Talk:Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women/Archive 1

Dispute over number of Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women
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.

https://www.nwac.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Fact_Sheet_Missing_and_Murdered_Aboriginal_Women_and_Girls.pdf

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)


 * Wikipedia is based on articles whose content can be verified. It is verifiability not absolute truth that is the key. We have a BBC article using the 4000 figure and the BBC is a highly respectable and believable source. The original quote may be down to a single individual - most quotes are in the real world- but the source is good and provided that the context is not distorted, then this remain a verifiable opinion.  Velella  Velella Talk 23:17, 28 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, here is a situation where a news article quotes one number, but the website for the cited organisation quotes another number. So, saying that NWAC has estimated the number of missing and murdered indigenious women to be 4000 is both true and untrue at the same time. This is a case where we as editors have to review all the statements that NWAC has made and figure out what is the best way to present their position.


 * You are right to say that Wikipedia has to be based on content that is verified and I do agree that BBC is a quality news organization, but that is not the only criteria that Wikipedia should consider. In this case, we need to read the article and figure out what message the article is trying to convey, what the writer of the article most likely fact checked and whether the parts of the article we want to reference are properly sourced. In this case, this entire argument is an off-handed statistic that seems to be thrown off without any context or explanation. Much like Trump saying he “heard” the Obama administration plans to accept 200,000 Syrian refugees, doesn't mean we change the Wikipedia pages on the Obama Presidency and Legacy using Trump's statistic as a fact. Like I said before, if you think the statistic should stand then provide a link to 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) 23:47, 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. - Co rb ie V    ☊ ☼ 17:05, 22 October 2017 (UTC) DivaNtrainin (talk) 21:24, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

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 ) - Co rb ie V    ☊ ☼ 21:56, 22 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I have no clue what you mean by "refactoring others' talk page". If you mean that I left a comment on your page, to draw your attention to this talk section. Yes, I did. If you meant that I moved your comments (without changing any of the actual comments) so as to not spread out an arguement over multiple sections, yes. I did. This is in the spirit of creating a reasonable discussion. It seems that you were missing a whole discussion on the talk page that would prevent an edit war, and this will not help you if administrator gets involved.


 * In regards to the actual statistic of 4000 women, tell me what of the above argument you actually dispute. Right now, you are talking more about edit warring, then on the actual content of the argument. It seems that your idea of consensus is "the more people who vote for a point of view at the start of the argument" is consensus. That is not the consensus. I am not even sure if Velella agrees or disagrees with your point of view, so we can't even say that two people disagree with my argument. People can change their opinion and be swayed with new information. I suggesthttps://www.nwac.ca/ that if you want to go down this path, then review the Wikipedia page on edit warring and the Wikipedia page on consensus. However, I am sure that if any administrator looks at this argument, they will want to know why do you disagree with the edits that I am making and why do you disagree with the argument that has been raised in August 2016. If you don't participate in a reasonable argument, you may wind up losing this edit war.DivaNtrainin (talk) 23:09, 22 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I think you are missing some key definitions of policy and terminology here. You are the one edit-warring to delete sourced content that an admin is adding. - Co rb ie V    ☊ ☼ 16:50, 23 October 2017 (UTC)


 * In the spirit of building of Wikipedia page on consensus, I am not going to revert your edits for 24 hours, unless you can start providing some rationale for your edits. So far, the only edits I have heard are "it's from a good source". What you need to realize is that regardless of the quality of the source, it doesn't preclude an editor from reading, analyzing, and verifying the information. For example, one could argue that information from the White House should meet the criteria of a quality source, but that doesn't mean we should assume that any rambling tweet from Donald Trump, the President of the United States, is fact.


 * In this case, I have looked at the news articles you have referenced and compared it to the [|original source, namely Native Women's Association of Canada's website]. The number of 4000 missing and murdered women is not on the NWAC's website, which you can find by going [|here]. As I said in August 2016 to Velella, here is a situation where news articles quotes one number, but the website for the cited organisation quotes another number. So, saying that NWAC has estimated the number of missing and murdered indigenious women to be 4000 is both true and untrue at the same time. This is a case where we as editors have to choose between all the "good sources", as to which source we are going to include and which to exclude.


 * In cases where there is dispute between the original source material and an article that references the original source material, editors should always choose the original source material. This is why we should go with the information on the NWAC's website. Tell me what is wrong with this argument. If you con't participate in the discussion, then I will revert your edits. If you start an edit war and don't explain your position, then you may get banned from editing.DivaNtrainin (talk) 01:18, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You shouldn't revert those edits at all - at least not without consensus. Corie's revisions & additions are well sourced and accurate, your rationale for excluding the 4,000 figure appears to be based on your own WP:OR. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:02, 24 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Ok, so can we just say that the 4000 missing women is the opinion and estimate of Patricia Hadju, and not that of the Native Women's Association of Canada. The fact that this number is not supported by the Native Women's Association of Canada is not in dispute. Since the number is in dispute, why don't we also move it down to the background section, and make mention how difficult it is to estimate the number is. All of the sources makes mention that the number of women who are missing and murdered are difficult to estimate and one reason is there the lack of criteria as to who to include or exclude.DivaNtrainin (talk) 03:16, 24 October 2017 (UTC)


 * No, the current wording covers what is in the sources. DivaNtraining, you have been blocked for exactly this stuff before: . I suggest you respect consensus this time. - Co rb ie V    ☊ ☼ 16:48, 24 October 2017 (UTC)


 * So a compromise has been made. I have moved the reference to a more appropriate spot in the article and edited to be consistent with the actual source. Since the figure of 4000 is in dispute, it makes sense to put it the background section, instead of the introduction. In fact, I think we need to add more to the background information explaining why the figure is in dispute or the confusion over the variety of numbers being floated around (582 vs. 1181 vs. 4000). So the Guardian and CBC article is in. The figure of 4000 is in. The reference to Patty Hadju is in. If you don't agree with my edits, tell me where and why you want these edits to be moved and tell me what information you want to add. For example, you could add some information as to how the number of missing and murdered indigenous women suddenly jumped from 1181 to 4000, just by "increased awareness". Seriously, I really honestly want to know. What happened to cause this sudden increase in over a short period of time? This is quality information that we need to add to this Wikipedia page. I looked on the Native Women's Association of Canada's page, and I can't find it. We need to add this to the Wikipedia page!


 * I am open to any suggestion for editing, but they have to be real suggestions that go beyond "it's a good source". I have compromised by included the "good sources" in the Wikipedia article, but if my edits get reverted without any reasonable explanation or discussion, this will be brought up to an administrator. If the only argument that you can bring are personal attacks, opinion pieces, and mindlessly repeating the words "good source", you are not going to pursuade the administrator.DivaNtrainin (talk) 01:19, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * A compromise would require the input of someone else - that's not something you can declare unilaterally. I've reverted you again as the changes you made are clearly opposed by multiple editors here on talk. They also introduced factual inaccuracies - Hajdu is a government minister, not an "activist" for example. Please stop edit warring and try for an actual compromise here on talk (which, again, would require someone other than you approving of your edits) Fyddlestix (talk) 23:56, 25 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Weighing in from the outside here, but the claim made by Hadju of 4,000 is clearly explained in the Guardian piece as being an estimate based on factors that the police didn't account for, such as looking outside of a time frame. The fact of the matter is, the dispute over the number is already an aspect of the public debate, and trying to settle it qualifies as WP:NOR. Would both parties agree that the lede is spending disproportionately large amounts of text on this numerical dispute rather than the issue? Something like: "The RCMP place the number at 1132, while advocacy groups and minister for the status of women, Patty Hajdu, estimate the number is closer to 4,000." A separate section explaining the number dispute further in the text is certainly warranted, as it is the subject of news coverage already. DivaNtrainin, I think this would tackle your concerns over the number being unofficial - it is, indeed, an estimate, though an informed one, backed by government officials and advocacy groups. That is why we would use the word "estimate." For what it's worth, Hadju's comments are not quite off the cuff; they are clearly being stated as part of an interpretation of a report and based on information gathered by advocacy groups. It is, therefore, not "the opinion of one person at one time in one article" as you framed it above. I hope this helps clarify why I feel the number should be included in the lede. I agree with Co rb ie V  , the number is not being reported by the BBC. In other words, the BBC says nowhere that 4,000 is "the number," it simply states that this is the number believed to be true by advocacy groups and Hajdu. Therefore, the number should not simply be cited as a given based on the BBC report. Instead, we should report, strictly, what the article says: that advocacy groups have evidence suggesting the number is much higher than the RCMP are reporting. I hope this helps bridge the divide in some small way. -- Owlsmcgee (talk) 02:02, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * That all sounds reasonable to me, I agree the 4,000 figure should be attributed and that we should keep the discussion of numbers in the lede brief. My problem was with excluding all but the RCMP figures from the lede, and with the way Divan's edits understated the weight/significance of the other estimates (which have got tons of coverage in RS). Fyddlestix (talk) 02:35, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I would also agree.DivaNtrainin (talk) 13:28, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * As you will see, that is basically what I edited it to read yesterday and what it reads now. I included the names of the groups that contributed the figures and sourced it all. :) - Co rb ie V    ☊ ☼ 17:27, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, I want to move the statements that you added from the Introduction to the Background section. I also want to attribute the number of 4000 entirely to Patty Hadju and remove the reference to "Native Women's Association of Canada" with the statistic, since the Native Women's Association of Canada's website doesn't make mention of that number.
 * Further, I want to expand the explanation as to why there are such variable numbers for the number of MMIW, and show there is uncertainty. I am going to challenge you to read this article as if you had never hear of MMIW. That perspective is how we should be editing Wikipedia articles. If that was the case, a new reader would wonder "Why are there so many different numbers floating around?" The varying numbers are really important to explain not just to the reader, but from an advocacy point of view. So, tell me why you have a problem with keeping the statements but moving it around the article.DivaNtrainin (talk) 00:14, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

(Moved DivaNtrainin's comment below here from my talk page. Article talk is the place for this) - Co rb ie V    ☊ ☼ 18:44, 29 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Your silence is being taken as consent for my suggestions. If I don't get some feedback, one way or another on the Talk:Missing and murdered Indigenous women page, then I will start editing the page tomorrow. You can still provide feedback, but at this point, it can be argued that consensus has been reached, and I will start editing as per OwlsMcGee suggested.DivaNtrainin (talk) 23:20, 28 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Silence is not consent. No one is required to drag this out with you. You are a tendentious POV-pusher who either does not understand, or is willfully misrepresenting, consensus.
 * You are the sole voice against consensus. You need to WP:DROPTHESTICK.
 * Owls McGee did not suggest either continued discussion, nor did they support your edits. We all agreed with Owls that both figures belong in the lede, that the text with both figures is sourced to WP:RS standards, is relevant, and should stand. You agreed with this as well.
 * You are simply repeating yourself on the talk page. You offered zero compromise. No one agreed with you. You are still editing against consensus. No one is required to repeat themselves endlessly. Your last edit was not a compromise, it was a revert to your preferred version that existed prior to all the updates.
 * Consensus is to include both figures in lede. You are the only one who wants to exclude all but the police figures.
 * Read the sources and the talk page again more carefully. Read WP policies again more carefully. You are grossly misrepresenting all of the above, as you have in the past, and you have been blocked in the past for doing exactly what you are doing now. Personal attacks and edit-warring are not an attempt to reach consensus. Nor is endlessly repeating yourself and badgering others in an attempt to wear other editors down. Removing the warnings from your page is further disruption, not clearing your slate. - Co rb ie V    ☊ ☼ 18:16, 29 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Once again you refuse to discuss any real edits. My most recent talk comment is to suggest keeping your edit, but to move it from the Introduction to the Background. Specifically I will edit the article tomorrow with this edits unless you provide some criticism against it:


 * :Groups such as the Walk 4 Justice initiative and Canadian minister for the status of women Patty Pajdu have suggested that the number may be closer to 4,000.[5][6] However, they have not provided context for this increase or clarified over what period of time this number covers.


 * I have read your post and you don't offer any criticism against it, so I am assuming it is ok. How can something be against consensus, when no one is criticizing the actual edits. Seriously, you are not disagreeing with my edits. You are just arguing about consensus. The only thing you want to talk about is in fact you are saying that i am still editing against consensus, even though I haven't edited any Wikipedia article in the past few days. How can I be editing and not editing at the same time? Are you even reading these talk comments? I will give you 24 hours, to tell me something you have actually wrong with my edits.DivaNtrainin (talk) 20:47, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Re: 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)
 * Since you asked, though: by virtue of being made by the government minister responsible for this stuff, Hajdus estimate is highly notable and belongs in the lede, where it should be given equal weight to the RCMP figure (which many people and RS have suggested is low/probematic). The second sentence of your proposed text appears to be OR to me - what would your source for that statement be? In general, I take issue with how your edits and proposals seem to be aimed at minimizing or casting doubt on estimates other than the RCMP one. The sources don't support that approach at all, AFAICT. Fyddlestix (talk) 21:09, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * First off, I would like to thank you for actually providing real criticism to my edits other than just mindlessly saying that you disagree.
 * I see your point about Hajdus being a government minister, and hence her comment carries more weight than just an average activist. However, we do have to balance out the 4000 figure with the fact that it is largely Hajdus alone who is dropping this number without any context. For example, she doesn't give any timeframe as to when this 4000 number was derived from. Is this 4000 MMIW over 6 months, 6 years, or 60 years? Because if this is 6 months, then this is a definite crisis, where as if it is 4000 over 60 years, it doesn't sound like a crisis at all. How was this number actually increased?
 * Regarding casting doubts on figures other than the RCMP, how about we include figures from other activist groups, like the Native Women's Association of Canada. Their website doesn't quote the 4000, and I can't really find any other activist support for this number. So, it's not the RCMP number that I am quoting. The fact that there is uncertainty to the number of MMIW is apparent if you read the Background section to this Wikipedia article. I think the larger issue is do you think that this Wikipedia article should reflect that there is uncertainity to the number of MMIW, because if so, then every number on this Wikipedia article is uncertain (that would be fine by me). However, if there is certainity to the number of MMIW, please tell me how you want that reflected in this article.DivaNtrainin (talk) 21:40, 29 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Although I am not entirely happy with the edits, I am not going to revert the most edits made by Fyddlestix. I would like to thank Fyddlestix in actually editing the content instead of creating an edit war. I would encourage users to actually add more citations or content, and maybe if there are better statistics, figures or facts that are generated in the future, this article can be improved.DivaNtrainin (talk) 03:24, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Article needs tons of work, I will try to work on it over the next few days. I'm happy to discuss any changes you're not happy about - are we still stuck on the RCMP stats or something else? Fyddlestix (talk) 03:54, 31 October 2017 (UTC)


 * The Walk 4 Justice initiative, according to the cite in the article, is the group that estimated 4,000 indigenous women were victims, and Hadju repeated their number. It was not NWAC, unless they have since adopted this number. The Guardian referred to a CBC report - it is at  if anyone else wants to read the original article. Walk 4 Justice "collected" more than 4,000 names of MMIW: "Gladys Radek, co-founder of Walk 4 Justice, said her group collected the names while speaking to people during a trek across Canada in 2008. They stopped collecting information in 2011." Parkwells (talk) 21:24, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Use of the word "crisis
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)


 * I'm not overly-attached to "crisis", but it's better than "social issue" which is too... it just doesn't describe the severity. I don't think it's a weasel word, but I'm fully open to alternatives. Let's find one. What would you propose as an alternative? - Co rb ie V    ☊ ☼ 17:55, 21 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I propose the word "social issue". It is correct and seems to be the most accurate. It has a socialogical basis as mentioned referenced by the rest of the article, which talks about poverty and activist activities. It is also an issue. You say it doesn't describe the severity. I think the severity is clear in the rest of the article, where we talk about the number of women missing and murdered, the risk factors that are involved, the activism that is involved, and the proportion of indigenous women who go missing or murdered compared to non-indigenous women. If we need more qualifiers to show the severity of this situation, what information is needed to describe this? What do you suggest that is missing from this article that needs to explain the situation? DivaNtrainin (talk) 23:12, 21 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I don’t much care for crisis either. Semantically my disagreement is different: to me the term implies that a critical action or decision can determine the outcome, however long the situation takes to develop or resolve. On a historic scale, the present plight of Indigenous people may constitute a crisis, but that will require hindsight to evaluate. Centuries from now, what will be seen as most crucial: “Idle No More” &c., the Oka Crisis, the Indian Act, the 19th-c. treaties, or something else altogether? At any rate, the topic at hand is only one symptom of a broader social malaise. Another problem I have with crisis generally is that it‘s much overused in journalistic hype—I’d say more a kind of WP:PEACOCK than a WP:WEASEL—although that cloud has the silver lining that there should be no problem finding RSs that use it. :( OTOH I too find social issue pretty vague, weak and understated. Can we ‘raise’ it to social problem? Or maybe systemic failing?—Odysseus 1 4 7  9  01:39, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * "Social problem" isn't strong enough. Sounds interpersonal or small scale. Still looking/thinking. - Co rb ie V    ☊ ☼ 16:52, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I cut the adjectives and just put, "issue." - Co rb ie V    ☊ ☼ 17:05, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

We should stick with crisis. Sorry but this is extremely well documented:. 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 we are going to use the word crisis, then we need to explain why it is a crisis. We need more qualifiers that explain why it meets the definition of crisis, how it became a crisis, and some idea of what would happen to make it stop being a crisis. We can't just leave that word there without more information.DivaNtrainin (talk) 03:29, 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. 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. - Co rb ie V    ☊ ☼ 16:45, 24 October 2017 (UTC)


 * “Hundreds to thousands of white people“ (among others) are killed every month in traffic collisions, but you won’t find many sources calling that a crisis. (OTOH the imposition of a carbon tax elicits howls of outrage.) Anyway, as I suggested above the media are fond of using it in this context, aptly or not. I wouldn’t know where to look for ‘better‘ sources myself, but unless such can be found, or a mot juste that’s capable of replacing crisis without misrepresenting the situation in some way, or implying a biased POV, we’re stuck with it.—Odysseus 1 4 7  9  19:21, 24 October 2017 (UTC)


 * It's the disparity between the population and high percentage of the population, and that the population is being targeted. It's not a random accident. Diva is editing against consensus. I meant to just rollback once, but unintentionally hit twice, going back to "crisis". I'm thinking we might want to word it, "The MMIW crisis is an issue." and source accordingly. Looking at the new sources that use "crisis" before deciding. - Co rb ie V    ☊ ☼ 16:30, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, sources support crisis: . - Co rb ie V    ☊ ☼ 16:34, 25 October 2017 (UTC)


 * It seems that your overall problem with all the edits being made is that you feel the Wikipedia page does not reflect the severity of the issue of Missing and Murdered Indigenous women(MMIW). The way to get your edits in and stop an edit war is to add more facts and statistics. It is to add more quality sources, and maybe from different places. Here are some of the things that could add: Is the disparity between murdered indigenous and non-indigenous women getting worse? Has there been a socialogical study showing the effect of MMIW on communities? Is the socialogical make-up of murdered indigenous women different than non-indigenous women? Is there evidence of bias in how cases of MMIW are handled by social workers, judges, etc? Are there key court cases that change how MMIW are handled? Wikipedia is based on facts and evidence. No one has the opinion that MMIW is a good thing, so you don't need to explain that.


 * Instead of editing the Wikipedia page anymore, why don't you make some suggestions and then we can debate the wording. For example, you seem to feel that the mention of the disparity between murdered indigenous and non-indigenous women is not correct. That is covered in the first paragraph of the "Background Section". Do you have suggestions on how to improve the wording? If you can't participate in consensus building and reasonable discussion, you will be blocked from editing.DivaNtrainin (talk) 23:42, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Coverage
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)

External links modified (February 2018)
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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160510113547/http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/pubs/mmaw-faapd-eng.htm to http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/pubs/mmaw-faapd-eng.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160510113547/http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/pubs/mmaw-faapd-eng.htm to http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/pubs/mmaw-faapd-eng.htm

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) 10:44, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Indigenous women of Canada
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)

Clarification on Deleting outdated citations
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: 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

Adding "and Girls" to the title
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)

Missourced statements in lede
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:


 * ""thousands of cases" of murders by serial killers"
 * "women missing due to crimes perpetrated by strangers"
 * "the National Inquiry has brought to light the charge that.......have never been properly investigated due to alleged police bias"

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)
 * Have you read the report? https://www.mmiwg-ffada.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Final_Report_Vol_1a.pdf
 * "As more and more studies show, Indigenous women, girls, and 2SLGBTQQIA people are beingtargeted from all sides, from partners and family members, acquaintances, and serial killers.Rates of domestic and family violence are extremely high, but so is stranger violence. Indige-nous women are also more likely to be killed by acquaintances than non-Indigenous women, and are seven times as likely to be targeted by serial killers. In the words of James Anaya,United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the rates of missing andmurdered Indigenous women and girls are “epidemic.”" page 61
 * "Even when faced with the depth and breadth of this violence, many people still believe that Indigenous Peoples are to blame, due to their so-called “high-risk” lifestyles. However, StatisticsCanada has found that even when all other differentiating factors are accounted for,Indigenouswomen are still at a significantly higher risk of violence than non-Indigenous women. This validates what many Indigenous women and girls already know: just being Indigenous and female makes you a target.: page 62
 * "We submitted that widespread racism and discrimination against Indigenous women exists and that the courts must take judicial notice of such systemic bias against Indigenous women complainants." page 79
 * Those are a few examples in a government report not simply the words of activists. If I used every mention of police bias in the report I would be over sourcing. And just noting, the Trail of Tears =/= the Highway of Tears. These are two different things. Indigenous girl (talk) 00:20, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Perpetrators
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)
 * The article is now generously-sourced with up to date citations that cover all of this, and you know it because you revert-warred to try to remove the sources and content. You were reverted by multiple, established editors and administrators, and warned by same, because you repeatedly tried to disruptively insert out-of-date data (and inaccurate text based on that out-of-date data). You've already been warned about this, so pretending you don't know why is probably not the best approach here. - CorbieV  ☊ ☼ 20:15, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * What out of date data did I include? I wasn't trying to disrupt anything, I am trying to improve the accuracy of the article.  I was warned, and I complied with everything you asked.  I included more information in the edit summary (as you requested), I added an explanation on your talk page (as you requested, which you just deleted without responding to).  The only data I included was 4 years old, and has not been replaced by any new data.  Please explain to me how the most up to date data we have is out of date (other then the fact that you disagree with it)?  SpoonLuv (talk) 14:08, 9 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Also, the only edits I made that were reverted, were reverted by you. You accused me of revert warring, but the changes I made were in good-faith, which doesn't constitute vandalism, which according to the page on edit warring should lead to discussion .  I immediately brought it to the talk page, where you chose not to participate. I also brought it to your talk page (at your request) where you promptly deleted my submission.

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)


 * The 2015 report has been debunked. Please stop trying to include inaccurate material. Thanks. https://www.nationalobserver.com/2019/06/07/analysis/we-fact-checked-viral-claim-about-whos-killing-mmiwg-it-was-wrong Indigenous girl (talk) 22:03, 9 July 2019 (UTC)


 * What you linked to was an opinion piece that found issues with the data, but by no means debunked it. It did not qualify or quantify the effects that the perceived errors in data may have potentially had on that statistic.  It also didn't show any sources to information that would justify their belief that those errors existed, they just simply said they believed they were there.  Any study can and will have parts of it questioned, that doesn't invalidate the study.  The only real way to debunk a study is to find another study, or perform one, that contradicts the finding of the first one, then compare the methods and provide reason that the methods and calculations used were more accurate.  Please don't call material inaccurate because you found someone that said they think it's wrong online. SpoonLuv (talk) 13:15, 10 July 2019 (UTC)


 * That being said, I also specifically asked "Does anybody have any sources (other then the 2015 RCMP report)". Asking if anybody has potentially more accurate or less publicly disputed material, doesn't constitute "including" it.... SpoonLuv (talk) 13:19, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Unrelated Content
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. The only specific statistic for murders appears to show an oposite correlation. 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, 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. . 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. 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)


 * Unrelated, indeed. For you to frame this as, "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" shows either a lack of familiarity with this issue, or a continued intent to push a POV here. These are not those types of murders. Either you know this, and are continuing to push this anyway, or you are refusing to read the up to date sources. The effect is the same. - CorbieV</b>  ☊ ☼ 19:41, 10 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I took the time to source my information. I'm not attempting to push a POV, I'm attempting to ensure one isn't being pushed, which it clearly is.  If you believe I'm incorrect, please source your arguments instead of just stating your personal opinion.  SpoonLuv (talk) 17:11, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Hijacked
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)

Information about sexual assaults
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)


 * Your edits added no sources. You just returned to your same pattern of blanking sourced content, for which you've been warned before. Other editors have always reverted you, so at this point you are clearly operating against consensus. I strongly suggest you stop repeating this pattern as it has reached the point of disruptive editing. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 18:04, 17 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Consensus has not yet been reached, therefore I am not editing against consensus. I also never argued that the source material is not sourced, just that it's not valid.  I also included many sources in the talk section to why this information is not relevant to the discussion.  There also appears to be a large number of people making the same argument about this part of the article.  It is not disruptive editing if there is clearly a reason for disputing this content.  It's clear it needs to be discussed and consensus reached before being included in the article. SpoonLuv (talk) 15:06, 22 October 2019 (UTC)


 * In your edit, you stated "Violence against women is of course connected to women being murdered."  That is a point of view, and one that you are pushing.  This information and sources are referring to sexual assault.  There are many different forms of violence, and saying that one form is connected to another is your point of view.  In cases where a personal point of view is required to connect two different subjects, its inclusion is not encyclopedic. SpoonLuv (talk) 15:13, 22 October 2019 (UTC)


 * That being said, I am more than happy to discuss the issue on the talk page further and attempt to reach consensus. SpoonLuv (talk) 15:15, 22 October 2019 (UTC)


 * This report ties violence against indigenous women and MMIW. https://www.uihi.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Missing-and-Murdered-Indigenous-Women-and-Girls-Report.pdf Indigenous girl (talk) 16:08, 22 October 2019 (UTC)


 * The study you linked states "6% of all cases experienced sexual assault at the time of disappearance or death". It does tie those two crimes together but only in a small percentage of cases.  I think this proves that making a statement that the majority of sexual assaults had a non-native perpetrator in an article about murder, where your source states only 6% of those cases were likely the result of a sexual assault, provides little to the article and will likely only generate confusion.  The article also states that "approximately half were non-Native" where the information that was removed pointed at a majority being non-native when it came to sexual assault, which further illustrates the difference between the two, potential confusion that will likely result, and why this content should not be included in the article. SpoonLuv (talk) 16:36, 22 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)

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)


 * I agree that there is room for compromise, but I believe that 6% from a different source may be a SYN violation. I also didn't think that status quo should apply because I think that there is a significantly elevated responsibility to ensure information is specific and relevant to the subject matter when that information specifically targets and casts aspersions on a specific race or ethnicity. If it is allowed, its accuracy should be airtight, and its relevance soundly established, and definitely not be part of the lead.  SpoonLuv (talk) 17:56, 23 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Including this information in an article about a completely separate crime is OR, SYN, NPOV violation. If this information didn't fall under those, it would be much more prudent to also include demographic statistics for robberies and domestic violence, which according to national crime statistics are orders of magnitude more likely to be what results in a murder.  Cherry picking information on the demographics of 6% of perpetrators of a crime, while ignoring the remaining 94% of perpetrators because it targets a specific race is getting close to the very definition of NPOV. SpoonLuv (talk) 18:10, 23 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Certainly, the emphasis given by that study (and possibly other sources) to that figure is of import with regards to potential due weight and synthesis violations — again, I'm not familiar enough with the material to tell one way or the other. I'm optimistic, though, that these matters will become clear in the course of this discussion. El_C 19:05, 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)


 * I am unsure how the contents of a MMIW study conducted by a reputable source could be considered OR or SYN. It is a MMIW study that looks at the issue in it's entirety Indigenous girl (talk) 21:27, 23 October 2019 (UTC)


 * By all means, please feel free to quote directly. A few brief excerpts could possibly clear this entire dispute up. El_C 21:34, 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:
 * Title: "Missing, Murdered Indigenous Women Focus of SD Legislation" - "She says incidents of violence and sex trafficking targeting Native American women have been ignored for decades."
 * Title: "Missing, murdered Indigenous women inquiry to ask for more time" - "Many Indigenous groups and families of missing and murdered women spent years lobbying for an inquiry to explore the root causes of the tragedy and to propose measures to reduce the deaths and violence. A 2014 report by the RCMP identified nearly 1,200 Indigenous women and girls who disappeared or were slain in recent decades."
 * Title: "Arizona joins the ranks looking to end violence against indigenous women" - "Tara Myers, a Tohono O’odham woman, says she hopes a new state law to study the issue of missing and murdered indigenous women will help bring help and justice to her community. Myers’ older sister, Kim, was slain near Sells."
 * And sources by judge Ruth Hopkins, such as "When the Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women Crisis Hits Home" - "While statistics surrounding missing and murdered Indigenous women are not often available, it is known that Native women are more likely to be sexually assaulted by non-Natives than other Natives."

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)


 * Many of the missing women have been victims of sex trafficking.


 * https://rewire.news/article/2017/09/28/sold-sex-senate-committee-investigates-human-trafficking-native-women-children/
 * https://olderindians.acl.gov/sites/default/files/uploads/docs/HHS.Webinar.pdf
 * https://www.acf.hhs.gov/olab/resource/testimony-of-jeannie-hovland-on-of-missing-and-murdered-indigenous-women-mmiw-and-girl
 * https://www.cbsnews.com/news/congress-crisis-missing-and-murdered-native-american-women/


 * Every one of these articles are rooted in MMIW. This is just a handful. I'm happy to provide more. Indigenous girl (talk) 22:08, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Proposal
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. In the United States, one study found that sixty-six out of 506 MMIWG cases were tied to domestic and sexual violence, and another that 84 percent of Native American women experience violence in their lifetimes.

- CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 00:01, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

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. One in three Native women is sexually assaulted during her life, and over 85% of these assaults are perpetrated by non-Natives. 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. As a result of this, many reservations have become popular destinations for rapists and serial killers. 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." - 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. the link you cited is dead. I can't see the original content, but this link seems to have the same quote:

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. One study found that 25 out of the 506 cases (6%) were victims of sexual assault at the time of their death. SpoonLuv (talk) 19:29, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

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 am most certainly willing to respect the policies of Wikipedia. I also believe that my proposal is very similar to the one made by CorbieV.  It still conveys the information that he/she wishes to be included and does so in a manner compliant with WP:NPOV, so I would be interested to see if they are willing to accept the proposal before moving forward.  I believe this information should be removed altogether, but I'm willing to concede to its conclusion it if it is done in a way that respects NPOV.


 * I'm also relatively new to editing and the ins and outs, but I am mostly certainly happy with following Wikipedia policies. I am a little confused on your remark though.  I had read WP:ONUS and honestly believed I was specifically following that.  It says "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content." and believed that meant that the onus was on CorbieV to achieve consensus before the information was included.  Please feel free to correct me as I'm still learning.


 * I also believed I was following WP:BRD as on the page it states: BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes. BRD is never a reason for reverting. Unless the reversion is supported by policies, guidelines or common sense, the reversion is not part of BRD cycle.  And I felt this was the case based on the wording of the limited reasoning supplied.  WP:BRD mentions multiple times that a detailed reason for reverting needs to be supplied to facilitate the BRD cycle.  I believe I was providing detailed reasons for removing the content, while the reasons for reverting were often nothing at all, or vague remarks and accusations of disruption.  I also immediately initiated a discussion on the talk page.  I'm just wondering where I went wrong and how I should have done that differently?  SpoonLuv (talk) 16:07, 25 October 2019 (UTC)


 * The convention to retain the status quo ante version while discussion take its course is about respecting longstanding text. There is no requirement to gain consensus for unchallenged additions — they can be seen to enjoy consensus by virtue of WP:SILENCE. El_C 23:31, 25 October 2019 (UTC)


 * When we went over this exact issue in the Spring, I found that it was not productive to engage with SpoonLuv on talk. This user misrepresented their edits, and the edits of others. They claimed that their blanking of sourced content, and similar driveby vandalism by IPs, was an edit war.
 * The sourcing that's already in the article, and that has been stable for 6 months to years, didn't need to be reposted here on talk, but I did it anyway, and Indigenous girl added more sources. It is inappropriate for SpooLuv to say that a broken link means a source should be removed. The source is still online, it just needs to be updated. There is no rationale to remove the text about assaults of American women from the lede, or from the body text. Note that SpoonLuv has been blanking both.
 * The responses we've given are more than sufficient to establish why the content about rape and sex trafficking of the women who go missing and turn up murdered is in the article. If the reference to Silence means that refusal to engage means consenting to Spoonluv's claims, it does not. I just don't see any need to repeat myself. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 19:05, 26 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Again, an RfC to see whether there is consensus to remove the longstanding text could be useful in bringing outside input and the codification of consensus in this regard. An argument that this does not constitute a content dispute (which is not immediately clear to me) probably belongs at AN/I. El_C 19:11, 26 October 2019 (UTC)


 * In what way did I misrepresent my edits? I put that it was because it was irrelevant, and then posted an extensive explanation on why I questioned its relevance on the talk page.  I don't want to accuse you of anything, but it appears that you assume all edits that disagree with your viewpoint are made in bad faith.  If somebody intends to improve a page, that doesn't fit the definition of vandalism.    Again, I never questioned whether the content was sourced, just its relevance.


 * I have provided my rationale as to why it should be removed from the lede, to which Corbie has not responded. I am working towards reaching consensus, including what I view as a significant concession (leaving the information in the article), but I feel as though I'm the only one.  I have sourced all of my responses to the best of my abilities, which CorbieV has countered with personal assumptions.  Either way, if your recommendation is to seek an RfC, then I will look into how to do that.  SpoonLuv (talk) 17:47, 29 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 about disputed content (suspended/delisted)
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. In the United States, one study found that sixty-six out of 506 MMIWG cases were tied to domestic and sexual violence, and another that 84 percent of Native American women experience violence in their lifetimes.

Current version — body:

According to an article by judge Ruth Hopkins, 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. 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." 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." -- 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. One study found that 25 out of the 506 cases (6%) were victims of sexual assault at the time of their death. SpoonLuv (talk) 19:29, 24 October 2019 (UTC) SpoonLuv (talk) 19:25, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Comments

 * There is no "demographic" being "targeted". "Non-Natives" is not a demographic. There is hard data, from a handful of sources, on the figures about percentages of assaults on Indigenous women being "hunted" by non-Natives, due to the quagmire of jurisdictional issues with the legal situation. It's a POV push based on Spoonluv's personal feelings to try to exclude this data. Read a few of the RS sources from the United States Department of Justice which SpoonLuv blanked from the article, plus another:
 * "According to the Department of Justice, 86 percent of rapes and sexual assaults against Native American women are committed by non-Native American men."
 * "A Department of Justice report says 96 percent of Native women who experienced sexual violence in their lifetime had a non-Native perpetrator."
 * The Connection Between Pipelines and Sexual Violence - Attempts to address the Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women Crisis could be counteracted by the problems "man camps" cause for reservation communities: "A number of studies, reports, and congressional hearings now connect man camps—which can be used in mines and other extractive efforts as well—with increased rates of sexual violence and sex trafficking." - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 19:31, 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)


 * The sources provided state that sexual assaults led to 6% of the murders. This is much less then many other reasons such as domestic violence, robbery, spousal abuse etc.  I feel it's a POV push to specifically include demographic information on such a small percentage while ignoring much more significant causes.  I also feel insisting that information about a loosely related crime responsible for a small percentage of victims remains in the lede is definitely a POV push.


 * I have agreed to allow the information's inclusion in the body of the article, but not in the lede. I have also requested that the wording be slightly changed to better reflect the sources and maintain NPOV, and prevent confusion (for example: use of the phrase "preyed upon" is completely ambiguous).  SpoonLuv (talk) 19:11, 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)


 * You say "We don't have accurate stats on sexual assault for these women and girls" but the section you want included includes a large number of stats on sexual assault for women and girls. This is confusing to me.  Furthermore, using a few sensationalized cases to paint the picture of a far more complex situation is not encyclopedic and doesn't do anybody any good.  If you are editing an article based on how you view a small but extreme percentage of the cases in a way that insinuates that it's much more significant is most certainly a POV push.  I agree that these crimes are absolutely horrible, but it's original research to hint that what is true in 6% of cases is somehow reflected directly in the other 94%.  OR should not be a replacement for a lack of accurate data. SpoonLuv (talk) 15:23, 30 October 2019 (UTC)


 * The available data is inaccurate because a) many of the crimes take place outside of the law http://dr.library.brocku.ca/bitstream/handle/10464/13419/McComb%202018%20Crossing%20Borders%20Paper.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y b) many times murder victims remains are unable to be analyzed for rape because of the manner of disposal ie in water, feeding them to pigs etc. c) the women are simply not found. Regarding those who remain missing, many of these women are sex trafficked. Whether it is in the Bakken oil fields https://sswr.confex.com/sswr/2018/webprogram/Paper32717.html, on ships in Lake Superior https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jan/19/minnesota-native-american-women-trafficking-police or other venues, if the women are missing, and it is known that there is an issue regarding indigenous women and sex trafficking then sexual assault would play into this. I can list government reports, studies and statements that link violence against indigenous women and MMIW. Here's one, do you need more? http://www.wsp.wa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/WSP_2951-SHB-Report.pdf This is not a POV. The information correlates state, federal and tribal government takes on the epidemic as well as that of respected organizations and scholars. Indigenous girl (talk) 17:28, 30 October 2019 (UTC)


 * But this agrees with my statement that Original Research and POV should not be a replacement for lack of accurate data. You're pulling together information from a large variety of sources in order to insinuate a specific idea.  You're saying that one article talks about sex trafficking, while another talks about sexual assault, and yet another refers to murder, and you're personally tying them together.  This is a clear SYN, as well as NPOV and OR violations.  I have agreed with leaving in the information about perpetrators of sexual assault, as well as the 6% of them led to murder.  I'm not arguing with that because that source which you provided draws a direct correlation.  But I do not agree with leaving in additional POV and ambiguous wording.  My proposal says exactly what you seem to want to say, but in an NPOV manner. SpoonLuv (talk) 19:19, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

''' where in the sources I provide does it say, as you just claimed, ? I want an exact citation.''' - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 20:00, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * ''' Here you go: "25 victims (6% of all cases) experienced sexual assault at the time of disappearance or death"


 * You have deceptively cherry-picked that figure. Here is the actual text you pulled that from, on page 6 of the report Out of the 506 cases studied in this report,


 * That is dishonest of you, when we are talking about sexual assault of all the victimized women here. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 19:50, 30 October 2019 (UTC)


 * El_C Will do my best, still new at this. SpoonLuv (talk) 19:13, 29 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Misplaced? Anyway RfC question should probably just link to the two competing versions: version A vs. version B and brief neutral description of how they differ. El_C 19:30, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * RfC question should be elegant in its simplicity. You don't want to overwhelm potential RfC participants. El_C 19:42, 29 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I can't make any sense of SpoonLuv's stuff up there. It's malformed. I plan on reverting to the status quo, as El C, Indigenous girl and myself have all discussed. Then adding additional sources that clearly connect the sex trafficking and sexual assault to the missing and murdered women and girls. For those who've read the sources without bias, this is already fine in the status quo version, but I plan on improving it. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 19:55, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It's pretty straight forward so I don't know why you can't make sense of it. I put the original from the article, your proposal, and my proposal, it's all spelled out.  I will reformat based on El_C's advice.  If you didn't approach this with bias, you would realize that including information about loosely related crimes in order to shape a narrative is a pretty straight forward POV push.  As the RFC process has started based on El_C's advice, I think it would make sense to see what others have to say before reverting. SpoonLuv (talk) 14:50, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Spoonluv hold on, part of your RfC is reasoning is,"when statistics of demographics for perpetrators of murder is unavailable." The demographics are available and have been included. Have you read the sources? I'm not trying to be snarky, it seems as though you haven't, that's all. Indigenous girl (talk) 17:35, 30 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, I have read the sources, and they're referring to sexual assault, not murder. It does say that a certain percentage (6%) of sexual assaults result in murder, but that doesn't represent the statistics for the demographics of the remaining 94%.  There is no available information as to the demographics of the perpetrators of the vast majority of these murders.  This would make sense if it was in the lede of an article on sexual assault, not murder. SpoonLuv (talk) 19:20, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think you read it in it's entirety. Here is the passage (again, it is also posted above),"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." 6% is incorrect. According to the article it is 49%. You need to add all of the figures together :) Indigenous girl (talk) 20:53, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I think actually the indicators overlap. For example, 4 percent of victims "were identified as sex workers or victims of trafficking," but "39% of victims in the sex trade were sexually assaulted at the time of death" (italics are my emphasis) — so would that 39 percent not be derived from that 4 percent rather than the overall sample? Maybe I'm missing something simple here, in which case I apologize for being a bit thick. El_C 21:10, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

-- 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)


 * I've refactored the RfC question for you for clarity. Hope this helps. El_C 19:43, 30 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Neither proposal is appropriate. I just found that the 6% figure is not accurate, but was cherry-picked from a fuller report that also gives the figures of 39%.
 * The pre-blanking version has been restored. El C, you asked for quotes from the sources, and I provided them. Indigenous girl and I also provided a handful of additional sources and quotes that show this obvious connection. Maybe read up on sex-crime murderers, because there are clearly some involved in these cases. It's horrific, but those are the patterns. The sourcing was already sufficient, and now is more than sufficient. I am going to add some of this additional sourcing to the article.
 * SpoonLuv has made it clear that he blanked the content because he felt it "attacked a demographic". If he doesn't like the data on perps, he should take it up with Department of Justice instead of blanking Wikipedia articles. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 20:13, 30 October 2019 (UTC)


 * the current version half of the RfC question is yours to edit as you see fit! El_C 20:18, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * you, in turn, may modify the proposed version half to reflect these latest changes. I am a bit wary of having a somewhat unstable RfC open, but hopefully, it can be updated soon enough, so there would be minimal disruption that might deter any prospective participants. Hope this makes sense to you both. El_C 20:24, 30 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I would probably just suspend this RfC by temporarily delisting it, but I'm afraid of the bot. If I recall correctly it gets angry when an RfC is removed then restored again. So hopefully, each of you can update your half of the question sooner rather than later, so any potential instability is a non-issue. El_C 20:29, 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 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)


 * Okay, if it has been edited beyond adding sources, to the point that text has been moved around elsewhere in the article and so on, then maybe it is better to delist, for now. But I still think an RfC question needs to be based on two competing versions. If one of these version is largely based on blanking sourced content, then it is less likely to enjoy consensus at the end. I'm not sure it would be appropriate for me, as an uninvolved admin, to decide for one side by fiat. But I will suspend the RfC until it can be properly re-drafted. The bot is going to be so angry, though El_C 20:39, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * for clarity, whatever material you end up removing or supplanting automatically becomes the current version, just so we're crystal clear here. El_C 20:49, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Assuming that "the bot" is, then one of the things that does get it angry is to use HTML comment markers <!-- ></!--> - see WP:RFCEND.
 * To get it listed again when the suspension is over, remove the four characters  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  and the next valid timestamp. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 21:40, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Redrose64. We are all working at the bot's pleasure! But noted and will do (faking an early timestamp to appease the bot is also no problem). El_C 23:24, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 25 October 2019
Add image Stop the killing.jpg as a thumb on top of page Noahedits (talk) 19:48, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * ❌. Image does not appear to exist. El_C 23:24, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Citation changes
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)


 * Your changes look fine, Marc, and the readability has been restored. Thanks. 's edits turned that section of the lede into a bunch of choppy stats that don't flow well enough for a lede section. Eliegu, it's interesting that you are accusing long-term admins of socking, as your pattern here is quite familiar and similar to the last disruption that happened. Anything you'd like to disclose? Other editors, see above. The lede looks fine now. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 23:14, 12 January 2020 (UTC)


 * The mentions of the US Congress acts, which are some of the most pertinent bits of information this article could have, have been removed. Removing them is counterproductive to the aims of Wikipedia. The one much-talked-about fringe-quality bit that has been forced into the lead is a mutated version of one statement of one activist. Even the new more reliable source is about that same person’s same statement again. By all Wikipedia logic the text should be attributed to the person, preferably the wording not changed if it’s not long and certainly not placed as one of the most pertinent pieces of information into the lead. There are even more notable activists whose quotes belong in the lead more. In the latest hasty edit it was even managed to revert an irrelevant edit from between. This isn’t constructive editing with lengthy explanations but some sort of speedy disagreeing. And you are not the same person for which I must apologize as I now figured out the real life situation. It is still not fair to avoid the reverts limit by working as two and even possibly calling the other to help in this very goal in the midst of their small break from Wikipedia. I have never edited this article before under any other name or IP or called anyone to it or been called by anyone. I found this article by the way of reading BBC news about this matter (and the news didn’t cite any of the fringe information that has been pushed for). There have been other disagreers in the history of this article, yes, but that is what happens when you try to force the fringe bit to be in the lead. It is human nature to find it odd. If it’s moved into the body, one can only assume all the disagrees will disappear too. If you keep this up the disagreers will just pile on and the history of this article will be nothing but reverts and it will reflect badly on those who have tried to force the fringe bit to stay in the lead rather than in the body. Only can only find enlightenment by compassion and understanding of others’ viewpoints. Elielgu (talk) 22:38, 13 January 2020 (UTC)


 * If you want more stats and studies included, put them in the relevant sections in the body of the article. Not every thing belongs in the lede. You are clearly new to the topic and sourcing if you think any of the text in the lede is "fringe". It is not. The lede needs to clearly and concisely summarise the article, not bog down in stats. It needs to be a readable introduction that makes people want to read the rest of the article. See WP:LEAD, and focus on content not contributors. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 22:53, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * But that would mean most of the numbers currently in the lead don't belong in the lead either. Clearly you are mistaken. Numbers are exactly concise and information-full where as the prose of the fringe statement isn't lead material. It is fringe because finding the statement on any reliable publication proved difficult and it is a statement by an activist not really propped up by particularly anything. How is that not fringe? Elielgu (talk) 23:01, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I have this article watchlisted so it's unsurprising I would show up here to edit. The "fringe" quotes, as you characterize them, are in the footnotes/citations, not in the body text of the lede. Wikipedia editors should use reliable, secondary sources and this article is solidly based on them. I guess you are referring to the quotes from Lisa Brunner (executive director of Sacred Spirits First National Coalition) in the Sky News citations as "fringe"? I'm having trouble understanding what you mean by "fringe". On WP, "fringe" is generally used to describe pseudo-sciences such as flat earth theories. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 03:01, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * What I’m especially referring to fringe is not Brunner but the things not even said by Brunner. Who is this authority stating this thing? The Sky News correspondent from the US? Who uses a wrong statistic? That is clearly reliable. And in one’s early edits the partnership between the two is stated out clear, rather than a watchlist it seems to just be words spoken in real life. Elielgu (talk) 08:22, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

merge proposal
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)


 * Support I agree that page would probably be best incorporated as just be a brief section down with all the other, similar task forces and government initiatives in the MMIW article, with that page redirecting to that section. If that section later grows large enough to need its own page, we can change the redirect into an article at that time. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 19:12, 25 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Support The task force is a governmental response to the mass movement. Seems it would fit better merged into the main article for MMIW, within the section for "US initiatives" and after "Savanna's Act". Kind Regards, Cedar777 (talk) 00:52, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Done! 217.214.151.115 (talk) 23:00, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Extensive changes by 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)

Missing and murdered Indigenous men?
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:
 * A) women of other ethnicities, and
 * B) indigenous men.

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)
 * Thanks for looking into it. The higher rate of homicide among Native American men may be a fact, but is it notable enough that it makes the news or gets talked about in a reliable source? If so, then yes the editors should include reference to that perspective. Even if we are persuaded by your argument, we need a source. We can't write original research into the article. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 01:10, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

homicide rate
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)