Skip to content
Turing

Analysis of the article

Decapitan a una mujer transexual y dejan un mensaje amenazante

Punto Norte · published on June 4, 2021

How is it written?

Very good writing

The article uses respectful language. Only gives voice to the authorities: it does not include family, friends or organizations.

Is this analysis correct?

Your answer trains Turing and improves the rating.

Yes, it's correct No, I want to correct it

To answer, you have to Sign-in: so your corrections remain in your follow-up.

Correct Turing's analysis

Published
June 4, 2021
Analyzed
November 10, 2026
State
Online
Leer en puntonorte.info PDF
Share

Share this analysis

X Facebook Threads WhatsApp

The text

Where we found it

These are the paragraphs where we find something, without reproducing the entire note. The other underlines are drafting details; the number leads to their explanation in the analysis. Tap or hover over a mark to see why we pointed at it.

Punto Norte puntonorte.info

By Redacción Punto Norte ·

abc Sensationalism abc What it does well «…» Direct quote

Decapitan a una mujer transexual y dejan un mensaje amenazante

Una vez que las primeras autoridades acudieron y confirmaron el hallazgo, advirtieron que se trataba de un cuerpo decapitado1 y con los órganos del abdomen expuestos.

Personal de la Fiscalía confirmó a Punto Norte que la víctima era una mujer transexual, a quien se le apreciaban tatuajes de una luna y estrellas en el pecho, así como la palabra “Diosa” en la parte baja del vientre.

The rating

How Turing arrived at 96

What deducts from and adds to the rating, whom the article listens to, what is worth changing and what it does well.

Very good

  • Respectful

The article uses respectful language. Only gives voice to the authorities: it does not include family, friends or organizations.

News articleReports facts. We check that it tells them with respect and without morbidity.

Text by 2021 Date of publication

Analyzed with Turing v2.8 · What changed

AI was not involved in this article: it was rated only by Turing’s rules.

What takes points off

The bar grows with the weight of each problem in the rating. Empty means no flags.

Derogatory terms No flags
Name and gender No flags
Blames the victim No flags
Sensationalism Mild · 1 pointing · subtraction 3
Hostile speech No flags
Imprecise terms No flags

What adds points

What the article does well. It offsets part of what takes points off, never all of it.

Gender and rights perspective 1 strength
Inclusive language Not applicable

How to read this rating

  • It has a yellowish detail, shown below. They take points off, but they are not enough to call it a “sensationalist article”: that happens when sensationalism sets the tone of the whole article. In the statistics it counts among articles “with some sensationalist detail”.
  • Why is the rating high? What the article does well, such as naming the person’s identity, giving context or echoing the demand for justice, offsets part of what takes points off. It never erases it: an article with flags does not reach 100.
How we arrived at 96 out of 100
  1. Every article starts with100
  2. Sensationalism−3
  3. Gender and rights perspective+2
  4. Only gives voice to the authorities−3
  5. Rating96

Turing related it to what the site already knows

  • Punto Norte · Observatorio de Medios · 3 notas · promedio 99 de 100

Who does it listen to?

  • Authorities2 times
  • Family, friends and neighborsNo
  • Collectives and organizationsNo
  • ExpertsNo

It only gives a voice to the authorities: the official version stands as the only one. It is worth seeking out the family, collectives or experts.

What is worth changing

  1. Sensationalism …autoridades acudieron y confirmaron el hallazgo, advirtieron que se trataba de un cuerpo decapitado y con los órganos del abdomen expuestos. · Los hechos sucedieron en la calle Chihuahua… See it in the text Morbid detail. The cause of death is enough, if the authority made it public.

What it does well

  • Uses “trans woman”, “trans man” or “trans person”

What it claims

What the article says, fact-checked

In analyzing the memo, Turing reviews the figures, laws, and cases he claims and what the organizations, legislators, and authorities he cites say, and compares them to Memorial, Legislative Observatory, and published verifications.

Turing is comparing what the note states with the Memorial, the Legislative Observatory and published verifications...

The proof

Certified copy

Proof that this article existed exactly as Turing read it, even if it is later changed or deleted.

Record of existence on the internet

Reference number CC-NJY4-UGVS

Valid and verifiable Sealed on November 10, 2026, 03:20:00 (Central Mexico time)

Código QR del certificado CC-NJY4-UGVS Scan to verify
  1. 1. Copy and digital fingerprint We saved what Turing read and took its SHA-256 fingerprint.
  2. 2. RFC 3161 timestamp An independent third party (FreeTSA) signed the fingerprint on November 10, 2026, 03:20:00 (Central Mexico time).
  3. 3. Anchored in Bitcoin The fingerprint is in the OpenTimestamps calendars; it will be in a Bitcoin block within a few hours.
  4. 4. Copy at Internet Archive Saved on November 10, 2026 on servers that are not ours. See the copy
  5. 5. Monitoring We check it from time to time to know if it gets deleted.

INTERNET ARCHIVE · Wayback Machine

Backed up on archive.org

Internet Archive, an independent digital library, saved its own copy on its servers on November 10, 2026, 09:20 (UTC). We check its index to confirm it exists before showing it here.

Why does this make it authentic?
  • It is an independent witness. Internet Archive is a non-profit digital library that has preserved the web since 1996. It has no ties to Memoria y Resistencia or to whoever published the content.
  • The copy is theirs, not ours. Their own system captures it, stores it on their servers and stamps it with their own date and time. Neither we nor the publisher can edit it or change its date.
  • Anyone can verify it. It is at a public web.archive.org address that contains the date. Anyone can open it without asking us and compare it with our copy and its fingerprint.
  • It is a recognized reference. Journalists, researchers and lawyers often cite it to show what a page looked like on a given date.
  • Two witnesses that match. Our timestamp and the Internet Archive copy are made separately. If anyone claimed we altered the copy, the archive.org one would disprove it.

Internet Archive and its logo are trademarks of Internet Archive. We use them only to show where the copy is; this is not an endorsement by them.

SHA-256 fingerprint of the copy dec8ba55258a67f5d7bfa4711217015cbf2bfc7a5c220937566292b12e06f01a

Turing read it directly from the public link, with no human involvement.

See the certificate Download as PDF Check another folio
What is it worth as evidence?

It is a technical proof of integrity and date: it shows that this exact content existed at that moment and was not modified afterwards. In Mexico, information in electronic media is recognized as evidence, and its weight depends on the reliability of the method used to create and keep it, on its remaining intact and on its being available for later consultation (Commercial Code, art. 1298-A; Federal Code of Civil Procedure, art. 210-A; National Code of Civil and Family Procedure, art. 348).

That is why each copy uses open standards that anyone can verify without trusting us: SHA-256 fingerprint, third-party RFC 3161 timestamp, OpenTimestamps on Bitcoin and the independent Internet Archive copy.

It is not a notarial certification of facts or a NOM-151 preservation certificate. If you need it for a lawsuit, the same fingerprint can be backed by them. Write to us with the folio.

Record

About the note

Data

Byline
Redacción Punto Norte
Published
June 4, 2021
Last analyzed
November 10, 2026
Turing
2.8 (the current one)
State
Online
Place of the events
Mexico

Saved versions

  • 96Version 1 · November 10, 2026 · 236 words

Every time someone analyzes the article, we read it again. If the outlet changed it, we save a new version and compare.

Are you from the outlet?

If you work at the outlet or wrote the article and think the analysis has an error, request a review: we give you a reference number and reply in writing within 10 business days.

Request a review

Keep exploring

Preparing your PDF… We are putting together the analysis with the underlined text and the QR code.

Made by and for the community

This tool is free because someone donated before you

We receive no government funding. Your donation helps us keep reviewing how the press names LGBTTTIQANB+ people and keep the memory of each case alive.

Donate $100 once

Secure payment with Stripe through Nodo Cívico, the organization behind Memoria y Resistencia.

See all options

The analysis is automatic: it can be wrong with irony, with quotes the article criticizes or with very short texts. To protect the people in the cases, their legal name does not appear on this page. How we rate.