete this nonsense. It is not encyclopedic in any sense and has nothing to do with femicide. If someone wants to attempt a separate article on specifically killing men, they are welcome, but this stuff does not belong here. Femicide is a serious topic that deserves respectful attention and discourse. Myron 12:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Why is Gendercide of men nonsense? For instance the story of Moses, and more recently in the balkans. Gendercide is a serious topic, but since femicide is redirected from gendercide this topic belongs here. Also, the killing of men because of their gender, and the killing of women because of their gender are related topics if two seperate articles existed they would be linked to each other. To say that femicide is a serious topic and the killing of men because of their gender is nonsense shows a very clear bias. -- rom

I think this article should be moved to Gendercide and improved accordingly. Femicide is more common a motif, but only because homocide of men is usually not given any special consideration (just like the "hate crime" label, crimes are easily labelled in a particular way if there's a (intentional or coincidental) pattern in the motivation or execution that can be observed). Labelling it as nonsense feminist propaganda seems misguided and highly questionable to me, but even if femicide is more common, it seems only just to discuss the topic at large if you're going to talk about one of its variants in detail. Adding a "gendercide" subsection to the "femicide" article would make it seem too biased and shift the focus -- having a large "femicide" subsection in the "gendercide" article and discussing the topic in depth there, OTOH, would make it clear that it's more common, or at least better understood, a topic, but part of the same issue and shares the basic concept. If femicide proves detailed enough a topic to justify its own article without reducing the gendercide article to a stub, a split would make sense, and the femicide article could spare the entire introduction into the basic concept of gendercide. &mdash; Ashmodai (talk · contribs) 13:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I actually arrived at Gendercide from a wikilink that was refering to gendercide of men, and as such was surprised by the redirect. I have now changed it from a redirect into a stub that covers both (though there's only a sentence on each; the one on gendercide of women directs the reader to this article.  Like I said, it's a stub).  --Icarus 08:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your post Ashmodai,I like what you've said and done but you've misinterpreted something "Labelling it as nonsense feminist propaganda seems misguided and highly questionable to me, but even if femicide is more common" .... that line was inferring that I (rom) thought femicide was nonsense, this isn't the case, when actually Myron originally said including the selective killing of men was nonsense, and i was replying to that. -- rom

Myth about most common cause of death
I removed the following feminist myth from the end of the article:

"Women between the ages of 15 and 44 are more likely to be maimed or to die from violence than through cancer, malaria, traffic accidents or war combined."

Besides the absurdity that violence would kill more women aged 15-44 than cancer OR war, or even more than them combined, this statement has never been verified and there are no sources. The myth is commonly seen with different modifiers, for example "women in Europe", or with malaria switched for HIV or another disease. Its origins are unknown.

The blantant falsehood of this claim can easily be checked with WHO's international statistics of causes of death: http://www3.who.int/whosis/menu.cfm?path=whosis,mort

hugs, /Truncated (should get an account some day)

no such thing as masculinicide?
so now men can't be killed? so, only women can die? I don't get this logic, or whatever it is. Wow, and people wonder why there are so many gay men nowadays... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.152.105.16 (talk • contribs).

I guess I just wondered about the etymology of the term -- I mean, it's not "mascucide", it's "homicide." Does this mean women are actually "femo sapiens"? Attacks on women's characters are "ad feminem"? I have no problem with drawing attention to a problem that I will emphatically agree is real (although we can argue semantics and statistics all night long), but do we need to mangle the language in the process? Just checking.

This article is just PR. There are a number of propaganda statistics in this article. Hitler type "Big Lie", "Make the lie big and keep repeating it". The citations frequently refute the assertions in the article. This article should be deleted because its gendered propaganda that does not meet standard for objectivity or neutrality. 2605:E000:1310:81D7:48F5:F333:9D81:C64D (talk) 10:58, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Merge
This page should be merged into Gendercide, with that page then expanded to include the killing of men. Any opposition? --HarmonicFeather 18:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with HarmonicFeather on the Gendercide merge. If not merged, then at least a link to it since both topics are undoubtedly interconnected.--Y.ruvalcaba (talk) 07:26, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, merge. But possibly Femicide is the more dominant topic.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:37, 21 September 2015 (UTC)


 * This article is about murder of a woman. Gendercide is about the concept of doing away with one of the two genders entirely.  It's very different.  Chrisrus (talk) 00:01, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Cultural materialism
I'm missing the reference to Marvin Harris here. Femicide was a normal way of population control in ancient times.

War is done by men. So men are more valuable then woman. A tribe who reached his maximum population, that it can support by its means of technology and land, will therefore maximize the number of men, by killing girls just after birth. And try to enslave women from neighboring tribes. This had been done by Greeks, Vikings, and most other successful warrior states. And its still common practice in India, and other 3rd world regions.

War is not suitable for population control alone, as war is done by men, but women get children. But when the number of women are reduced by femicide, the tribe will get less children. Therefore war + femicide = population control. 83.236.58.4 (talk) 22:17, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposed Changes to Article
I and another student from Rice University have selected to greatly expand and reorganize this current femicide article as a class project for a class in the Poverty, Justice and Human Capabilities Minor. As the Talk discussions currently discuss right now, a major concern of this article is that femicide does not deserve its own separate definition and should instead by moved under the greater Wikipedia Article of Gendercide. However, the planned proposals I and my partner wish to make would include a great expansion of this article, and its future contents would most certainly be able to stand alone on its own page. We do understand the struggle in maintaining a NPOV, and although we will quote heavily from Diane Radford and other academics that are in favor of the term femicide and its definition, our goal is to include other points of view that argue against femicide as a concept, and to quote just as heavily from them while still allowing a definition of the term. If any of you have suggestions as to what these sources might be, please let us know.

We have multiple reasons why we want to see this article be expanded. This current Wikipedia article on Femicide is only a few paragraphs longs and utilizes very few resources in its discussion of the topic. We plan on using a multitude of resources that far exceeds the current number, and hopefully will offer a more NPOV on the issue. Although the existing article introduces the concept of femicide, it does not discuss in detail the many different kinds of femicide nor does it give differing examples of how, why and where femicide occurs world-wide. A nuanced and neutral perspective is absolutely imperative on this subject in order to represent the many different facets of this issue, which this article does not currently offer. Another flaw in the article is that it does not reference many other Wikipedia articles that already touch on aspects of femicide including, Female homicide in Juarez, Honor killings, Corrective Rape, Infanticide and Female genital mutilation to name a few. The goal in revising this article is to create an overview on the subject that will allow users to not just get a general understanding of femicide, but also to have easy connections that allow them to examine other articles that discuss specific aspects of the issue.

Our current plan is to reorganize the outline of the article into this organization:

1 Definition

1.1 Specific definition

1.2 Distinction from other forms of homicide

1.3 Perpetrators of femicide

1.4 Historical development of the term

1.5 Controversy over term

2 Types of femicide

2.1 Intimate partner femicide

2.2 Racist femicide

2.3 Lesbicide

2.3.1 Corrective rape

2.4 Serial femicide

2.5 Mass femicide

2.6 Sex-selective abortion

2.7 Other

3. Femicide around the world

3.1 United States

3.1.1 Notable Cases

3.2 Latin America

3.2.1 Juarez

3.3 South Asia

3.3.1 Sex-selective abortion

3.4 Africa

4. Solutions

4.1 Legal Solutions

4.2 Policy

As we only have a semester to do this project, we cannot cover all countries in the world and their relation to Femicide, but we hope to give a broad overview of different areas. We would appreciate any feedback on our proposed changes, and also any possible sources that would help in writing this article. I and my partner feel very strongly that this article has merit as a stand-alone article, and that with proper revision, more people will truly understand the term femicide and why it is important.

Robinkvest (talk) 19:41, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

SWGS 322 Wiki Review
Lena and Robin,

I liked the broad perspectives of definitions that you gave. It was here that I saw your efforts to provide neutral information. You used appropriate images (maps) and a good amount of linking to other articles. The quality and quantity of your sources were also appropriate. I also liked that you covered several areas of the world. You had a few grammatical errors: first sentence of lesbicide, need to make "conviction" plural in "only 127 conviction occurred in 2010" (Guatemala Decree 22). Under Intimate Partner Femicide, you wrote that "each day in this country results in the death of 4 women", but that's assuming that the reader would know your country of origin. Please specify which country you were referring to. You provided a broad amount of information that covered many aspects of femicide. My only major criticisms are that much of your information was repeated throughout the article (in several sections) and you heavily rely on direct quotations.

ThatRavengirl (talk) 15:55, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

SWGS 322 Wiki Review
Really thorough, well cited, well written article. I think it was very well organized, with focus on the different types of femicide, the development of the definition, and the various case studies.

A few recommendations:
 * I would maybe rename the "definition" section to "background" or "overview" so that the heading is more encompassing. You do a lot more than just simply define the term - instead you provide a very in-depth historical overview of how the term has changed and how it has been influenced. "Definition" doesn't seem to be encompassing enough for the depth of information you present.
 * I am curious about your inclusion of AIDS and FGM as examples of femicide in Africa. I understand the rationale behind it, but it seems to not fit your definition, which seems to focus more on intentionality. While I get that AIDS and FGM affects female deaths disproportionately, I feel that including it under the intentional killing of females or being female may be a stretch.
 * I would make the "femicide worldwide" section to perhaps read "case studies" in order to encourage other authors to contribute as well.
 * "policy solutions" appear to be country-specific case studies rather than overviews of the types of policy solutions available and attempted. Perhaps you could provide an overview, and then go into the specifics?

Overall, really great article! Lillyyu (talk) 20:13, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

SWGS 322 Wiki Review
My recommendations are:


 * I would add some citations to the header--it's clearly well-researched and tracks the work of Diana E. H. Russell, but what specific sources did you use for this information?


 * I think the term "sexual terrorism" in the header is a little unclear, but see how it gets cleared up in later sections.


 * I would clarify the language of the sentence, "Globally, femicide has seldom been investigated separately from homicide, and the goals of many of these authors is to change this concept." Are the authors trying to change the fact the femicide is understudied, or change the concept and definition of femicide itself?


 * Is "properly" neutral in this sentence: "Dr. Diana Russell is popularly lauded as the first to instigate the usage and to facilitate the publishing of the term at the Crimes Against Women Tribunal in 1976."?


 * I think the semicolon in this sentence should be a colon (and the same for another sentence in that paragraph): "Risk factors that increase the likelihood of intimate partner femicide include; when a male has previously threatened to commit suicide or kill the women if a woman cheats/leaves him, when there is elevated alcohol or drug abuse by either partner, or when a male attempts to control a woman's freedom".


 * Capitalize "south asia".

Beyond these grammatical and neutrality considerations, I do not have too many more recommendations. I agree with Lillyyu above that you might want to consider renaming the final two sections. In terms of structure and overall content, the article was well very well done. Great work! NSDhaliwal (talk) 22:10, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Response to SWGS 322 edits
Thanks so much for your input Raven, Lilly and Navi. I corrected the mistakes you mentioned in your post already Raven, and I will also correct the grammatical and punctuation errors you mentioned as well Navi. I like the idea of renaming the worldwide section case studies, and will make that change. I agree that the Policy section needs some work, especially an overview. That section is still a work in progess, and by the final Contribution Lena and I will have expanded it greatly. Lilly, I understand the confusion as to why FGM and HIV/AIDS are femicide. These are forms of femicide only when misogynistic practices result in the death of a female. Diana Russell sees FGM as a practice that is essentially to please men and subordinate women and their sexual pleasure, and when this results in death it is included in her definition of femicide. Russell also writes extensively on AIDS and how if women are forced into sex with a man with HIV and the woman later dies of the disease than that is femicide as well. However, these are forms of covert femicide rather than overt femicide, so I will try and clear that up in the passages. I also will more specifically state that these are forms of femicide under Diana Russell's definition but not necessarily under other definitions. Finally, I like the idea of renaming Definition to Overview, and I will do so. Once again, thanks for all the suggestions! Robinkvest (talk) 14:40, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Article Review
Hey guys. Your page is overall extremely impressive. Judging from the past discussions on the talk page it sounds like you guys turned an extremely controversial page into a very neutral, thorough, and very readable article. I like Lily was a little bit confused about your inclusion of AIDS and FGM in the article. The information is great but I wonder if there might be a better way to incorporate it into the page without seeming like it's a bit out of place. Another suggestion I had was to possibly reconsider the title 'Policy Solutions' only because the word solution slightly suggests a less neutral point of view. A small detail but the two policy solutions you listed might look better capitalized. Additionally your graphics are great but another one or two would definitely balance the page out a little bit better. Victoria.delgado (talk) 08:26, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Response to Edit Suggestions
Thanks Lilly, Navi, Raven and Victoria for your thorough review and helpful suggestions! I agree that some information was repetitive so I did my best to go through and delete/rephrase certain things (I cut some things from certain sections and added them to others - see "Historical evolution of the term". I also added one more graphic to the Ciudad Mujer section and changed "Policy solutions" to "Policy implications" - thanks Victoria for the advice. I also reorganized a few of the beginning sections so they would flow better. Other than that I corrected a few more grammar errors and I think it reads stronger now! Thanks again for the help!

Lenasilva (talk) 16:06, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Mascucide or Masculicide

 * Feminist author Diana E. H. Russell is one of the early pioneers of the term, and she currently defines the word as "the killing of females by males because they are females."

Have there been times in history where males have been killed by females because they are males? If so, could that potentially warrant an article also? I am wondering in terms of numbers how much femicide has occurred and what the opposite would be compared to.

Also presuming femicide excludes the killing of females by females for being female, I assume that mascucide would exclude the killing of males by males for being male, right? Ranze (talk) 01:38, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * femicide includes women killed by women because they are female - in spite of that definition. Androcide is the male alternative.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:22, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * We already have an article for "mascucide" and/or "masculicide" and it's called Androcide, I'll make your suggestions redirections to avoid further confusion.
 * Sincerely, --Namlong618 (talk) 14:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I have to object to the creation of the Mascucide redirect based solely on this discussion. There is no evidence anyone has ever used such a term. The mere conjecture that such a concept might exist is hardly a valid reason to create the redirect. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:42, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The same would go for the term Lesbicide which is specifically created for this page, while I have once heard the Mascucide term before for example here, I request speedy deletion for Lesbicide as well if these 2 terms aren't relevant enough for Androcide.
 * Sincerely, --Namlong618 (talk) 14:56, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Both your requests and my request were denied, let's be honest if this person didn't type in the Latin name as opposed to the Greek "Andros" (male) then they would've never found the page, the same goes for the greek Gyno- being used as a redirect page here, while the Latin Femi- is used in the title, both are equally valid.
 * Sincerely, --Namlong618 (talk) 15:05, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

neutrality and tone
There are some issues with neutrality, tone, and synth. For example much of the material on HIV has nothing to do with femicide (eg sources don't mention it) and is coatracked here. There are also tone issues in a few paras which sound a bit too conversational, chatty or even angry. I think we should not have expansive sections on issues called femicide unless there is significant consensus amongst RS that such a thing is indeed femicide, vs just violence against women - so I'm going to look at sources around FGM for example to see if this qualifies.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:22, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The major problem is that the article veers between the concept of "femicide" as misogynist and "femicide" as just a term for the killing of women in general (or deaths by HIV). The list of serial killers doesn't really add anything to the article. The definition of femicide as the killing of women because they are women doesn't really help. People are usually killed because of who they are, and femininity is obviously an important part of identity. Violence directed against women often has a sexual/domestic context, but does not mean the women are killed because they are women pure and simple. As noted elsewhere, very few women are killed simply because they are women. There is an obvious difference the killing of a spouse and the killing of a random person. Is a woman who kills her lesbian lover killing her because she is a woman? Depends what you mean. The use of statistics is basically unbalanced (as noted on this page) because female deaths are rarely compared with male deaths. Statistical analysis seems more appropriate to a page like Sex differences in crime.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:57, 9 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately these problems remain, in the article, as is shown by other comments on this page.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:34, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

About...
So, talking about equality: where is the equivalent article for men murders? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.21.117.88 (talk) 17:54, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Edit Request
This article claims that men make up "only" 5-8% of a crime that they define as "the killing of women by men because they are women". How embarrassing is that?

It's not just embarrassing, its a reveal that they are talking out of their butts. "Femicide" is a radical feminist attempt to make up a new sort of crime that makes female death more important than male death and for wikipedia to support this without reference to it being a rad-fem terminology is irresponsible.

There are numerous errors in fact in this article including the misunderstanding of what the defence of provocation vs the defence of self defence is. They are compared as if they are the same thing. Additionally, it is well known that women get away with more lenient sentencing for their crimes while this article claims that women are punished more severely. The only references given for their assertion is a rad fem book which doesn't provide the source for that so-called fact.

I'm sure you all felt good about helping some females get a better grade in her university course but it doesn't justify allowing wikipedia to be used as a tool for propaganda. Diana.davison (talk) 03:18, 21 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello Diana and thank you for your interest in improving this article. I promise to try to help you.  First of all, some advice: it's best to play it Mr. Spock to the extent that you might fail a turing test. Therefore, please change the title of this talk page section to something like "edit request" or "errors of fact", and make any other edits to that end.


 * Second, what specific edit are you suggesting? You could say "delete this sentence" or "remove this word" and so on.  Remember, the only topic here is article improvement, and specifically not to discuss the topic of the article, in this case "femicide".  If we would like to destroy the article, we start a deletion request. Ether way, I hope you will respond below.  Happy editing!  Chrisrus (talk) 04:13, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the title suggestion. First of all, to say that "femicide" is the killing of a female then state that men comprise 5-8% of the victims is an obvious fail. How can this statement exist. Perhaps they are referring to transgendered people? That should be made clear if that's the case and they'd have to prove that the men were killed because they appeared female and not a hate crime against trans people as a separate category.

Additionally, the number of people who kill someone just because they are female is practically nil. There is usually a trigger related to a specific female that harmed them. To pretend that murder is a simple subject like "because I hate women" is beneath wikipedia.

Russell includes "cosmetic surgery" in her list of femicides. Cosmetic surgery is self elected and rarely results in death as well as the ambiguous "other mutilations in the name of beauty". Mutilations? Are we talking about clitoral piercings? What does that mean?

Criminalization of abortion is referred here as a form of femicide instead of the complex and inflammatory debate of mostly women who argue with each other over whether or not a fetus is a human.

The first use of the term "femicide" is sourced from a book called "A Satirical Review..." We all know what satire is, right?

I searched the oed online for the second reference to usage and since my complaint can no longer find an entry in the online version.

The person, Diana Russell, who has been pushing this term has a youtube video asking first world feminists why they won't use the term when other countries have taken up her mantle. If you can handle it, her appeal to feminists to adopt her term is on youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOoTBoIS234

After asserting that the word "femicide" has its origins in the 1800s they say " But since it involves mere females, there was no name for it until Carol Orlock invented the word 'femicide.'"... in the 70s or something like that. And only because Diana Russell didn't want to outright steal it (though Russells refers to her Brussels speech as having been given by her and "somebody else". In the interests of objective language - "mere females"??

"Femicide is distinct from general homicide because the instances occur in domestic settings as a result of intimate partner or family violence" while research shows that the greatest predictor of IPV is female aggression. http://www.xyonline.net/sites/default/files/Kimmel,%20Gender%20symmetry%20in%20dom.pdf Domestic violence is roughly equal among the genders unless you look at one direction (non-reciprocal violence) in which case women are the majority perpetrators. This is because they believe men won't hit them back.

The article is expanded to be so ridiculously long I'm going to leave it here for now with a reference to the government study that shows women get sentenced much lighter than men when they kill a partner in a domestic setting. "Sentences for male offenders ranged from 46 months to life, while sentences for female offenders ranged from suspended sentences with probation to five years." http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/other-autre/smir-phiri/law-juri.html

If you enjoyed this, I'll be back with more facts later. Diana.davison (talk) 09:41, 27 September 2014 (UTC)


 * That's great, but we're supposed to be talking about article improvement, not the referent of the article per se. What changes would you like to make to the article?  Do you have specific edits in mind?  Should it be completely re-written?  Do you feel prepared to do that?  Or should it be deleted?  If it should be deleted, we have to leave here and start a deletion discussion.  Do you speak Spanish?  This, https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminicidio, says "Femicide is a neologism created by..."  Should we phrase it like that?  "a neologism with various meanings", one that "is found in feminist discourse" and maybe "various legal meanings in different countries".  Normally, we don't have articles about some vague neologism made up by some academic unless it catches on.  From what I can see, this one, to some extent, has.  Chrisrus (talk) 01:28, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I think there are valid points for article improvement in there.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:29, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Chile
The article starts with Chile making femicide illegal but makes no further claims on how and why it's implemented, ¿how is it different from regular homicide? ¿was it legal to kill women in Chile before this law? ¿and is androcide legal? The article presents a piece of information but gives no further information in how it's implemented and why it was implemented. Sincerely, --Namlong618 (talk) 14:38, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you speak Spanish? We could use the sources for the Spanish language version of this article to improve this one.  Chrisrus (talk) 22:18, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I do to a certain extend as I'm a Latin-American (born in Latin-America but raised here in North-Western Europe so it's a bit rusty), but please link those sources here, and if you could translate them and implement them into the article for further explanation or at-least less ambiguous text that would be swell. Let's just say that I can understand most Castilian while I'd only trip on a few words now and then.
 * Sincerely, --Namlong618 (talk) 21:16, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I already found the page here in Castilophone Wikipedia.
 * Sincerely, --Namlong618 (talk) 21:23, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Also try https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminicidio Chrisrus (talk) 21:50, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Gracías, Sinceramente --Namlong618 (talk) 07:32, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

To expand on this comment, not only does it not answer these questions, but it fails to discuss femicide in Chile altogether. Considering the majority of the media relates to Chile, I consider it important to discuss this subject or at least begin to mention it. Gdelc03111 (talk) 22:54, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Latin America
From the article:
 * Also according to the Human Rights Council Special Rapporteur on violence against women, the rate at which women are being killed in several Central American countries is alarming when compared to the rate that Latin men are being killed.

This makes no sense. In the example of Ciudad Juarez, male victims accounted for 90% of the homicides.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:43, 28 June 2015 (UTC)


 * What the 2012 report actually says is: "The northern triangle of Central America has the highest rates of homicide in a non-conflict context. The rate of killings of men has been stable during the last decade, but there has been an increase in the rates of killings of women." (p 17). I have deleted all references to this report because they weren't accurate and they didn't cite specific page numbers.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:32, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Good. Keep it up! Chrisrus (talk) 21:09, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Percentages
Math problem: If men are 80% of homicide victims, and 8% of them die from domestic violence, that's 6,4% of the total homicide victims. If women are 20% of the homicide victims, and 40% of them die in domestic violence, that's 8% of homicide victims. That would make 6,4% vs 8% - I wouldn't necessarily call that a huge gendered problem.
 * No, the statistics do not bear out the claims.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:15, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Femicide. 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/20151208095842/http://www.pangeatoday.com/acid-burn-victims-march-against-femicide-in-colombia/ to http://www.pangeatoday.com/acid-burn-victims-march-against-femicide-in-colombia/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:30, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Nia Dokes Peer Review
The is a really amazing topic and I had no idea that Femicide could also have some racist ideologies behind it in terms of black women being murdered but they are not talked about in society. There are no spelling errors and the statistics are good and so are the sources. Nia Dokes (talk) 01:49, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Femicide. 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://archive.is/20130426143512/http://www.hopemovement.com/open-ur-eyes/16-femicide.html to http://www.hopemovement.com/open-ur-eyes/16-femicide.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:15, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Russell, Russell, and Russell.
I've never seen a Wikipedia article that only referred to the person who coined the term, this is a serious issue, but this article seems to take Diana Russell's word on literally everything, in fact you'd find her name in every 2 sentences, I get that she coined the term, but in no other article have I found so much references to the inventor of the term, it's almost as if this article is more of an epitome of her book rather than a neutral article, the article on Gendercide itself makes little to no mention on Androcide. --86.81.201.94 (talk) 22:27, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


 * This is a serious problem. A lot of the article is just an expansion on Russell's views as expressed in "Overview". Perhaps Russell's views could be condensed to one section.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:56, 9 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I've just read through the article and I second this.Ethanpet113 (talk) 11:48, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I disagree. A quick Google search shows that three major dictionaries (Oxford, Cambridge, and dictionary.com (which is Random House)) define the word and they generally don't do that because only one author uses it. Reduction to one section because multisection content is based on one source author is not appropriate if the content otherwise would call for multiple sections. It'd be nice to add more sources, but that's a different issue. Feel free to add. Nick Levinson (talk) 20:31, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Domestic violence is not femicide
The article defines femicide as "the intentional killing of females because they are females" but goes on to say that it mostly happens in domestic violence cases. Are we really saying that husbands one day just decide to kill their wives because they're female and for no other reason? That doesn't make any sense. Surely there's more realistic reasons like drunk belligerent jealous husbands, or overly controlling husband's that are abusive. But saying they kill females because they're females is just rediculus. It would make more sense to focus on cases where females are actually targeted like in China with the one child policy. Jone951 (talk) 22:07, 29 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I think that's a fair point. Domestic violence also occurs in homosexual relationships. It think abortion is a different issue, however.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:35, 9 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Killing women in the context of domestic violence is included in the legal definition of "femicide" in many countries which have a specific "femicide" law. The "more realistic reasons like drunk belligerent jealous husbands, or overly controlling husband's that are abusive", as you put it, are considered discriminatory reasons originating in the traditionally inferior status of women and in the view that women are the property of men (an example of such killings are honor killings). Since in many countries there is a history of tolerating, in law or in practice, the killing of women in the family at the hands of male relatives and husbands, modern "femicide" laws are meant to prevent the toleration of such homicides. 2A02:2F0F:B311:F400:3A77:33F8:3E25:D304 (talk) 19:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Turkey
The section on Turkey is a bit of a mess IMO. The 1st para only talks about honour killings, which AFAIK is a related (subset) concept, but not the same as femicide. And to make things worse, it mentions a figure of 5,000 murders per year, giving the impression that the figure refers to Turkey alone, whereas it's the global total (per the source cited, p.29). The 2nd para then goes on to discuss geography, ie. where the killers were born vs. where they went on to kill, which seems pretty irrelevant to me. As a result, not much meaningful information is conveyed. For starters, I'm moving the 5,000 figure into the start of the Worldwide section, where it belongs. I'm also adding a number for femicides, as quoted in The Guardian (1 August 2020). Otherwise I'm leaving things as they are, for now, albeit it's still far from perfect. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:13, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Australia or Australasia
The section title of "Australasia" has just been changed to "Australia". In the revision history I noticed that similar edits have been reverted in the past. Now, Australasia is a valid term, describing Australia, New Zealand and the surronding area. However, the (very short) section in this article talks exclusively about Australia. So before it gets reverted again, I'd like to get some thoughts on whether it should just say Australia or whether the section should be expanded. Regards --Yhdwww (talk) 14:35, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Australia should probably appear under Oceania because the list is essentially geographic sub-divisions of the world or continental areas, while Australia is a country that does not fit into one of the other listed continental areas. I think the heading should remain as Australia but go down to a sub-level, because the content under the heading is specific to Australia. If the heading were Australasia then I would expect separate headings under it for Australia and New Zealand as well as some countries in Melanesia. Alternatively, Australia could be included as part of an expanded Asia-Pacific region, given it is the only country without a continental grouping. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 10:32, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Canada
Hello, A small group of us decided to add a section regarding Femicide in Canada given that there was a section for North America but it only featured the USA. Kyleehickey (talk) 18:47, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

No other problems
The mere existence of this article suggests that the world doesn't really have any significant actual problems it needs to deal with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.233.155.161 (talk) 14:30, 8 March 2021 (UTC)


 * See WP:NOTFORUM. --Yhdwww (talk) 13:51, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Possible Improvements
As of right now the article has many mistakes. It seems to have very biased diction. It also provides details that in my opinion seem irrelevant, or do not necessarily add to the topic. I would like to set some specific categories for the article (Definition, Origin, Types of Femicides, etc..). I also believe we can update the data with newly collected research since the percentages have changed due to the pandemic. Also, going into the data from every single country seems like it could become their own Wikipedia article. Zen916 (talk) 23:09, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Possible Improvements
This article is pretty broad and includes details that are unnecessary. I’d like to expand on the “Causes” sub-topic, and completely modify the subtopic “Tendency in serial killings.” Some of the information under this header is unnecessary like to contrasts in between the methods of killing between men and women. Additionally, I’d like to change some of the wording throughout the article. In certain parts it lacks the neutrality needed in a Wikipedia article. Also, I would like to update most of the data. Although the stats on the article are necessary, I think up-to-date data will be more beneficial to the reader. Zen916 (talk) 03:06, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * "In certain parts it lacks the neutrality needed in a Wikipedia article." Could you cite relative passages? It is not entirely clear what POV you have detected. Dimadick (talk) 17:48, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Proposed Changes
I.	Lead The lead of the article is a bit all over the place in my opinion. From the Wikipedia training that we received; I remember the lead being a snippet of all the information the article contains. The lead from the Femicide article does provide important information, but it also has unnecessary information or information that is not brought up in any other section of the article. There is a part of opposition and counterarguments in the lead. I believe that should have its own section. The idea that femicide shouldn’t even be a term is very prevalent. There are articles that support ending the usage of the term “femicide.” Additionally, I think some information, even if it is just one sentence, about how intimate partner violence became more likely to happen due to the pandemic lockdowns that began occurring in 2020 would benefit the readers. This is so that the reader can have a better understanding of how the statistics are now, and how maybe they are much higher due to the Covid-19 pandemic, and the lockdowns that had to take place. I also want to include the fact that the term is not widely used which makes it very hard for femicides to be labeled as such. References: o	Dayan, H. (2018). Preventing femicide. Femicide and the Law, 111–143. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203701850-6 o	World Health Organization. (n.d.). Violence against women. World Health Organization. Retrieved February 16, 2022, from https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/violence-against-women

II. Tendency in serial killings I believe the section is not needed. The title should be changed to “Serial femicides,” so that it actually relates to the main article. The tendency in serial killings just seems a bit redundant and pointless. Some of the information is actually important for the consensus of the article, but it would make more sense to move it to a different section. For example, the sentence about the 33 thousand homicide cases that remain unsolved can be part of the lead since it is a very important detail. The comparison between male and female serial killers is also unnecessary.

III. Causes I would like to expand on the sub-section of Among Intimate Partners. I think something very important, is the increase in the likelihood of femicide when firearms are present in a household. There is only a single sentence on firearms, but I think it should be expanded. The statistics regarding firearms are definitely very alarming and have an effect on the femicides rate. The article, in my opinion, should have a focus on this topic. I would also like to add a subtopic titled “Female Infanticide.” This is when newborn female children are killed because they’re female. This is a concern for nations like China, India, and Pakistan. Female infanticide happens because in some societies there is a bias against girls. Additionally, a subtopic on “Misogynistic Views” will also be beneficial to the overall comprehension of the article. I think if we shine a light on the misogynist views that are prevalent in today’s society, we can better explain to the reader why it leads to femicides. Today, women are able to work and be as involved as ever before. Women have become more independent and are allowed to do just as much as men, but this can become dangerous in a society that values misogyny. References: o	Gun violence in America. Everytown Research & Policy. (2022, February 8). Retrieved February 16, 2022, from https://everytownresearch.org/report/gun-violence-in-america/ o	Dawson, M., Carrigan, M., & Hill, E. (2019). Femicide. Criminology. https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780195396607-0270 o	Dying to live: The gender dimension of child mortality in India. UN Women. (n.d.). Retrieved February 16, 2022, from https://www.unwomen.org/en/news/stories/2014/3/the-gender-dimensions-of-child-mortality-in-india o	Gonzalez-Mendez, R., & Santana-Hernandez, J. D. (2011). Professional opinions on violence against women and femicide in Spain. Homicide Studies, 16(1), 41–59. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088767911428959 o	Beyer, K. M., Layde, P. M., Hamberger, L. K., & Laud, P. W. (2014). Does neighborhood environment differentiate intimate partner femicides from other femicides? Violence Against Women, 21(1), 49–64. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801214564075 IV. Prevention I would like to add a section on prevention. We can prevent femicides if social workers, police officers, and lawyers received proper training. Social workers sometimes lack the understanding needed to properly identify when someone is experiencing domestic violence. Additionally, sometimes the lack of knowledge on certain cultures and norms prevents the social worker to identify the signs of violence. Also, education on femicide can also help decrease the number of femicides. If people are educated on femicide, what it is, and how to prevent it. It will help women leave the relationship since they will be able to know the signs of domestic violence. The media can be of great support on this, it can share information on femicide and make it available to all. References: o	Dayan, H. (2018). Preventing femicide. Femicide and the Law, 111–143. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203701850-6 V.	Mexico I would like to add a small paragraph on the Mexico section about Fatima Cecilia, a nine-year-old girl that was a victim of femicide. She sparked an entire movement in Mexico, protests took place and one specifically caught my attention, “Un Dia Sin Mujeres.” I think adding a sentence or two about this would help the reader better understand femicide in Mexico. References: o	Panuco-Mercado, G. (2020). Melodrama and italicized language in an era of #MeToo: A 2020 review of Jeanine Cummins's American Dirt. Georgetown Journal of International Affairs, 21(1), 216–219. https://doi.org/10.1353/gia.2020.0007

Links: I want to add a link to and from the article on the “Murder of Fatima Cecilia.” This will probably take place in the subtopic “Mexico.” I also want to add links to the article “Female infanticide in China,” and “Female infanticide in India.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zen916 (talk • contribs) 05:35, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment
This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Rice University supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program&#32;during the 2013 Q1 term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from by PrimeBOT (talk) on 15:56, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: The Anthropology of Violence
— Assignment last updated by RiverScullerPDX (talk) 16:31, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Please rewrite this sentence if you have access to the source
Last sentence (currently) of the U.S. section, sourced from Russell, Diana E.H. and Harmes, Roberta A, (Eds.), Femicide in Global Perspective New York: Teachers College Press, 2001, Ch. 2, p. 13-14

"Also, reporting of female victims of femicide in the US is stymied, due to the assumption that female victims are not an anomaly, but are driven by their perceived vulnerability and passivity."

This needs some clarification. Without the source, I don't want to attempt it though.

Wikinetman (talk) 21:23, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't know about vulnerability, but how do you define the "passivity" of the victims? Dimadick (talk) 10:40, 20 April 2024 (UTC)