Talk:Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 September 2018 and 20 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Anon notmax (article contribs). This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2019 and 20 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Brookeparkerx (article contribs). This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 January 2019 and 19 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lneswood (article contribs).

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. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 17:05, 22 October 2017 (UTC) DivaNtrainin (talk) 21:24, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

@DivaNtrainin: so in addition to refactoring others' talk page comments you are ignoring what's in the sources themselves and talk page consensus. Here we have two of us disagreeing with you. You do not have consensus to keep reverting. You are now edit-warring. (also pinging @Velella:) - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 21:56, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

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. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 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 [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 [[1]]. 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: [2]. I suggest you respect consensus this time. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 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 CorbieV, 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. :) - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 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) - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 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. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 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 <http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mmiw-4000-hajdu-1.3450237> 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? - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 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?—Odysseus1479 01:39, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

"Social problem" isn't strong enough. Sounds interpersonal or small scale. Still looking/thinking. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 16:52, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I cut the adjectives and just put, "issue." - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 17:05, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

We should stick with crisis. Sorry but this is extremely well documented: [3][4][5][6][7][8]. A very wide range of sources use the term "crisis" rather than weasel terms like "issue" to describe the problem of MMIW, we can not and should not be removing it because one (or two) editors don't like it. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:14, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

If 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. @Fyddlestix: I'll go over the sources, but I can see just by the URLs that the word "crisis" is used. I think we have support for using the word. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 16:45, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

“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.—Odysseus1479 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. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 16:30, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, sources support crisis: [9][10][11][12][13][14]. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 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)

See also

Annie Mae Aquash is listed under "See Also" but she was a politically prominent leader of AIM in the US. While it has been proven that she was murdered by other Native Americans, I don't think her case is typical of those covered in this article, which tend to be marginalized women.Parkwells (talk) 22:41, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:44, 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 ^☊ ☼ 19:41, 10 July 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. 17:06, 17 October 2019 (UTC)