Talk:Rape and murder suspects in Ciudad Juárez arrested

title
title was discussed previously in oklahoma city burning article. conclusion drawn that country not necessary for major cities.


 * I would say Mexico City is the only city in Mexico that qualifies as recognizable worldwide. StuRat 18:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * That's an awfully eurocentric statement, user StuRat. Ciudad Juárez has twice as many people as Oklahoma City.  I think perhaps you meant that Mexico City is the only city in Mexico that is recognizable in your particular cultural area.  Don't assume people everywhere have that same culture.  This is intended for a global audience, with no preferences.  --MateoP 19:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Not Eurocentric, but non-Mexico-centric. People in China and Africa will have no idea where, or even what, Ciudad Juárez is.  How well a city is known isn't strictly due to it's population.  It's historic, economic, military, and political significance are also factors.  For example, the capitals of countries tend to be more widely known than than other cities of comparable size. Also, keep in mind that this is the English Wikinews, so the audience is mostly English-speaking, which means they will be more familiar with cities in English speaking countries than in Spanish speaking countries.  I would not suggest that a story on Oklahoma City should omit the name of the country in Spanish Wikinews.  StuRat 19:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * This is a eurocentric statement. There are millions of english speakers in Mexico, including millions who are originally from a predominantly english speaking country.  Note that the United States is not an english speaking country, it's a country whose predominant language is english.  There is no official language.  Your reasoning is inheritedly eurocentric as you've made your prerequisites impossible for non-western countries to overcome.  In the spirit of having a global news source, eurocentric titles should not appear on the front page.  --MateoP 19:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * No, your reporting is Mexico-centric (which could be considered to be a subset of Eurocentric, since most Mexicans are at least partially of Spanish ancenstry). For example, do you know where Lagos and Kinshasa are ?  Those cities with populations of 9 million and 8 million respectively are in the African nations of Nigeria and the Congo, but have a low geopolitical significance, so are not known by many outside of Africa.  Omitting the country names from articles on them would therefore be a mistake. StuRat 19:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Then you are in favor of adding countries to all titles. By the way, you didn't add the country, you replaced the city name with just the country.  However I believe that if you look in the style guide it does not say anything about necessity of country titles.  Saying that there were murder suspects found in Mexico isn't very specific.  However we had this conversation in the Oklahoma City article and it was concluded that country names are unnecessary.  --MateoP 19:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Always unnecessary ? No matter how small and insignificant the city is ?  That's just plain stupid.  I am in favor of listing the country name on every article, if it will keep people from omitting the name and leaving a title that few outside their own country will understand.  Also, does the style guide say country names are banned ?  No ! StuRat 20:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe consensus was reached that major cities it is unnecessary for. Ciudad Juárez, with a population of over 1 million, is a major city.  --MateoP 20:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

It is widely known in the English speaking world outside of the United States that Oklahoma is in that particular country. It is not widely known outside of Mexico that Ciudad Juarez is inside Mexico. Brian McNeil / talk 19:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Eurocentric assumption. Can't have preferential treatment on names to some countries.  Ciudad Juárez has twice as many people as Oklahoma City, it's not less important.  --MateoP 19:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * You just call anyone who disagrees with you "Eurocentric". That's 2 against 1 now. StuRat 20:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikinews isn't a democracy. You don't get to have your POV stick just because you have more people who agree with your POV.  I'll change this title for the rest of my life.  We don't treat certain countries as superior or inferior to others here.  --MateoP 20:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * You can't just pretend the this city is widely known around the world when it isn't. Not being a democracy doesn't mean you can change things the way you want them to be and ignore the consensus or everybody else. StuRat 20:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

You're right, Wikinews isn't a democracy. And if you really wanted to pick a fight over the title, you'd lose becase of 3RR. I don't want to pick a fight on this, you must mention the country somewhere and, it is nowhere to be found in the article text itself. Brian McNeil / talk 20:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The 3 revert rule applies to within 24 hours. I'll revert this article the rest of my life if I have to.  I'll add the country to within the article text (and will check Oklahoma City's article for the same thing), and then revert to the proper title.  --MateoP 20:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Mentioning the name of the country in the article is obviously needed, but this doesn't mean the name of the country can be omitted from the title. As for the 3 revert rule, note that my first change is not a REVERT to an earlier title, just a change.  The later changes did try to keep in mind advice from others, like yours to include the city name and Brian's to avoid a slash in the title, as this is a prohibited character.  You, on the other hand, have made no attempt to accommodate the concerns of others and have reverted to the exact same title each time. StuRat 20:46, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I have previously done Anniversary of Tak Bai incident marked with lawsuits, which you would not be likely to know from the title was an incident in Thailand, but it is mentioned several times in the article that it refers to Thailand and the Thai people. However, what I'd comment on this dispute is that MateoP's comments could be construed as a threat to disrupt, particularly by going back to an article that should by now be protected.  I will say that throwing around the accusation that people are Euro-centric because they are unaware of Mexican geography is highly unfair and inappropriate, our audience is the English speaking world, and that should be catered for.  I've not yet decided if this really should have Mexico in the title, but I will say that the inclusion in the article was the bare minimum to address the criticism I raised.  Had I chosen not to highlight that the article made no mention of Mexico we could have gone on reverting until someone broke 3RR.  Perhaps the issue should be raised on the Water cooler, if it hasn't already been in the past. Brian McNeil / talk 20:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I said that your actions are eurocentric. Thinking that different rules apply to non-western countries is eurocenric, by definition.  By the way, the current lead is 13 coal miners trapped in West Virginia mine which does not have the country in the title.  Is west viriginia a place known throughout the world?  I'd love to see if the same standards are applied when it is a western country that doesn't have the country name in the title.  --MateoP 21:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem is that people assume their local area is famous worldwide. This is both your problem and the problem with the author of the coal miners article.  I see you included the country name in that article's title, and I have no intention of reverting the change, since I agree with it.  I am from Detroit, Michigan, USA, but can certainly understand why people on the other side of the world may not have heard of it, despite it's population of 1 million (2 million including suburbs) and historic center of the American auto industry.  Thus, I would have no objection to the name of the country being included in the title of any article on Detroit.  The only cities in the US I would expect to be known worldwide are New York, Washington, and perhaps Los Angeles.  As I said before, the only city in Mexico I would expect to be known worldwide is Mexico City.  StuRat 22:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The title is really akward as it stands. It's not neccissary to name the country in the title. The big map and the first sentence of the article are enough. Johnny Q 00:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * You can't see the map and first sentence until you pick the article from the main page to read it. Thus, potential readers must decide whether to read the article without knowing the country to which it refers. 01:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I would like to delcare my support for MateoP's position in this dispute. If readers don't know where Ciudad Juárez is, then why would they want to read the article? If they are interested in rapes and murders generally, then they will read it regardless of where it is. The country name should be in the article, but not the title. - Borofkin 00:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, people considering travel to, or through, the Mexican state of Chihuahua may not know Ciudad Juárez is in Chihuahua or in Mexico. They might be interested in reading the article, if they knew it was where they were going. StuRat 01:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe that the name of the country is only necessary if you're talking about something that very, very few people are going to know (i.e. a suburb of a city), or something that can cause confusion (i.e. London, Ontario rather than London). That said, I'd like to dispute the term "eurocentric" applied here. The folks who add the country name have nothing to do with the opinions of Europe, or with "Western" bias. Instead, it has to do with a desire to make Wikinews more international. In contast, I believe that news must be written to be of interest locally. Don't know where this city is? Don't read the local story. -- IlyaHaykinson 03:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Here's my take (again): Juárez isn't a unique city name, so "Juárez, Mexico" would be required. However, "Ciudad Juárez" (same city) is a unique city name.  If there's any doubt as to common knowledge of the place name in the headline, mention it within the article as early as possible - at least what country. Basing a headline decision on what readers know is somewhat presumptive.  Base instead on the uniqueness of the headline to summarize the story.  I still agree with IlyaHaykinson's  "Don't know where this city is? Don't read the local story." Adding the country name should signal that the city name is too common or not unique enough to be understood without reading the rest of the story.  In this case, "Ciudad Juárez" is unique enough (I know it's in Mexico - I live in North America two countries away, but I've always been a bit more geograpically-aware than most) to not require the country name - but more information (redundant or not) is usually better than not enough.  Karen 15:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Rape category should be added
Rape is a significant topic. Users could come here looking for information on rape. Categories being red are not important. it still takes you to a page that show all articles which have a rape tag. This category should be added (i'll do it).


 * Agreed, but please sign your posts. StuRat 20:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Strongly Disagree. Rape should not be added as a category to this, no other reputable news source divides up their material into sex crimes. This goes under Crime and law, of which Rape is a subset and thus should not be set as a Category in it's own right.  Plus, those arrested have not yet convicted so we cannot say with certainty that rape has taken place. Brian McNeil / talk 20:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Most news sources have limited space to place categories, we don't. A user looking for articles on rape would have to go through crime and law to try and find articles specifically on rape.  You can have more than one category, you know.  leave crime and law and also add rape.  And we do know that a rape has taken place.  What we don't know is if the people are guilty of the rape.  There isn't any controversy on whether someone raped and murdered this woman.  --MateoP 20:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Doesn't the search engine work well enough to do this sort of research? (I'm sure it works, at least partly - still some bugs in it, however.) I thought categories were more for localizing an interest - such as geographically-local stories or a particular field (such as Economics). While I don't disagree with adding the category, I don't see its inclusion all that needed on the chance that someone is doing research. If you're arguing on the basis that it's a serious crime, then all other serious crimes should be added, also.  Karen 15:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Have you used the search function on any wikimedia project? It's atrocious, you're sure to find nothing using it.  I think as specific of categories as necessary should be added.  We have plenty of room.  --MateoP 17:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

As Karen points out, starting to break down a category like Crime and law could be a nightmare. To be consistent you'd need to cover Murder, Arson, Fraud, Theft, etc. etc. I've listed the category on deletion requests, and am putting this comment here so the folk that were in favour of the category can go there and have their see say. The tag is on the article's talk page. Brian McNeil / talk 16:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * What would be wrong with having having categories for murder, etc? Like I said, we are not hurting for space.  --MateoP 17:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * What would be wrong is the very patchy application of these categories that we'd end up with. If you start breaking news down to this level then it is unlikely we'd see stuff correctly categorised.  As it stand right now it relies on regular contributors who know categories to get them appropriately placed on articles, breaking down major categories as you propose is going to end up with a list of "minor" categories that will not be consistently applied.  As you willing to review every article any apply the minor categories that this would lead to, that in itself could end up as a full-time job, and is just a minimal contribution to Wikinews. Brian McNeil / talk 20:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Eric J. Lindblom PhD
I would like to add http://juarez.bravehost.com to the discussion and, if possible, receive feedback and commentary. Thanks Eric J. Lindblom PhD, Harvard University and The Institute of Medicine and Advanced Behavioral Technology of Cd. Juarez. http://elindblom.bravehost.com