Talk:Femicides in Ciudad Juárez

Wikipedia Ambassador Program assignment
This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Rice University supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program&#32;during the 2011 Q3 term. Further details are available on the course page.

Above message substituted from on 15:02, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Reporting Myth as fact
This wiki page is reporting the popular Mythology of the killings in Juarez as fact. The fact is that women constitute 10% of the deaths in Juarez and is about the same for other violent Mexican cities, both per capita and percentage of deaths. It has been at this level for years. Women constitute about 20% of murders in the USA. The Femicide narrative is convenient for many, it fits their world view or deflects from the shocking level of violence in Juarez. The email from the "Huntress" also originated in the USA. This page is simply dreadful.

Molly Molloy at New Mexico State University who has researched this issue carefully. http://newscenter.nmsu.edu/7508/ CSDarrow (talk) 17:20, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It's a problem for most feminist articles. That's the way wikipedia works: you need sources that mention the topic (female homicides in .. or femicide), so when feminists come up with their own vocabulary, all the sources you'll find will be written by them. Anyone interested in the subject will find the literature written by those who adhere to the same ideology. You see this use of specific terminology, mostly borrowed from specialised fields in antropology, history and science in cults, politics (marxism being a prime example) and most pseudo-sciences; terms like "dianetics", "zero-point energy", "quantum healing", "commodification", "patriarchal society", "dialectical materialism".
 * Feminism has used this tactic extensively: "Consciousness raising", "womanism", gynocriticism, sexual objectification, standpoint theory, hegemonic masculinity, epistemic advantage, gender performativity; you could fill pages with terms starting with "gender" alone. As a result of this isolation, feminist studies are based on textbooks that are filled with myths and faulty statistics. Christine Rosen reported that the five leading women's studies textbooks were rife with falsehoods, half-truths, and "deliberately misleading sisterly sophistries."


 * Fighting against this on wikipedia seems futile. For these feminists it's more about the message than the facts. To quote Christina Hoff Sommers:
 * My complaint with feminist research is not so much that the authors make mistakes; it is that the mistakes are impervious to reasoned criticism. They do not get corrected. The authors are passionately committed to the proposition that American women are oppressed and under siege. The scholars seize and hold on for dear life to any piece of data that appears to corroborate their dire worldview. At the same time, any critic who attempts to correct the false assumptions is dismissed as a backlasher and an anti-feminist crank.


 * With feminists writing most of the femicide books and publications, and wikipedia rules against WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, there's nothing you can do, unless you find good sources that mention the subject specifically and that compare the numbers of women killed with the total number of murders. Molly Mollow is a primary source, which would likely be used as argument against inclusion.
 * According to REDIM, Ciudad Juarez and the state of Chihuahua experienced the killings of 75 children per 100,000 inhabitants in 2009; with an estimated population of 1.5 million, that's more than 1000 children in Juarez alone. Of course these figures can't be included, readers would wonder why the article existed in the first place. Give it time, this may eventually become one of those big deception stories, like the one about the tobacco industry hiding evidence of adverse health effects... Ssscienccce (talk) 13:54, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

PERHAPS ... instead of "fighting Wikipedia" you could try battling the problem! "A 2013 global study on homicide by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime found that males accounted for about 96 percent of all homicide perpetrators worldwide and 79% of the victims." This is from a Wiki article, Homicide Statistics by Gender (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homicide_statistics_by_gender) ..

MEXICO	26,037 total homicides; 89.3% Male victims, total 23,251, or 19.2%. 10.7%	Female Victims, total 2,786 or 2.3%. (2012) USA         14,827 total homicides; 77.8% Male victims, total 11,535 or 3.7%. 22.2% Female victims, total 3,292, or 1.0% (2010) BRAZIL    50,108 total homicides;	89.8% male, or 44,997 or 22.6% 10.2% Female victims, total 5,111, or 2.6% (2010)

In other articles, also on Wiki, and elsewhere on the web: By city:      HOUSTON (2012)   216 total - as reported, there are few unreported murders. (302 dead, 2016) JUAREZ (2010)      607 total - as reported; but great numbers of murders were not reported until later: 3700 in 2010.

Hundreds of thousands of people came to Juarez for work beginning in the early 1990's. The population of women workers as being the target for many iof the murders isn't debated. Neither is the fact that the majority of both victims and perpetrators of homicide are men, that's true everywhere. They are the most significant killers, and are also have the highest rates of being the victims. No one can say that about women, anywhere. Women are usually the victims, everywhere. This isn't rabid feminism. It's simple facts. Extrapolate what you will, those facts are irrefutable.

This isn't about feminism or bad reporting either. The stats speak for themselves,and I believe people are mixing up the years in which things happened in Juarez. The cartels, like the Sinoloa and Juarez, began to run the scene from 2008 to 2012. Facts are that more women than average were being kidnapped, raped, tortured and murdered in Juarez than elsewhere from the early 1900's up to about 2010, when ALL murders dropped by almost 50%. In that one year alone, more than 3700 murderes were counted, but by 2011, that number had dropped by nearly 50%. Better reporting? Worse? What changed in 2010 and beyond? National Geographic article ..."Mexico found the political will, in Juárez at least, to strengthen the criminal justice system and invest in the local government. Doing so encouraged bravery from some unexpected protagonists: law enforcement officials who forged a more professional police force in a country where cops are often corrupt, businesspeople who stayed to fight rather than flee, and government officials who challenged the sclerotic bureaucracy and spearheaded dramatic reforms." (http://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2016/06/juarez-mexico-border-city-drug-cartels-murder-revival/ )  PLUS, the international community had eyes on them all, including the American companies. Have the rates of female rape and murders significantly dropped in 2017?


 * What's your point?--Jack Upland (talk) 10:12, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Female homicides in Ciudad Juárez. 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/20120306061402/http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/AMR41/026/2003/en/a62f0982-d6c3-11dd-ab95-a13b602c0642/amr410262003en.pdf to https://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/AMR41/026/2003/en/a62f0982-d6c3-11dd-ab95-a13b602c0642/amr410262003en.pdf
 * Added tag to http://www.elpasotimes.com/ci_18747536?IADID=Search-www.elpasotimes.com-www.elpasotimes.com

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) 01:26, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

POV and factual accuracy
I have restored the longstanding "multiple issues" tag which was removed recently. Yes, the article includes the research of Molly Molloy and others, but it still continues to present a highly misleading picture. Female deaths make up as low as 10% of homicides. But this doesn't stop the article containing such comments as: "This patriarchal backlash may indeed be the result of lack of employment opportunities for men and more women entering the workforce which has altered traditional gender dynamics and created a situation of conflict between the sexes." What patriarchal backlash? And there are stupid statements, such as: "Most of the victims are young women who come from impoverished backgrounds and work in maquiladoras, as factory workers, in other sectors of the informal economy, or are students. In addition, many victims share common physical attributes, including dark skin, slender physique, and dark, shoulder-length hair." Well, most young women in Mexico share those physical attributes. The article is a land that logic forgot. Bizarrely, the article also suggests that the men convicted of the murders were innocent! And (of course) it also points to "perceived government inaction in preventing violence against women and girls and bringing perpetrators to justice". The article contains a lot of emotional quotes, but very little facts. For example, "Amnesty International reports, 'Inadequate official data on the crimes committed in Chihuahua, particularly accurate figures on the exact number of murders and abductions of girls and women, has led to disputes around the issues that obscure the quest for justice'". OK, so we can have a quest for justice, even if we don't know anyone died??? The death toll is estimated as of 2005. Sorry, that's a long time ago, people. Almost all of the sources used are from 10 years ago, yet the article presents the situation as ongoing. How is that factual accurate? Clearly it's not. I think Molly Molloy exposed this as a myth a long time ago. Weirdly, people keep on adding to the article without adding to the sources (only 26). I think this article is an candidate for major editing, if not deletion.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:09, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * These criticisms remain current, and the tag remains justified. I have started major editing to the article as a result. These issues have been flagged for five years, and the problem has been apparent for a decade, so I don't think I'm being premature.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:12, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * the Maquila section still reads like an editorial, not an encyclopedia entry MurMiles (talk) 04:09, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I want to try and work on this article as a student editor
An article I am interested in is this article about femicides in Cd. JuarezT. he article has a lot of issues and warnings at the top about questions over its neutrality, factual accuracy, lends undue weight to ideas, and needs an update. I think it would be a really good fix up project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alecprofit (talk • contribs) 02:34, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 13 October 2020

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

The result of the move request was: Moved to Femicides in Ciudad Juárez per evidence provided by Drmies and Kaldari. No such user (talk) 10:16, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Feminicides in Ciudad Juárez → Femicides in Ciudad Juárez – moved this page from "Female homicides" to "Feminicides"--that's a great improvement, but it seems to me that "Femicide" is a more accepted word, and that "Feminicide" is an all-too close translation of the Spanish. I can't easily count the hits in Google Books, and there are plenty for each one. But our own article is called Femicide, and looking through the article, I see only one hit for "feminicide" in the references: Monarrez Fragoso, Julia (2008), "An Analysis of Feminicide in Ciudad Juárez: 1993–2007"--and perhaps ironically that's published in a book called Strengthening Understanding of Femicide: Using Research to Galvanize Action and Accountability. And "femicide" occurs six or seven times in the references for the article. In other words, I think there's enough reason to move the article. Drmies (talk) 17:23, 13 October 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  04:40, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Leaning oppose. I was to !vote neutral as both words are accepted by the English language, but: Although "femicide" is the most common one, "feminicide" is commonly found in Latin American and the Caribbean researches (Latin American and Caribbean Women's Health Network. "Dying because they are women femicide/feminicide"; A Cartography of Feminicide in the America [sic]. Fregoso, R. and Bejarano, C., etc.). In this article Andréanne Bissonnette says: "The term 'feminicide' was introduced by Jill Radford and Diana Russell to denote the gendered and endemic nature of violence against women. Femicide is defined as 'the killing of females by males because they are females' but feminicide has yet another connotation. Indeed, Marcela Lagarde y de Los Rios defines as feminicide, gender-based violence characterized by the inaction of the state." From ABC News: "Femicide, a related term, is most often described as the killings of women due to their gender, but does not account for official complicity or inaction ... While in many cases feminicide and femicide are used interchangeably, activists say it is important to make the distinction because the latter does not account for the state's complicity."
 * If it is completely true (that both are interchangeable but with a little distinction), then this is a case of feminicides, because the Chihuahuense government did little to solve these murders. In any case Femicide should include a subsection saying the difference between both terms. (CC) Tb hotch ™ 18:13, 13 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Tbhotch, a recently introduced term is not really the best option for an article of this importance, nor is ABC News really the best source to prove that it is. Drmies (talk) 23:22, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * This is actually a really fascinating case of language evolution involving two languages. In Spanish there are two terms: "femicidio" and "feminicidios" both of which were introduced to Spanish in the late 1990s as translations of the English term "femicide" (mainly in relation to Ciudad Juárez specifically). Of the two, "feminicidios" is much more common. In English, the term "femicide" is overwhelmingly more common and there is little to no distinction in the political connotations between "femicide" and "feminicide" (ABC News notwithstanding). The use of "feminicide" in English is mainly due to influence from the Spanish. Thus the term has basically gone full circle from "femicide" to "feminicidios" to "feminicide". Personally though, I think "femicide" is the better choice for our article as it is still the much more common term (see my comments below) and has a much longer history of usage. "Feminicide" is something of a neologism still. Kaldari (talk) 17:04, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Go back to "female homicides": use of the terms femicide or feminicide is not neutral. It harks back to a discredited theory. There is no evidence that the victims were being targetted simply because they were women. There is no evidence that the "Chihuahuense government did little to solve these murders", apart from the fact that the area has a very high crime rate, and that does not justify calling them "femicides".--Jack Upland (talk) 20:25, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * "Article 248. Article 164 BIS. The crime of femi(ni)cide will be sanctioned with 25 to 60 years of prison to whoever kills a woman for gender reasons." This is a law. (CC) Tb hotch ™ 21:05, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * And if you want to justify their incompetence, feel free to provide evidence about how they solved all the +370 murders (spoilers: they didn't). (CC) Tb hotch ™ 21:08, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * For the record it was not too hard to discover where you got your original commentary on a subject you consider "a discredited theory" without a single source. (CC) Tb hotch ™ 21:16, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Jack Upland, according to this article, cited in our article, the local government was indeed accused of not doing enough to solve the crimes. But that's really not for this discussion. Drmies (talk) 23:22, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg is utterly irrelevant to this article. Overall, there is no evidence that females have been targetted in Juarez. The female murder rate is less than the male murder rate. Was the local government incompetent? Who knows? Sure, people said that, but that doesn't make it true, and that doesn't mean that women were killed because they were women. That theory has been discredited by the research of Molly Molloy, as documented in the article. Continuing to propagate false claims that have no statistical basis or underlying rationality is wrong.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:48, 20 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Support move - "Femicides" is the more common term including in relation to Ciudad Juárez specifically:
 * Google search for "Feminicides, 'Ciudad Juárez', -Wikipedia": 30,800 matches
 * Google search for "Femicides, 'Ciudad Juárez', -Wikipedia": 101,000 matches
 * Arguments about whether Femi(ni)cides is an accurate or neutral term are irrelevant to this discussion, as Wikipedia follows usage of reliable sources, not the personal opinions of editors. As the searches above demonstrate, there are thousands of reliable sources describing the murders in Ciudad Juárez as Femi(ni)cide, including hundreds of books. In fact the word "feminicidio" was introduced to the Spanish language specifically to describe the situation in Ciudad Juárez (see discussion and references at Feminicidio). Kaldari (talk) 16:28, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has a policy of neutrality, so that is relevant. See NPOVTITLE. This is a descriptive title, not a proper noun, and should be neutral.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:54, 20 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Support "femicide" is a word, 'feminicide" is not; it's a Spanish word masquerading as an English word. Red   Slash  20:04, 17 November 2020 (UTC)


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