Jump to content

Talk:Female genital mutilation/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10→Archive 15

Laws and Prevalence

This section is disproportionately long, the information about prevalence (esp. Africa) is communicated effectively in the map which is there and could be expanded into a world map. Does anyone have any ideas about better organizing the legal information to avoid a long list? I'm thinking a map could also be used for this. Vietminh (talk) 01:44, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Would a collapsible table do the trick? Jakew (talk) 11:55, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
After thinking about it I think we should opt for a paragraph summarizing the overall legal status rather than trying to incorporate every conceivable country into the article. Most of the legal issues are the same across the countries listed (laws exist, they're not followed or they are followed). The paragraph could include any noteworthy examples. As for the prevalence, as I say the map which is there does the job nicely, it would just need to be expanded to include other areas of the world if needed. Vietminh (talk) 21:25, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
We could represent legal status with maps too, using colours to represent the various situations ("no data", "legal", "illegal", and "contested" spring to mind). But I'm a bit reluctant to throw away the detailed information completely, as it might be useful to someone. Tables would be suitable, or we could spin out the information into a sub-article, replacing it with a paragraph or two plus some maps to illustrate. Thoughts? Jakew (talk) 21:44, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
I think a spin out would be the best option, as you say there is a lot of detailed info about the status in each individual country that shouldn't be just thrown away (but which I believe wouldn't fit well into a table format). Perhaps an article called "Legal status of Female genital mutilation by country"? Then as you say, we could have some maps to illustrate and a couple of paragraphs here. Vietminh (talk) 22:29, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm going to try a spin-out, with a summary of it in this article; if there are objections we can always undo it. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 22:03, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Done. See Prevalence of female genital mutilation by country. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 22:48, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
You beat me to it, just logged on to do that right now. I think that works much better. Vietminh (talk) 17:01, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Santiago, this material you added last year (removed yesterday) is an example of plagiarism/copyright violation. Is there anything else in the article like that, that you're aware of, so we can remove or rewrite it? SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 20:17, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I believe there is a bit lost in translation here, so to Santiago, maybe you can read this, which explains copyright laws in the US in plain english? I hope you don't take that as an insult. I just think you're misunderstanding something, and this website could help.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 22:17, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
The plagiarism aspect is more pressing from my perspective. The article has to be written in our own words, apart from judicious quoting or close paraphrasing, which requires in-text attribution, not just a ref in a footnote. So we need an assurance that it won't happen again, and it would be helpful if other examples could be pointed out so we can fix them. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 22:22, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
This website explains what plagiarism is in the US in plain english too, so Santiago, you might want to take a look at that to understand it better.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 22:24, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
I see what you're saying now. I have only included them as refs because of how I've read it in journal articles and what I understand from research, but I also understand on this page to be particularly careful since we've had these issues. So I'll do in-text from now on. Son of Citation is really helpful for all this citation stuff too. I use it a lot on WP and in school.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 22:56, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I added a little mantra to the plagiarism guideline, which might be helpful:

  • INCITE: Cite your sources in the form of an inline citation after the phrase, sentence, or paragraph in question.
  • INTEXT: Add in-text attribution when you copy or closely paraphrase a source's words.
  • INTEGRITY: Maintain text-source integrity by placing your inline citations in a way that makes clear which source supports which part of the text.

Though really common sense is the main thing. If we find ourselves copying and pasting from websites, that's obviously not a good way to edit. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 23:06, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

On WP somewhere it says to avoid plagiarism also by not copying and rewriting the copy. I found that extremely helpful, because you then have to say it in your own words in the first place. I know you're talking about ideas here, but I've copied then re-wrote again on WP to find it sounding too similar, and that not copying even to rewrite thing helped me immensely. I see so few people taking these issues seriously on here and I'm glad you do.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 23:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Agreed, it's sometimes hard to rewrite without it sounding very similar. Best thing in those cases it just to add some in-text attribution. If we say "Smith writes that ...", then we're covered, so long as there's not too much of it. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS

BTW

None of you discuss changes on the talk page before you edit... OK no problem with that!

First of all read WP:CV and WP:PD correctly!. We are allowed to copy word for word as long as we have the permission and name the source from where we quote it. Unicef[1], UNFARP or the WHO[2] strictly allows that their material may be used, we have permission to copy the content!. There is NO copyright violation at all, and don't argue that because of my grammar weakness i have problems with logic and understanding too. attack redacted It's up to you, stop provoking me and i will stop respond to yours.--Santiago84 (talk) 11:18, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

  • The UNICEF page you linked to says "Copyright © UNICEF - UNICEF reserves all copyrights on material on its Web pages." The WHO page says nothing relating to copying whatsoever, and only covers linking. There is a blatant copyright violation if you include any text from their site - please, please stop. If I see you make comments about users rather than contributions again, I will block you. If I see any attempt to include copyrighted content, I will indefinitely block you. It's as simple as that. Your continued refusal to understand basic copyright law will not be tolerated if you start putting the projects at risk. Ironholds (talk) 11:43, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
    Ironholds: I have redacted the personal attack above; I hope that is ok. Johnuniq (talk) 12:29, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
    Good move. Jakew (talk) 12:31, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't feel comfortable with Santiago making any edits to the article if he's arguing that what he does isn't plagiarism. This edit of his from last year was copied word for word from the source. Despite the long discussion we just had about copyright, and despite the copyvio tag being on the article for two weeks or so, Santiago said nothing about it, didn't remove it, and now defends it. So I feel he should be asked not to edit the article again, or any article, until he acknowledges that he won't do this anymore, and points out any past examples so we can fix them. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 00:06, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Just so you're aware, Santiago84 has been indefinitely blocked for the reasons you listed here, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Santiago84#Unblock_request Vietminh (talk) 17:06, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 17:09, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Sections named opposition

I`m unsure if naming sections opposition is the best thing for clarity. It may leave people wondering whether the section refers to opposition to the practice or opposition to the people who oppose FGM. This is especially true in the case of "criticism of the opposition" which has one section (Colonial Opposition) which is about the criticism of opposition to the practice and another (Since the 1960s) which seems to be about defending criticism of the practice. I think the main section should be named something akin to "Prevalence and attempts to end the practice", and another name be used for the subsections which follow. Vietminh (talk) 18:22, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Vietminh, it's currently called "Opposition to FGM and local defiance," and that may change again, as this is very much a work-in-progress. I'm currently just trying to get the basic issues down, and then I was intending to find the best structure and headers. Normally, this section would be at the start of an article under "History." But here, it's important to describe the procedures first, which is why this is a bit upside-down. I think that calling it "Prevalence and attempts to end the practice" would overlook that the key issue was local defiance of the attempts to end it. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 18:39, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
That's fair, I didn't mean to interrupt the work in progress, I just found it a bit confusing and thought I'd mention it. Thanks! Vietminh (talk) 21:13, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, you're right, it was confusing. I changed the header to the one you suggested, and it does look better. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 19:12, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Just letting you know that I've nominated the article for FAC. See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Female genital mutilation/archive1. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 02:18, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
That's great to hear :), thanks again for putting so much into this, the article has become better than I ever thought it could be. Vietminh (talk) 16:09, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, Vietminh, that's much appreciated. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 16:16, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Note about spelling

When I came to this article, a lot of it was in British English, so I just continued with that spelling, but recent additions have been in American English. I don't mind which we choose, so if someone prefers American English, and if that's how most of it is going to be written, feel free to change it. The only thing we need for FAC is consistency. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 23:53, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Main image

Just a note about the main image: I've been trying for the last week to obtain confirmation of the release from Dr Osman, the artist. An account that said he was Osman (and which really did seem to be him) uploaded and released the image, but without OTRS confirmation. I sent requests to four of his email addresses, but he didn't respond, so the image has been removed for now. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 22:20, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Image

What happened to this image? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Type_IV_circumcision.jpg Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:37, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

It was removed because it shows an individual with an unusual condition which may give doubt about whether the image is typical. The discussion is in archive 7. Johnuniq (talk) 01:33, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Female circumcision (FGM) Is forbidden in Judaism!

the sentence that says it's practiced by individuals jews is wrong! in judaism every mutilation of the body except boy circumsition is forbidden(in judaism even piercing is forbidden), and female genital mutilation is strikly forbidden and frowned upon! this part is absolutly false! i vouch that since i'm a jew myself! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.65.148.34 (talk) 22:20, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps, but WHO reports it page 6 of http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2008/9789241596442_eng.pdf Jim1138 (talk) 03:15, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Christians Do NOT practice Female Genital Mutilation!

the sentence that states that Christians also engage in FGM is totally false. This needs to be proven through a reliable citation, which I'm sure won't ever happen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.186.134.166 (talk) 15:45, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

See page 6 of http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2008/9789241596442_eng.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim1138 (talk • contribs) 03:13, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Western pediatric FGM practices

There is no section about this practice in the Western world. It is not unusual for doctors to perform clitoropexies on female infants for "purely medical" reasons. Rationales include the idea that it would prevent masturbation and that removing the clitoral hood would cure recurring UTI/bladder infections. "Clitoral reduction" is also done if the clitoris seems "too large" either to the parents or the doctor. This is said to prevent masturbation and keep the girl from becoming a transgendered male or a Lesbian.

I understand that some women voluntarily go in for this procedure but a child does not have this option. Reference: Tyranny of the Aesthetic by Martha Coventry. On the Issues summer 1998, page found 2011-10-30. Making the Cut by Martha Coventry. Ms magazine, October 2000, page found 2011-10-30. My real question is whether this belongs in this article or a separate article that could be linked, or is that "forking"? --Bluejay Young (talk) 22:38, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I would say that if good references are found, it should be included. A search of Intersex Society of North America:"female genital mutilation" returns a few interesting links [1] Jim1138 (talk) 02:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
"Clitoral reduction" is a much more acceptable term than "clitoral mutilation" especially when the procedure is prescribed by the "establishment" in the Western world. It becomes unacceptable only when performed by "other people" who are much less "civilized." USchick (talk) 03:34, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:56, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Female genital mutilation → Female genital cutting – The term "mutilation" is inherently POV. Titling this article "Female Genital Mutilation" is no more NPOV than titling Circumcision "Male Genital Mutilation"89.100.150.198 (talk) 03:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Nice straw man. 89.100.150.198 (talk) 19:09, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

If you add "female circumcision” to this ngram you will find that it is by far the longer established and is still the more common term.

http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=female+genital+cutting%2Cfemale+genital+mutilation%2C+female+circumcision&year_start=1950&year_end=2008&corpus=0&smoothing=1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.22.132 (talk) 17:04, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Oppose. FGM is the most commonly used name, and is more descriptive than female circumcision or similar, since the male equivalent of the clitoris (commonly cut in FGM) is the glans (head) of the penis - not the foreskin. Allens (talk) 03:49, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. FGM is certainly the most common name, but that isn't the only issue to consider. Per WP:POVTITLE, "Notable circumstances under which Wikipedia often avoids a common name for lacking neutrality include [...] Persuasive names and slogans crafted by partisans on still-active, contentious advocacy issues". This is evidently such a situation, and, to maintain a neutral encyclopaedic stance, Wikipedia should instead adopt a less judgemental name. "Female genital cutting" is the next most common name (and the trend is reportedly shifting to its usage instead of FGM[2][3]), and is neutral. Jakew (talk) 10:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Um, you're citing a 2004 source above-- this discussion would be more informed if it followed the same guidelines we follow for articles: go to PubMed and other reliable high-quality peer-reviewed sources, find those that are recent, and see what they are calling it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:59, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm not aware of any other secondary sources commenting on trends in usage of terminology, I'm afraid, and for comment on trends it seems preferable to rely on a secondary source than OR analysis of search results. Jakew (talk) 16:24, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
The sources you cite do not offer any evidence for an upward trend in use of the term FGC, The first does not say anything about usage, the second simply states that said shift is occurring. This is extremely problematic because the article in question is also advocating use of the term FGC over FGM and therefore can't be trusted for an independent analysis of usage. Also as was pointed out, the source is 7 years old. Lastly, I remind you about this discussion in which you took part. You will find that the sources you list here and the argument that accompanies them have been already been dispelled. Vietminh (talk) 08:53, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Regarding the first source, I'm referring to the sentence that states 'The term “female genital cutting” is now used in the literature rather than “female genital mutilation”.' The second, as you acknowledge, states that a there is a shift in usage. Attempts to dismiss this source are, of course, original research. Jakew (talk) 09:13, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
"Attempts to dismiss this source are, of course, original research" I think you're showing your bias here now more than ever Jakew. Analyzing the reliability of a source is integral to verifibility on Wikipedia, otherwise we would have to accept what every source says regardless of how un-authoritative or un-reliable it may be. Also I do not acknowledge the trend you speak of, because there are no other sources to back it up. What you have here, as I have told you, and as others have told you in the past and in the present, is a single, as in the numerical number "1" source from 7 years ago that makes a claim that it provides absolutely no evidence for whatsoever. It does this whilst advocating for the use of the very term that *it* says is replacing the most commonly used term. Put that all together and in my analysis, and in the analysis of multiple other users both in the past and the present, the source is not authoritative. It is not original research to dispute the authority of a source, or to point out that a quick search on pubmed or google scholar draws the claims it makes into question. If you are going to continue to make the claim that academic literature is shifting to the term FGC instead of FGM then the burden is on you to back it up. You have had months to produce more sources that say this shift is taking place, yet all you have done is repeatedly provide the same source and claim over and over without expanding on anything when other users have asked for more evidence, and now you have taken to saying that dismissing your 1 source is original research...enough is enough produce more evidence, such as an independent study on the usage of the terms and trends of use over time, or stop making the claims you are making. Vietminh (talk) 17:16, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose This article is titled "female genital mutilation" because that is the common name widely used in extremely reliable sources. It is not judgmental to use the name "mutilation" for what actually is mutilation (is there a reliable source saying FGM is not mutilation?). Furthermore, discarding the FGM name used by reliable sources would be a POV judgement by editors. This was discussed at length in July (at the requested move and the rest of that archive page). Johnuniq (talk) 10:35, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Some primary sources have directly challenged whether it is mutilation, eg., "The problem with the representation of various forms of female circumcision as ‘mutilation’ is that the term, among other things, presupposes some irreversible and serious harm. This is not supported by current medical research on female circumcision."[4] There are also a number of secondary sources (eg., [5]) reporting that those practising communities disagree that it is "mutilation". So yes, it's safe to say that there are multiple viewpoints. Jakew (talk) 11:12, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Neutral Both male and female circumcision are forms of genital mutilation to one degree or another. Unfortunately there is a sexist hypocrisy that tries to protect and promote male circumcision for many cultural and religious reasons. Garycompugeek (talk) 13:28, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Ummmm, the discussion above hasn't been guided by the relevant guideline, Wikipedia:MEDMOS#Naming conventions, which is clear:

    The article title should be the scientific or recognised medical name that is most commonly used in recent, high-quality, English-language medical sources, rather than a lay term (unscientific or slang name)

    The name used in recent high quality journal or medical sources isn't POV-- it's what it's called in medicine. By our guideline, either Female genital mutilation or Female circumcision might comply, but Female genital cutting most certainly would not. (For examples search PubMed.) If anyone wants to argue for a name change, Female circumcision might comply, but I doubt it, because scholarly searches seem to reveal that the most recent papers do use the term Female genital mutilation-- Female genital cutting does not comply, although it was the term used in some older papers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:56, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
    • I don't understand the reference to "some older papers". Searching PubMed for "female genital cutting" returns four results for 2011 alone[6], which suggests that its usage is current. "Female genital mutilation" is certainly used more frequently (an equivalent search returned 15 results published in 2011[7]), but it seems safe to say that both terms are established usage. Jakew (talk) 16:24, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Reluctantly oppose. I think it is quite regrettable that the article is under its current title rather than "Female circumcision". Referring to the practice as "mutilation" is in my view a gross over-simplification of the different practices in different parts of the world. This abstract is in my view an excellent summary of the inappropriateness of the label in a Malaysian context, where very limited female circumcision is widely practiced in a highly developed country where (for example) Muslim females are better educated than their male counterparts. But, I guess, the preponderance of sources must prevail. The article should at least explain reliable criticisms of the use of the term in particular contexts. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:10, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Quite interesting. Obviously this article is about something different, perhaps there should be a separate article about the practice in Malaysia. I am sceptical about the value of the cited source, quite possibly it has its own POV and western feminists would supply their own sources seeing it rather differently. Richiez (talk) 15:10, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
The article is from Reproductive Health Matters, which could hardly be described as an anti-women publication. I'd love to create the separate article, but I think the medical lingo is a bit beyond me! --Mkativerata (talk) 20:21, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
The systemic bias argument is a moot point. First of all, all of the sources on this subject are Western in origin, so with both FGM and FGC the systemic bias exists. Secondly, the systemic bias doesn't matter either way, because english language Wikipedia is meant to reflect what is said in english language sources (the systemic bias is accepted as inherent in the process). The question is not which name is biased, the question is which name most accurately reflects the source material in reputable, english language sources. Also what is neutrality? Is is picking the most neutral sounding name, or is it picking the name that most sources use? It's not our job to determine what sounds neutral, it's our job to look at the sources and see what is neutral. If we ignore what is used in the sources that is in itself not being neutral because we are injecting our own judgments into the decision (which Wikipedia guidelines specifically say we are not supposed to do) Vietminh (talk) 08:38, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Wikipedia:NPOV#Naming, which is policy, and says, "while neutral terms are generally preferable, this must be balanced against clarity. If a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English), and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, it may be used even though some may regard it as biased." Clearly we need to consider ease of recognizability, and it's best recognized by its current name. List of events named massacres and List of corporate scandals provide several of examples of other articles with charged titles. Possibly some of them should be changed, but surely you can also find some good examples of this policy being applied. --Pnm (talk) 02:52, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
    • The policy you cite clearly states that clarity and neutrality must be balanced against each other. It further states that a common but non-neutral name "may" be used; not that it must. So the question is this: is the gain in clarity sufficient to justify the substantial loss of neutrality? I would say "no": "female genital cutting" is used by about a third as many recent sources (of the sources cited in the article, roughly twice as many refer to "mutilation" in their titles as refer to "cutting"), so it's still fairly recognisable, and its similarity to "female genital mutilation" should assure readers that they've found the right article. So the loss in clarity is fairly small. The difference in neutrality, on the other hand, is substantial, as the term "FGM" has received significant criticism for its inherently judgmental stance (see, eg., here for a discussion of some of its problems). Jakew (talk) 10:47, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
      • There is no title that would satisfy those (outside Wikipedia) who think FGM is mutilation, and also those who think FGC is just another cultural practice. While "FGM" is regarded as POV by the latter group, another factor for consideration in this discussion is that using "FGC" definitely is POV as it labels what is clearly mutilation as "merely" cutting. For a graphic example of type III mutilation, see this archived discussion—describing that as "cutting" would be misleading. Johnuniq (talk) 22:11, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
        • Could you tell me the origin of the word "merely", please? I can see that describing something as "merely cutting" would be POV; I can't see that describing something as "cutting" would have the same meaning. Hence why I think it is important to look objectively at the situation and consider whether "merely" is inherent in the title or whether it represents indignation at not being permitted to express a strong point of view (a legitimate one, but still a point of view). Jakew (talk) 22:20, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment this is indeed a difficult question. Doubtless the naming in the literature is driven by ideology - and the opposing tug of ideologies that are normally bedfellows in particular. It is worth considering, for context, that there are elective genital modification procedures undertaken which certainly rival FGM in extent. The major objection to FGM is, I believe, around issues of informed consent, in this context the term does not seem extreme. If the article were wholly about the medical and physiological processes then a better case could, perhaps, be made for a change to FGC. As it is, the question remains vexed. Rich Farmbrough, 21:38, 7 November 2011 (UTC).
The WHO definition of FGM specifically excludes elective procedures such as plastic surgery (vaginoplasty, labiaplasty), so that is a non-issue for consideration of the name. Even if the article were specifically about the issues you list (which it couldn't be, because cultural issues and practices cannot be separated from the topic) the case for FGC still couldn't be made. FGM would still be the most commonly used term in medical sources. This is an inherently normative debate, we can't independently ascertain which term is neutral, FGC was specifically created to advocate against the term FGM, FGM was created to dispel the inaccuracy of the term female circumcision. We can argue neutrality till we're blue in the face (and it literally has gotten to that point in the past), but at the end of the day we've got two non-neutral terms. One that is barely used and was admittedly created to advocate (FGC), and one that is widely used, by reputable sources, and unintentionally advocates (FGM). If the tie breaker can't be neutrality, then it has to be numerical superiority, and thankfully we have a clear answer in that regard which would be FGM. It isn't perfect, but it's the best option between the two. Vietminh (talk) 08:25, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose per COMMONNAME, previous discussions, and Sandy's point. --John (talk) 21:55, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME (this discussion clearly shows that FGM is by far the most commonly used of all possible terms), per WP:POVTITLE (the term FGM has been around for 40 years, it isn't a trendy slogan, its not a colloquialism, and FGC was created in the 1990s specifically by advocates against the term FGM, whereas FGM is used by the WHO, other UN organizations, NGOs, governments, and in legal documents), and most importantly per this Request For Comment which clearly established near unanimous support for using FGM. I suggest to the user who started this RM that as per proper procedure, next time you check recent page archives to see if any discussions have occurred before you start either a new RM or new RfC. If you had, you would have found an RM that resulted in a very large discussion which resulted in a recent RfC which clearly established near unanimous support for FGM. This would have negated the reason to start both a Requested Move and another Request for Comment. Vietminh (talk) 08:00, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
    Thanks for pointing out that request for comment. I browsed that previous discussion but missed all the outside opinions there. For gosh sake, it's an awful lot of effort we're putting into discussing this so soon after the wider community affirmed the current usage, almost unanimously. Another point I got from that discussion is that most female genital mutilation involves cutting, but it's not all cutting. Type III of course involves a cut wound but its more like ritualized sealing than cutting. Type IV includes several kinds of mutilation which are not cutting. --Pnm (talk) 17:27, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose per previous discussions, the reference to circumcision by the proposer demonstrates deep ignorance of the issues and its perverse that we are discussing this again so soon after the recent resolution. --Snowded TALK 10:30, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per Snowded and his per. And the reference to circumcision is indeed very ignorant and I speak this as a Jew myself. --Nutthida (talk) 19:38, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
There's nothing ignorant about it. Being jewish doesn't give your opinion any more weight than mine. 89.100.150.198 (talk) 15:52, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Nevertheless, it's a weak analogy that tends to irritate people and, consequently, may be counterproductive. It might have been better to stick to the strong argument that the term "mutilation" is inherently POV. Jakew (talk) 17:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. WP:COMMONNAME ought to overrule WP:POV, which this title doesn't even appear to be anyways. CityOfSilver 19:42, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:POV. The euphemism "cutting" is a blatant attempt to normalise this procedure, and Wikipedia should not tolerate it.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 00:40, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose:FGM is by far the term most frequently used in reliable sources, as well as by governmental and international health and social organizations, by health care professionals, by anthropologists and sociologists studying the topic, and by journalists reporting on it. The proposed term is a euphemistic neologism which has failed to gain wide acceptance ad is considered to be highly controversial. I'm avidly against non-medical male circumcision, but comparing it with FGM is horribly dishonest. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:50, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose: In view of the fact that in the overwhelming majority of instances of the procedures in question, according to the current version of the article and its sources, something is actually cut off - an action which is not the same as "cutting" - the term mutilation seems more accurate and less POV than the suggested alternative. It's probably impossible to find a short phrase which accurately denotes the complete range of procedures in question, however. Beejaypii (talk) 02:02, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME; the evidence regarding common terminology in the sources is simply overwhelming. siafu (talk) 04:06, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Richiez (talk) 15:02, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Language

I think this article should be called “female circumcision” rather than “female genital mutilation”?

“Female circumcision" is the more neutral, more widely used, and longer established terminology.

"FGM" is a loaded term clearly designed to show disapproval, there is clearly political pressure to use this term but wikipedia should not seek to be part of a drive to alter language in such an unencyclopedic fashion. It is better to use a terminology which is well established because otherwise language becomes a shifting sand and arguments which should be about principle decend into a sort of linguistic war where the parties battle mainly to define the terms rather than talking about the underlying issue. With long established terms whether they are “nice sounding” or “nasty sounding” is a less powerful driver of people because the term becomes mainly associated with the thing and less associated with the words that make up the terminology. Eventually, with a long established terms, a person can simply respond that he is against [nice sounding terminology] or in favour of a [bad sounding terminology] and he can “get away” with it because the terminology is now primarily associated with the more morally ambiguous thing under discussion. As three separate words “female genital mutilation” is not too objectionable (although "partial amputation of the female genitalia” would be better). But the article heading should probably be "female circumcision”.

I may be shutting the door after the horse has bolted here, there are, for example, about twice as many webpage hits on google for “female genital mutilation” as “female circumcision” however it is interesting that, when the person has not searched for either term before the “suggestions” box on google suggests “female circumcision” over “female genital mutilation”. Perhaps suggesting that "female circumcision” is the term used by most searchers. So there is perhaps some hope for the preservation of language in this regard.

It is also noticeable that if, in the definition, "all procedures that involve partial or total removal of the external female genitalia, or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons.” the word “female” was replaced by the word “male” then this would cover both the practice commonly known as male “circumcision” or, at the other extreme, complete bobbitisation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.97.5.199 (talk) 03:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

There is a movement who would like to oppose male circumcision by equating that procedure with FGM (or possibly want to promote FGM by equating it with male circumcision?). However, such viewpoints are not relevant at Wikipedia. Instead, please present some reasons for any proposed change based on reliable sources. A good place to start would be by studying the current article and the references that it cites—is any information incorrect, undue, or improperly sourced? Johnuniq (talk) 04:00, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Johnuniq - What? The "moral equivalence" of mutilating either male or female genitalia against the will of the victim? How absurd! Unless of course you could ask the opinion of the victim at the time of the assault / trauma. But I forget, that is only "anecdotal" :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.70.208.101 (talk) 22:52, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Cutting genitals for non-medical reasons, as is the case with all circumcision despite the dubious campaign to associate male circumcision with health benefits, is morally equivalent. Regardless of your opinion as to the morality of female and male circumcision it is difficult to argue that the two are massively divergent practices and it is perturbing that they should be treated as such by wikipedia, an ostensibly neutral and factual encyclopedia. Moreover, those who actually practice this ritual do not refer to it as FGM, that term is used only by those who campaign against it (usually in the West) and wikipedia should avoid promoting the political opinions that inhere in the term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.22.248 (talk) 16:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The above comment is not entirely true. To say that no participants of FGM or FC use the term FGM is quite a broad statement. In my research I came across a woman named Dr. Fuambai Ahmadu who was raised in America and went back to Sierra Leone to participate in FGM as an adult. In her article "Rites and Wrongs: An Insider/Outsider Reflects on Power and Excision" she uses many terms for the practice including Female Genital Cutting, Female Genital Mutilation and Circumcision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.172.83.107 (talk) 18:01, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Johnuniq is quite right that there has been a recent “terminology war” over this issue, coinciding with recent attempts to outlaw various or all forms of Clitorodectomy. One characteristic of Wikipedia is that it has much lower inertia than many other Encyclopaedias. Often this is a strength (for example in the coverage of new developments in rapidly evolving fields) but when an issue becomes very politically charged (as the issue of female circumcision has recently become) it can be a weakness. I have taken Johnuniq’s advise and sought reliable sources from before the recent attempts to outlaw female circumcision (I would encourage others to do the same). They bear out my point that this is a relatively recent linguistic change (which may indeed be driven, in part, by Wikipedia) undoubtedly motivated by a desire to delegitimise or ban all forms of female circumcision.
I am sure that Johnuniq would agree that in the case of matters such as this (articles about ancient matters which have recently become politically charged) “properly sourced” information is information which is sourced from before any recent controversy.
I have added a note about the recent terminological history but the title of the article should also be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.82.186.14 (talk) 10:11, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
As a side point: Doubtless some do wish to “promote” female circumcision, others simply wish to see the end of the ban leaving the decision up to parents, still others wish to see a relaxation of the ban to allow part1a female circumcision (while not wishing to promote it or carry it out on their own children), others wish to see a more mild relaxation allowing only the ritualistic drawing or blood and others are perfectly happy with the law but simply wish to see an honest use of language so that its meaning is not obscured by political developments. I am certainly not in the fist of those five groups. I am, and would like to think we would all be, in the last of them. Whether I am in any/all of the other three groups would require a little more thought. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.82.186.14 (talk) 10:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 24 November 2011

I am requesting a change to the title of this page as it is offensive and it is not a cultural relative term. Using the term " MUTILATION" is not culturally sensitive and invokes a biased opinion of this cultural act. The more non judgemental term to use to title this page would be FEMALE GENITAL MODIFICATION. This change is a culturally relevant request from an anthropological standpoint, particularily because wikipedia is supposed to be giving information, not choosing sides. I am an Indigenous Studies Student whom is majoring in Anthropology and Minoring in Indigenous Studies, and our class of 32 students, after doing research on this subject had a discussion and we believe that this is something that needs to be changed to a more inclusive terminology on your web site.

Thank you, From the entire Anthropology of Women class at Camosun College, The Ladies of Somalia, And myself, Margeory G


Indigenous Studies Student (talk) 04:09, 24 November 2011 (UTC) Margeory Graham

Not done: The term female genital mutilation is defined by the WHO, and that definition is backed up by a reliable source. Unless you can demonstrate that another term is in more common usage, the article will not be moved. —C.Fred (talk) 04:20, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
I'd just like to point out that you don't need to make an edit request to move a page. The correct procedure is a requested move. However, I would not advise opening another requested move proposal at this stage, since as you can see in the above section, the previous move only closed about a fortnight ago, regrettably with strong support for the current title. I'd suggest waiting six months or so to see if consensus has changed. Jakew (talk) 09:14, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
The second part of what Jakew has said here is quite misleading, renaming this (or any) article's title is not as simple as waiting six months (or for any period of time) to see if enough people simply agree with the point of view you offer in the future. Wikipedia has specific guidelines and policies which must be followed to choose an article title's name. Female Genital Modification would never be taken under serious consideration because it is not ubiquitous enough in its usage to merit consideration. To address what was said specifically, cultural relativity, sensitivity, relevancy, and inclusiveness are not criteria for choosing content on Wikipedia. This encyclopedia bases its content off of what is available in English language, reliable sources. It is meant to reflect what is offered in those sources and those sources alone. I say this not to attack your perspective, but to outline what at a glance might seem to be an un-realized bias in Wikipedia on our part. The point is that the cultural bias is inherent in the process of including content in the Encylopedia, and the bias is with the sources not with Wikipedia itself. Vietminh (talk) 07:36, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Political lobbying to change language is still political lobbying even if it is carried out by the world health organisation or an Inter-African Committee. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.22.132 (talk) 16:54, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Female genital cutting would be a good compromise position until consensus can be reached. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.22.132 (talk) 16:57, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Ethnocentric Views

Cindy Little wrote, most literature describes FGM or circumcision as “violent sexual mutilation of females and contends that the ritual has been sustained in male dominated countries in order to suppress women’s sexuality. In contrast to that belief, the practice is almost always controlled, preformed and strongly upheld by women”. She goes on to say it is usually African women who insist on having their daughters circumcised and men usually know very little about it. Most societies that practice FGM have a high regard for virginity. “A woman who protects her virginity becomes highly admired by an entire community.” So when mothers circumcise their daughters they are protecting their daughter’s virginity and both of their reputations. Little goes on to say that the participating cultures do not see FGM as a human rights violation they see it as a cultural right (2003).[3] As a student of Anthropology from North American culture I do not feel it is our place to judge another culture for practices that we do not understand or feel are right. I believe there are practices within our culture one could argue are unnecessary and harmful (even if just for a moment) that we do to babies or children without their consent, male circumcision and ear piercings on babies, both for aesthetic purposes, are just a couple examples. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.172.83.107 (talk • contribs) 03:56, 5 April 2012

Fine, but per WP:TALK this page should not be used for people to exchange views on the topic. Please restrict comments to policy based suggestions for improving the article. Johnuniq (talk) 06:49, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Biased Writing

This article is written from a POV which is clearly Western and against the practice of the female circumcision. The very title of the page- Female genital mutilation- is offensive to people who practice female circumcision. If male circumcision is not under the male genital mutilation title, female circumcision should not be under the female genital mutilation title. You fail to include health benefits of female circumcision such as a lowered risk of HIV, cosmetic benefits, and a lowered risk of certain cancers (like vulvar cancer). Female circumcision is performed by trained doctors in hospitals in many countries, such as Egypt. As for ritual circumcisers, they are trained in their tradition of circumcision practices and are no different than a Jewish mohel. Many women want to be circumcised, just as many men want to be. Generally, men and women want to be circumcised for the same reasons: health benefits, hygiene, culture, religious, tradition, a reduction in STDs, and cosmetic benefits. The article offends cultures which practice female circumcision as it promotes female circumcision in a negative light. (MurasakiSunshine (talk) 02:20, 25 April 2012 (UTC))

No. The article is correctly based on reliable sources. Johnuniq (talk) 04:16, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

It is offensively worded and it is filled with biased writing. You are calling people who circumicise women mutilators. (MurasakiSunshine (talk) 05:19, 25 April 2012 (UTC))

I don't think you understand. Wikipedia is not calling anyone anything. The article is based on reliable sources and all the information comes from sources. OohBunnies! Leave a message 05:21, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Comparisons between FGC and male circumcision are unconstructive, but the article does have a few NPOV issues, including the title. These have been the subject of numerous — and lengthy — discussions (and were mentioned in the article's featured article candidate review). Unfortunately, consensus has thus far strongly rejected any attempts to change the title, and it is too soon to see whether consensus has changed. Perhaps in 6 months. Jakew (talk) 10:18, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Not to be harsh, Jakew, but telling people that consensus might change in 6 months isn't a great idea. Consensus is based on our sources. We'll only change the title if the sources we use happen to start calling it something else that is widely accepted. It's not a matter of point of view, it's all down to the sources and the naming guidelines. OohBunnies! Leave a message 10:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
I disagree, OohBunnies. There are several interpretations of applicable policies; the viewpoint that we must call it by the most commonly-used name, regardless of neutrality, is one of those interpretations, and one that currently enjoys consensus. However, it isn't the only interpretation, and there's no way to predict which interpretation will be favoured in the future. A similar naming dispute, in which there is also a conflict between commonness and neutrality, is currently open to the community at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion article titles; I wouldn't be surprised if the outcome of that discussion led to a clarification of policy in such cases. Jakew (talk) 11:36, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
While it is true that there is no way we can predict what consensus will be in the future I agree with OohBunnies that it is not a good idea to tell people consensus might change "in 6 months". Consensus may change, but by attaching a time frame to it the implication is we should re-open the debate in 6 months time. The last thing needed here is another fruitless RfC or RM that will re-affirm what two RM's and an RfC have already. Each of these took place months apart, I think it is clear that the consensus that was established is at minimum not a passing one that occurred at one place and time. Also, I don't think it is good to suggest a parity when saying "there are several interpretations", there are and always will be, but the consensus for the current interpretation was overwhelming in the last RfC and RM, and the other interpretations were overwhelmingly rejected. There will always be people who stumble upon this page, are angered by the title or terminology one way or another, and come on the talk page to voice their grievances (this happens approximately once a month), but that should be taken at face value and not seen as an impetus. Vietminh (talk) 18:02, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

This article does not address health benefits of female circumcision, meaning it is incomplete or biased. (MurasakiSunshine (talk) 00:22, 26 April 2012 (UTC))

Per WP:MEDRS, any medically-related statements must be based on reliable secondary sources (such as literature reviews). These sources are very consistent in stating that FGC is harmful, not beneficial, though in fairness some (eg., Carla Obermeyer) do question whether the harms have been overstated. Jakew (talk) 08:02, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Insufficient support

Current Note [22]: Toubia, Nahid (1994). "Female Circumcision as a Public Health Issue". New England Journal of Medicine 331 (11): 712–6. doi:10.1056/NEJM199409153311106. PMID 8058079 does not support the claim that "individual Muslims, Christians, and Jews practise FGM". The scientific article is titled "Female Circumcision as a Public Health Issue" and is published in "New England Journal of Medicine". As such, the subject matter is not concerned with the anthropology of FGM but with medicinal aspects of FGM. That is, the reference cannot be considered a primary source of the said information. Furthermore, the paper neither provides own evidence in support of the statement (e.g. a survey), neither does it provide a reference to a source that supports the statement.

Another reference must be provided, or the statement must be removed for its lack of evidence. SeanPi (talk) 08:41, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Two points

Nobody asked my opinion, but I'd like to mention two points that might be of use. A Rwandan academic I once knew told us that in his country, female circumcision consisted in exposing the clitoris by incising the clitoral prepuce to make it more accessible for hygiene AND for masturbation. Nowhere in the main article and its classifications of FGM types to I find any reference to that. The practice is combined in Type I along with removal of the clitoris.

My second point is that the notion that women are often stronger proponents of FGM than men seems to me to be a dangerous one, because it seems to me that it misses an essential point: that in patriarchal societies, women often, and even systematically, collaborate with the male-dominated power structure.

A third point, at no extra charge: Male circumcision is definitely mutilation, especially if incision of the clitoral prepuce alone is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lestrad (talk • contribs) 13:31, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion. As to the first point, this article uses the FGM classifications provided by the World Health Organization. As to the second point, there are many paragraphs in this article that deal with the opposition to FGM and reasons thereof. If you feel this requires improvement, please do. As to the third point, it is entirely outside the scope of this article. Vietminh (talk) 19:59, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Question about article perspective

This article is (in my opinion, correctly) written from the viewpoint where FGM is treated as a human-rights issue. With this treatment, FGM will inevitably be seen in a bad light. Some entries on this talk page confirm my conclusion: those from FGM-practicing countries would inevitably see this article as biased against FGM.

Now we have the flip side at Wikipedia. The Circumcision article, which is a form of male genital mutilation or cutting, is approached from a "medical" point-of-view and little attention is given to the human rights of the issue at all. As a result, the Circumcision article comes off sounding like it has a pro-circumcision bias. There are plenty of sources that can be cited that approach circumcision from a human rights standpoint.

I am trying to understand why we are using a different approach for each article on Wikipedia. Crimsoncorvid (talk) 03:08, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I have provided an answer at User talk:Crimsoncorvid (I put it there because my answer is rather generic, and editors should avoid discussing other articles here). Johnuniq (talk) 04:17, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

The true history of FGM

Why does this article not mention the history of FGM in America? It existed in America too. Should that not be included in the background section? This history needs to be pointed out and not hid.

Decgal (talk) 04:56, 15 June 2012 (UTC)decgal

Can you give some specific suggestions with references? I don't think this is being hidden, but perhaps just has yet to be added. I'm not personally sure what you might be referring to though, so please give some more details. I'm interested to learn more. —Zujine|talk 05:34, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Talk Page Tag

Perhaps a tag should be added at the top of the talk page akin to the one found on the Circumcision talk page (arguments being restated). I feel like this is warranted because of the propensity for arguments to be restated here, specifically the idea that the page should be called/use the term female circumcision, that it should include something about "male genital mutilation" (quotation, not my words), or the "western bias" argument. There should be some direction to relevant sections of the page archive as well (past RM's and RfC's). I wouldn't bother suggesting this if it were not for the fact that a Requested Move based on personal viewpoint instead of policy would be ongoing right now if the IP had known how to place the tag properly. Thoughts? Vietminh (talk) 08:16, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it would help much (the passers by would never see it, and would not be likely to pay it much attention, even if they did). However, if someone wants to draft something, that's fine. Johnuniq (talk) 09:05, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Well noted, did not consider that the passerby's wouldn't see it. Vietminh (talk) 05:12, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Sources for Saudi Arabia

Someone deleted "Northern Saudi Arabia" from the article. I did a little research and saw it mentioned in this doctor's blog, which cites a medical report. I can't access the full medical report. Raquel_Baranow (talk) 03:50, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

If ever wanted, it is possible to ask for a copy, see WP:LIB. Johnuniq (talk) 04:06, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
From the first paragraph of the Material and methods section of that report (page 833):
From 2001 till 2004, 4800 consecutive pregnant women in the first trimester of pregnancy attending the ante-natal clinics of the University teaching hospitals (inclusive of their emergency obstetrics units) were recruited for the study after obtaining ethical committee approval and patient consent. The population is representative of the local population as nearly all pregnancy women have their ante-natal care at these hospitals.
and the author affiliations (referred to in the Material and methods as "the University teaching hospitals") are listed as:
Rachana Chibber1,2, Eyad El-Saleh2, & Jihad El Harmi2
1Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, College Of Medicine Kuwait University/King Faisal University Dammam, and
2Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, College of Medicine, Kuwait University, Kuwait
In the context of the artile taken whole, I understand this to mean that the prevalence of FGC = 38% applies to the Kuwait University (Safat, Kuwait) and King Faisal University hospital (Dammam, Saudi Arabia) taken together. I don't see separate analysis of the sites. Hope this helps. -- Scray (talk) 04:28, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
This looks like a reliable source, the author says, "In January (2012) the first conference on FGM in the Middle East revealed that it is inflicted on girls and women in Iran, Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Yemen." The author works for the Iranian and Kurdish Women’s Rights Organisation (IKWRO), a charity which provides support and protection to Kurdish women and girls who are affected by FGM in the UK. I'll look for more sources and add them to the article in a few days. There's also this wikipedia article that could use some updated sources too: Prevalence of female genital mutilation by country. This WHO report (2008) does NOT mention Saudi Arabia. This FGM blog quotes a cultural anthropologist and midwife who lived in Africa for 12 years and now works as a researcher on female genital mutilation for research organisation TNO in Leiden, Netherlands. She says, "In a country like Saudi Arabia, where you might expect it, it doesn’t occur at all; they don’t have the practice there.” Raquel_Baranow (talk) 01:50, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
I would suspect that it has been practiced at one point or another in every country by some immigrant or native. At what point does it become "practiced" as far as this article is concerned? Jim1138 (talk) 06:11, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Here's one from 2008 that says, "Interestingly, the extent of the Shafi'i school corresponds with the prevalence of FGM: Egypt, Sudan, Saudi Arabia's Red Sea coast, Horn of Africa, Yemen, sub-Saharan West Africa, Kurdistan, the south-west coast of India (Kerala) and Indonesia." Another source from 2011 that supports the former comment regarding the Shafi'i school of thought. Raquel_Baranow (talk) 20:57, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Bias

This article should also include prepucectomy in a separate definition or Type 0/-1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.96.68.199 (talk) 12:26, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Articles are based on reliable sources. The types are from a source. Johnuniq (talk) 02:22, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


that a source is reliable doesn't make your article about it not not NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.218.249.191 (talk) 02:05, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

MGM

What about male genital mutilation? Shouldn't we add that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.190.107.179 (talk) 22:50, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Why isn't the removal of the clitoris called "clitoris removal" if the removal of the penis is called "penis removal" and slicing the penis head and performing an operation on it is called "circumcision"? It seems to me that this is a double standard. For women wikipedia uses the term "mutilation", but for men they use less harsh sounding word "removal" or the more medical term "circumcision"? Personally, I don't care which way one goes but it should be consistent. If a mans penis is removed and it's called "removal" than the removal of a clitoris should be called "removal" as well. If a woman's is call "mutilation" than a mans should be called that also...Instead the wikipedia page redirects the viewer to "circumcision"...which makes no sense and is not consistent. I'm aware body parts are different between men and women, but the clitoris and the penis are actually very similar and this is an area where there doesn't seem to be any other reason than political bias to call one "mutilation" and the other "removal".

72.89.197.168 (talk) 06:14, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

{{requested move/dated|NewName}}

Female genital mutilation → NewName –

For purposes as mentioned before, I believe this page is based in extreme bias and a Western ethnocentric thought. Even the title, "Female genital mutilation", is an extremely negative and value-laden title, reflecting a limited Western view. An easy way to work towards correcting this would be a simple name change: I suggest the title is changed to "Female circumcision", and the following use of the appropriate terms should be swapped.

For example, the article could be titled "Female circumcision", while the article begins, "Also known as female genital mutilation..." This is a small, easy step to curbing Western bias.

In the future, I believe heavier editing is worth consideration, merging the "Female circumcision" and "Circumcision" articles, and proceeding by separating between female and male circumcision within the same article. The current existence of this separation is based in very gender-normative thought (almost understandably so, given that it pertains to specific biological properties of the genders), but this doesn't mean that the articles should be separated as "Circumcision", meaning males, and "Female genital mutilation".

Thanks for the consideration! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.164.112.252 (talk • contribs) 20:45, 26 July 2012

As many other threads on this talk page have shown, we don't name it due to our own viewpoint, we name it according to what the reliable sources call it. The article is based on the sources, and so is the name. And merging both female and male circumcision into the same article makes no sense at all - they are really quite different practices (and the resulting article would be too long by far.) OohBunnies! (talk) 20:55, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
al-Qaeda is considered a terrorist organization by most sources, but we don't call it that in the lead because it's a NPOV violation. The current title is a Wikipedia:Neutral point of view violation. The countries that practice this procedure do not consider the procedure mutilation anymore than western countries consider male circumcision to be mutilation. I'm in support for a move to a more neutral name. ScienceApe (talk) 21:58, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
I have removed the template as it was not placed correctly (need to specify proposed new name),and for the more fundamental reason that the first step should be to discuss the matter here. If it were believed that there is a problem with the current set of editors here, ask at WP:HELPDESK for advice; they would probably suggest asking at WP:NPOVN for opinions on whether a discussion about a particular article were not compatible with policies such as WP:NPOV. As OohBunnies said, this has been discussed before. Please ask if you can't find those previous discussions (see this page and the Archives box near the top). The reason for mentioning that is that we do not repeat discussions over and over and over. Please address the issues from the last serious discussion, and only start a new discussion if a new viewpoint is available. Johnuniq (talk) 22:22, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree that this article should be renamed to "Female Circumcision". Otherwise the article on male circumcision should be renamed "Male Genital Manipulation". The exact tissue removed is not tremendously important. The terminology used by "reliable (western) sources" is not as important as gender neutrality. If the situation was reversed, women would not stand for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.141.108.240 (talk) 01:25, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME and other guidance clearly support the current titles of the respective articles. Our sensibilities do not carry weight. -- Scray (talk) 03:50, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia's "common names" policy should not be employed to buttress obvious gender politics like this. FGM is used as often as female circumcision, why is the latter used anyway? And why is it that cutting a mans penis off is simply called "penis removal"? Why only sterile, medical terms when a man's genitals are ruined and yet the term mutilation is used when a females genitals are ruined? If a male circumcision were commonly called "mutilation" and FGM were called "clitoris removal" that would probably be considered outrageous.

Please be reminded that Wikipedia's policy against original research applies to article talk pages as well as the articles. Your argument needs to be grounded in Wikipedia policy and backed by reliable sources for it to carry any weight. This article reflects the common name found in reliable sources. Zad68 05:37, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I was indirectly objecting to and questioning whether "common name" and "used by reliable western sources" holds more weight than "neutral point of view". I think the latter is more important than the two former excuses for sustaining this biased naming policy. Is this correct or incorrect? Does wikipedia actually hold "common naming" to a higher standard than "neutral point of view"? This sounds like the urban dictionary rather than what wikipedia should be, a fair approach to information handling. Another point is that the term "female circumcision" is indeed "commonly used". Is this "independent research"? I don't think so. I'm actually debating and questioning whether this article holds to wikipedias standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.89.197.168 (talk • contribs) 06:07, 2 December 2012‎

The "neutral" in NPOV means that WP must represent reliable sources in a neutral manner, i.e. without introducing (or giving undue weight to) a POV not present in those sources. If reliable sources commonly use the term, then that's what we do (so, the two principles are not in conflict in the manner you suggest). Whether we like it or not does not matter - the WP:NPOV policy also says that WP "Articles mustn't take sides". -- Scray (talk) 06:28, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

So, essentially what you are saying is that naming things of symmetrical emotional damage with words of symmetrical emotional weight is irrelevant, and that by doing that we would be "taking sides?"...?...that what takes priority in wikipedia is appropriation of information, no matter how asymmetrical, and it does not matter if this is pointed out on demonstrative grounds. (because that's considered "independent research"). And so if many (cherry picked) "reliable" sources say "2+2=3", the mathematical argument that "2+2=4", by demonstrative proof, has no authority at wikipedia (because that would be "independent research" and "taking sides"?). I think this is a horrible misapplication of the original intent of those rules. I don't think they were put in place to back up obvious political and cultural bias against a particular group. Wikipedia may call male gential mutilation "penis removal" but I refuse to do this as long as female gential mutilation is called " mutilation". A mutilation is a mutilation or it is not, it is not relative to the sex of the victim...this isn't "taking sides". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.89.197.168 (talk • contribs) 11:31, 2 December 2012

its funny

it's funny how this is called mutilation with "how many women affected" and all this... where as male genital mutilation (circumcision) doesn't have 'number of men affected'. I wonder if we could change that. Juliegoldman77 (talk) 08:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

The articles are named according to reliable sources, according to WP policy and consensus. See"Requested move" section above for just one of many examples, here and at Talk:Circumcision, where this has already been discussed. -- Scray (talk) 10:33, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Sylvia Tamale

I'm surprised by the prominence given to Tamale's views in this article--half a paragraph of the lead section seems like a lot of space to give any one scholar on an issue that thousands of commentators have chimed in on. Perhaps the lead section could be rewritten to summarize various trends of thought in the scholarship generally? I'm not knowledgeable enough on the subject to do this myself, unfortunately, but thought I'd put the suggestion out there. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:17, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Beating a Dead Horse: FGM?

First, let me state that I almost never edit Wikipedia and am just attempting to get into the habit, so hello! If I'm wrong here, please point it out, thanks. Secondly, I personally believe that FGM is just that - genital mutilation. However, I am of the opinion that the practice should be referred to as "female genital cutting." I know this has been gone over a million times, but skimming through the archive, I can't really see a point where this was resolved. If this shouldn't be brought up again, please let me know.

So, my reasoning is as follows.

1. FGM is very POV. It implies disapproval of the practice, and while I think many of us do disapprove, we should be a bit less biased.

2. FGC is NPOV - Multiple pages I've seen that aim for a more...clinical tone? use this term. Womenshealth.gov, for example (http://www.womenshealth.gov/publications/our-publications/fact-sheet/female-genital-cutting.cfm)

3. FGC does not downplay the very real harms of the practice. I feel like, again, from skimming, a lot of the arguments for the FGM title come position of wanting to point out that this procedure is not medically needed and is quite harmful. While circumcision might downplay these things (since male circumcision has a pretty good public opinion track record in the US) I don't think FGC does.

Am I wrong? Anyways, if this shouldn't come up again, let me know. Thanks Wikipedians. Hopefully, I'll see you around again soon. 75.36.161.164 (talk) 04:59, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello. To answer your question in general I'll point you towards the Wikipedia policy over NPOV: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view, the specific sections that clarify the meaning of NPOV in the Wikipedia sense, and that apply to this case more specifically, are the sections "Naming" and the section on "Due and Undue Weight". To sum them up, the goal of being purely neutral in wording is balanced against the need to have clarity and the need to give due weight to the sources. In this case, FGM is the predominant medical term used in the literature (for instance by the World Health Organization, which is the classification used in the article). For more info on the debates specifically you can read up on the Request for Comment that led to this page maintaining it's current name: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Female_genital_mutilation/Archive_6#RfC:_how_should_we_refer_to_the_practice.3F. Hope this is helpful info. Vietminh (talk) 18:27, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

the WHO calls it female genital cutting http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/86/4/07-042093/en/index.html edit article to be in accordance with reliable sources please. (also if you read the sources past their titles you'll find that circumcision is the most common name) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.218.249.191 (talk) 21:05, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

WHO search search engine results: "female genital cutting" 144 results "female genital mutilation" 1,990 results. BTW: no WHO association was given by the authors of your cited paper. Jim1138 (talk) 23:34, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Rates of Ia/Ib, IIa/IIb?

Given that there are statistics on the distribution of the various types, are there ones available that estimate the rates within Type I and II, ie. for how much do the two respective "a" and "b" subtypes account within their types? -- 188.194.254.47 (talk) 15:08, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Evidence

Line is presented as fact when the source is merely postulating; "Gynaecologists in England and the United States would remove it during the 19th century to "cure" insanity, masturbation, and nymphomania.[30]"

The source says that "there is evidence" for the above statement; he does not say it is a fact, nor does he provide the evidence. Can we change this sentence to reflect the uncertainty? At the moment it sounds like it was standard procedure in the Victorian UK and USA.

Oh yes; the source also says the "UK" not "England", these terms are not interchangeable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.220.70.14 (talk) 21:50, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I read the source Momoh and the underlying source Momoh cites, which is a letter to the editor, and I actually can't find support in the source Momoh cites for this statement. How about removing the entire sentence? Zad68 22:09, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
That might be the best idea in the short term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.220.70.14 (talk) 12:49, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Rates over time in a graph please?

Could someone please put a chart in this article so it's easy to see whether the incidence rate has increased or decreased in the past decades? I found some tables which might have part of that information in the back of http://www.unicef.org/publications/files/FGM-C_final_10_October.pdf but they are very hard to interpret. 71.212.255.94 (talk) 03:25, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

That's a reasonable request. I looked through the document but could not find any data that showed year-over-year trends. If you could find such a data source I could create a graph for the article. Zad68 03:31, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Page 4 on http://www.prb.org/pdf10/fgm-wallchart2010.pdf (http://www.prb.org/images08/TrendsInFGMC.gif) is the best I can find. Can you convert that to wiki format? http://thenumbersguru.blogspot.com/2008_09_01_archive.html has a graph for one hospital in Ghana, but that's hardly representative. 71.212.255.94 (talk) 12:58, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Why is this called female genital mutilation and not female circumcision.

This process is done on cultural or religious grounds by certain groups living in Africa, there is no reason to slander this as 'female genital mutilation'. And if you are going to call this 'female genital mutilation' why is the article on male circumcision not called 'male genital mutilation'? We need to end this bigoted double standard. YvelinesFrance (talk) 22:12, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

You are correct the article on male circumcision should be called male genital mutilation.Theroadislong (talk) 22:15, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
We as Wikipedians do not unilaterally decide which term is used. We simply use the term used by the best quality literature on the topic at hand, thus the names of the two pages in question.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:19, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
"Best quality literature' is subjective. I don't put much value in the work of gender theorists, sociologists or feminists. In any case I will attempt to change the article title for male circumcision to 'male genital mutilation'. YvelinesFrance (talk) 23:16, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
I am sure that will go over equally well. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:33, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
You might want to review the talk page history. This has been discussed and decided on a number of time. I suspect that most would find FGM much more traumatic than male circumcision. Jim1138 (talk) 00:05, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

your suspicion about trauma is not NPOV. The "best quality literature" is also not NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.218.249.191 (talk • contribs)

"We need to end this bigoted double standard." "I don't put much value in the work of gender theorists, sociologists, or feminists." Thanks for that laugh. Have you considered a career in comedy? 68.100.138.56 (talk) 03:08, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

As usual, the rule here is that problems in the real world must be solved in the real world first, not on Wikipedia. There is sexual discrimination in the real world when it comes to genital mutilation. There are strong reasons for this, and it will take some time for attitudes on female and male genital mutilation to become synchronised. In decreasing order of importance:

  • The most common, 'typical' forms of female genital mutilation which dominate the debate are much, much worse than (male) circumcision.
  • Male circumcision is much more common than female genital mutilation, especially in the influential industrialised countries. It is always easier to combat human rights violations that are only committed by marginalised minorities or abroad.
  • Girls are typically perceived as pure, weak, passive and worthy of protection, whereas boys are perceived as tough, active and robust. I believe the resulting bias can also be observed in the treatment of male victims of (non-surgical) sexual violence, which can be even worse than that of female victims and doesn't seem to make much progress anywhere. Hans Adler 10:22, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Surely FGM is a loaded term and suggests that wikipedia takes a normative position in relation to practices of bodily modification. If wikipedia wants to remain as neutral as possible, it should reject the framing of the discourse in the value-laden terms of 'mutilation', and describe the practice ethnographically, empirically, and as objectively as possible. The term FGM is EXPLICITLY linked to a political agenda, and by using the language of this discourse, wikipedia lends its legitimacy to a particularly ideological orientation in direct contravention of its own standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.93.190.89 (talk • contribs)

Contribution to FGM

Hi everyone, I'm Shannon McNamara, and a Rice University student like Natasha. I am planning on adding to this FGM page by creating sections that focus on the varieties of different places that FGM is practiced. It is a common misconception that FGM only occurs in Africa, and I want to add some sections about the practice in places like India, Asia, the Middle East, and even the United States. I also want to talk about how the practice itself and the customs around FGM vary from country to country. If you have any suggestions for my additional sections, please feel free to reach out to me. I welcome any recommendations! Thank you! Shannon7mcnamara (talk) 22:39, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Shannon7mcnamara. I didn't know that it was a common misconception that FGM only occurs in Africa, but, thankfully, Wikipedia has not helped to spread that misconception. In the #Contribution to the Africa portion section above, I've given some advice about your and Natashacruz12's additions/planned additions. Flyer22 (talk) 20:02, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Contribution to the Africa portion

Hello everyone, my name is Natasha and I am a student at Rice University hoping to add some parts to the already existing page on Female Genital Mutilation. I noticed as I was looking through the page that there is a section on FGM in Africa, but I don't think it's fair to categorize all of Africa into one small section in this page, especially since the prevalence of FGM is so different across different countries within Africa. Thus, I plan to make some additions to the page by focusing on why FGM is more prevalent in certain parts of Africa over other parts. I still am not sure which parts I will focus in on, but I am definitely open to whatever suggestions any of you may have for this idea, or even if any have advice on how to make this most effective. At first I though to make a separate page and break down FGM more specifically in parts of Africa, but I am afraid that doing so will simply cause me to be redundant in terms of the information on FGM and its implications. If you have any suggestions, feel free to let me know. Thank you!

Natashacruz12 (talk) 22:40, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello and welcome. It's wonderful to have someone actually interested in developing content for this article. My only suggestion is to be sure to identify high-quality sources for the information, reflect the sources accurately in your content, and be sure that you cover the topics in due weight. I have this article on my watchlist and might comment here and there. Cheers... Zad68 03:53, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello again! So I have been working on my edits, and what I have decided would be best for the article, is to break down the "Prevalence and attempts to end the practice" section into several parts. What I will do is, instead of having "Practicing Countries" as a subheading, I will simply eliminate that and use most of the first paragraph as the introduction to the section itself, and from there I will create an "Africa" subheading, and I will put a "Non-African countries" subheading so that Shannon can include her parts also, unless she has something else in mind. From there, I will include different sections of the prevalence of FGM in Africa under the allotted section and hopefully can include more in-depth detail to this topic. If you have any suggestions, let me know! I will be putting up the edits pretty soon! Thanks!! Natashacruz12 (talk) 16:38, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
I wasn't going to state anything because, though I've been involved with other controversial topics on Wikipedia, I generally stay away from this article because of its controversial nature (especially its heated talk page discussions, which are usually about the title of the article), and because I have enough controversial matters and stress on Wikipedia to worry about, and because I figured that some of what I am about to state would be handled by other experienced editors watching this article. My advice is this: Though Zad68 has addressed it a bit by mentioning WP:DUE WEIGHT, I point out that Wikipedia practices WP:SUMMARY STYLE. We shouldn't have a section in this article on every part of the world that practices FGM, especially when there is a Prevalence of female genital mutilation by country article that exists for that. We are supposed to summarize in this article what should be covered in depth in that article; we then point readers to that article with a "Main article" link, as was done for the Practicing countries section. Having some sections in this article about countries that practice FGM is fine, but we should not go overboard on it. We also shouldn't have two sections about the same thing. The Female Genital Mutilation around the world section that Shannon7mcnamara added is basically an extended version of the Prevalence and attempts to end the practice section, especially its Practicing countries subsection that already exists. You plan to eliminate the Practicing countries heading and any redundancy it may have, so that's a step in the right direction. The other sections about the prevalence of FGM and ending the practice of it should also, of course, be taken care of just as appropriately.
The only other advice I have to give you at this time is the following: Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Capital letters, you need to make sure that headings are not inappropriately capitalized. For the "Female Genital Mutilation around the world" heading, if that were a heading we should use, the "Female Genital Mutilation" part should be in lowercase (whether spelled out or abbreviated). But the reason that it is not a title that we should use is because, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Section headings, "Headings should not refer redundantly to the subject of the article, or to higher-level headings, unless doing so is shorter or clearer. (Early life is preferable to His early life when his refers to the subject of the article; headings can be assumed to be about the subject unless otherwise indicated.)" Also use WP:REFPUNCT (punctuation before, not after, references) and avoid WP:WHITE SPACES (one or more extra white gaps between a section). Shannon7mcnamara's aforementioned edit shows that she is not aware of WP:REFPUNCT, and it comes with WP:WHITE SPACES. And, finally, in addition to what Zad68 stated about being sure to use high-quality sources for information about FGM, you should generally use the most up-to-date medical sources when adding information about a medical topic; this is per WP:MEDRS. There are exceptions, however; when covering some historical/social aspects of FGM, adhering to WP:MEDRS is not necessary. I wouldn't state that medical sources are needed for every aspect of the prevalence of FGM, since the information is more about prevalence than it is about relaying information about the details of the procedures. There are up-to-date anatomy books that accurately document the prevalence of FGM, for example. Anyway, that's my advice for now. Flyer22 (talk) 20:02, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello Natasha, I thought your edits did a good amount to improve the article. I fixed a typo I saw, but otherwise I didn't catch any major formatting errors. The editor above me seems to have a much more solid grasp on formatting and appropriate Wikipedia standards than I do. If you're looking for a few more ways to expand this section on Africa before the project due date, I think you could include some more concrete numerical data about the spread of FGM. The subsection on Europe has a few exact statistics that I thought were compelling, however I realize this may be hard to find for Africa given the sources that you have already used. I think you should also watch out for redundancy with the "Prevalence and attempts to end the practice" section. This section includes information about Africa and policy change that could probably be merged with the "Africa" subsection. Good luck with your final edits! CoeA (talk) 02:41, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your suggestions! I have already done a lot of the things that you mentioned, but I will definitely be working on finding better statistics to incorporate into the article. In terms of running into problems with having similar information, I made sure to incorporate some of it into my section already, but I will continue to expand on it!
Hi Natasha, just a few points after a brief glance. Quite a bit of the material you added is already in the article, so if you could check that first, that would go a long way to making sure your material sticks. Also, some formatting issues: most punctuation (periods, commas, colons, semi-colons) comes before footnotes, and if you could respect the citation formats already used in the article that would also be appreciated. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:39, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi Natasha. I think the other people who have commented on the talk page have already given a lot of good advice, so I will try not to be redundant. I looked mainly at the section of the article on Africa since you said that was the area you worked on. This section was very comprehensive and seems balanced. I looked at the sources used for this section and they all appear to be reliable sources. I also think the section has a relatively neutral point of view, with a few exceptions. In a few places, the diction makes the entry sound more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Phrases like "in fact," "seems to," and "quite a bit" should be removed. When you say, "Some believe that exposing children to the clitoris directly can be harmful to them during childbirth," the statement is too general--some of who or what believe?
There were two places that I thought you could use citations. Both were statements about the cultural diversity and complexity of a region. The first was "West Africa is one of the most culturally diverse and complex regions in Africa, making it difficult to come up with a broad summation of the prevalence of FGM," and the second was "One of the greatest concerns of these anti-FGM advocates is the issue of how to implement these laws once they are in place. Because FGM is such a culturally tied practice, it has been difficult to provide changes that didn’t directly threaten a region’s cultural identity." Lastly, there are a couple of places where the wording could be more clear, including "is less than what is seen in the world" and "Burkina Faso is a rare country, in that since 1996, the practice of FGM is severely sanctioned." I hope this is helpful! Let me know if you have any questions, either here or on my talk page. Weatherby551 (talk) 16:14, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your input. I already did a lot of the edits and will continue to do so. In the areas where you suggested that I incorporate citations, I made sure to do so. I have changed my wording to make it more neutral and less as if I were inferring. Your contribution really helped and hopefully as I continue to add more, you will continue to help along the process.


Thank you all so much for the input along the process of editing this page. I have been considering all of your suggestions and I plan to continue to work towards making this page the greatest it can be. I have already implemented some of the changes, such as fixing some of the issues in wording and adding citations where they need to be. To incorporate the work that was already there, I moved parts of the already present sections into the Africa portion. More specifically, I added an East Africa section where I placed the section titled "colonial opposition" since it was all about Kenya. I will continue to work on the other regions in Africa as time allows. Also, I changed the arrangement of the section "prevalence and attempts to end the practice" to have a better flow. In terms of having information that is already present in the article, I felt it was necessary to bring it into context in Africa, so I tried to make it a bit more specific to these specific regions, because not all parts of Africa practice FGM for the same reason. I will continue to improve the information so that it may be more indicative of what I'm trying to do with the page. I will continue adding pictures and more information as I continue to work on this page. Again, thank you all for the input and I can't wait to continue working on this to keep improving the page more and more. Natashacruz12 (talk) 17:43, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Natasha, could you say which course this is part of? Shannon posted two templates to the talk page, [8] but the article isn't listed in the first course, and the second course link is red. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:50, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

minor edit

Minor typo in "By Region" section, United States, 3rd paragraph, line 4: should read "charged" not changed." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lizbizeh (talk • contribs) 01:20, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Done. Thanks Jim1138 (talk) 06:40, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Article Paraphrased to Mislead

The following is highly problematic: 'according to official statements of the top Muslim clerical body of the largest Muslim-majority nation of the world, the Indonesian Ulema Council, “the practice (of FGM) is a religious obligation that should be done to control women’s sexual desires”.' (emphasis added)

  1. There is no "official statement" in the article cited for support.*
  2. Two individuals made statements claiming it is a religious obligation.
  3. There is no quotation in the article cited for support.

The excerpt in question is deliberately misleading and should be removed.

Incomplete citations

Hi, some recent edits have added incomplete citation details so that the text is hard to check. For example, "LandInfo (12). "Female genital mutilation of women in West Africa". LandInfo." That needs a date and page numbers, and a link if it's online, which it is. And Plan (2005). Tradition and Rights: female genital cutting in West Africa needs author's full name, publisher and page numbers.

Also, rather than "ref name=p", it would be more helpful if you could use the author's name, and even year and page number; for example, "ref name=Smith2013p1" allows other editors to see exactly what is being referenced. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:19, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Just another point about sources. The article should for the most part rely on academic and medical secondary sources (books or papers, but not individual studies, per WP:MEDRS), bodies such as the WHO, and high-quality news sources. It should ideally avoid tertiary websites (such as this) that simply repeat material from these other sources. The reason for this is that there's no point in Wikipedia using a site that says "according to the WHO," when we can use the WHO ourselves. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:43, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

By Region Comments

Hello Natasha,

First off this article would receive a 10 in comprehensiveness. You responded to a need on the page and did so in great fashion. Some of the information is a bit redundant so you may just wan to reword or take out some things. The Souring is a 6, everything is well cited. You may want to add some blue links with the double brackets so you can link your information or certain words to another page.Neutrality was a 3, as you represented all sides to the issue. Readability was also a three. The subsections were divided properly creating a smooth flow to the article. Thus leads to a 2 in formatting , besides a few small punctuation footnote errors. Illustrations I would give a 1. I did see one image in your section, but I think you would be able to add 1 more if possible. But this is great ! Asiamcclearygaddy (talk) 15:59, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much for this Asia! I plan to add more pictures to the site as soon as I find appropriate ones. Also, I will continue to expand on the article and add blue links in areas where it is appropriate to do so. Your review really helps and I thank you for doing this to help this page. I will continue to add more to the page as I find more information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natashacruz12 (talk • contribs) 17:56, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
I've made the United States section invisible for now, as it seems to contradict material in the rest of the article, and uses a source from the 1990s to say that FGM is not illegal there as of 2013. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:19, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

By region peer review

Hey Shannon,

First off, you did a great job on on this section! It was really informative and provided a comprehensive overview of FGM around the world. However, one aspect that I thought could use improvement is your use of linking to other articles - I didn't notice many blue links in the "By region" section, and linking to other pages could help understandability of the information. Also, I noticed in the Australia and Europe subsection there was information in need of citations. The Middle East section was particularly interesting, and given the fact that there's such diversity in practices and prevalence, I think that section could benefit from an expansion - perhaps by including a more refined description about the cultural influences and practices that result in such diversity? Additionally, I would have loved to have read the United States section (though I know it's been hidden) so I think you should definitely try to find a more recent source to update the information with as I think the inclusion of the US would help round out this section. Lastly, I noticed a few minor grammatical errors in this section that I edited.

I hope my comments have been helpful! Overall though, great job! If I was confusing or you would like to discuss what I said further please let me know - I would be more than happy to discuss with you. Good luck! Daniellam91 (talk) 01:29, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Peer Review 2

I think you did a really great job giving a comprehensive view of the issue on a global level, because I did not realize it was such a widespread issue. I have a few suggestions:

  • The sections on Australia, Asia, and Europe could use additional and more diverse citations, because I worry that some people could argue that your source could be biased, so more diverse citations would squelch that.
  • It could be cool to have an infographic or some sort of visual aid that shows the global regions that are affected by the practice of FGM.
  • I think it might be unnecessary to have an Africa section with a West Africa subsection under that since you do not discuss any specific African region other than West Africa.
  • Perhaps add a few more links under "See Also"

Very well written and neutral, I only saw minor issues that could be easily remedied.


ChloeCBlaskiewicz (talk) 15:32, 8 April 2013 (UTC)ChloeCBlaskiewicz

Problems

Extended content

Several paragraphs in the new "by region" section contain material copied word for word from the sources without in-text attribution. Examples below, but I only checked some of it so there may be more. Some is still in the article, some has been edited by others (myself included) and is now slightly different, and I made one section invisible for other reasons before I realized it had been copied. Most of the new section was added on March 18; this was it on 6 April before the copy edit.

Bishop 1997
  • Wikipedia, citing Bishop 1997 for the first sentence:
  • Female genital mutilation is practiced in some aspect in almost all African countries, but it is also being performed in parts of Asia, Malaysia, Indonesia, the Persian Gulf, Pakistan, Russia, South America (Peru, Brazil, and Eastern Mexico), and Australia (from Urabunna in the South to the Eastern Shores of the Gulf of Carpentaria) [4]. The World Health Organization estimates that 80 million girls and women in more than 30 countries of Africa, the Middle East, and Southeast Asia are circumcised. The practice spans socioeconomic, ethnic, and cultural groups including Christians, Muslims, and followers of indigenous African religions.
  1. ^ http://www.unicef.org/about/legal.html
  2. ^ http://www.who.int/suggestions/faq/en/index.html
  3. ^ Little, Cindy (2003). "FEMALE GENITAL CIRCUMCISION: MEDICAL AND CULTURAL CONSIDERATIONS". Journal Of Cultural Diversity. 10 (1): 30–34.
  4. ^ Female genital mutilation. T. L. Bishop. Journal of the National Medical Association, Vol. 89, No. 4, (April 1997), pp. 233-236
  • Although it is practiced in some aspect in almost all African countries, it also is being performed in parts of Asia, Malaysia, Indonesia, the Persian Gulf, Pakistan, Russia, South America (Peru, Brazil, and Eastern Mexico), and Australia (from Urabunna in the South to the Eastern Shores of the Gulf of Carpentaria).

    The World Health Organization estimates that 80 million girls and women in more than 30 countries of Africa, the Middle East, and Southeast Asia are circumcised. The practice spans socioeconomic, ethnic, and cultural groups including Christians, Muslims, and followers of indigenous African religions.

  • On October 7, 1993, Congresswoman Patricia Schroeder introduced bill HR 3247, which prohibits genital mutilation of girls within the United States. It provides education to immigrant communities on the health risks and legal liabilities of the practice [1]. As of today, this bill has not been passed. The Women’s Health Equity Act (HR 3075, sections 261 through 263) proposes criminal penalties for all medically unnecessary female genital mutilations and for the Secretary of the US Department of Health and Human Services to undertake education and outreach activities. Some patients argue that if it becomes illegal for health professionals to perform the procedure, they will turn to unskilled workers who will perform the procedure under unsterile conditions [1].
  1. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference k was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  • On October 7, 1993, Congresswoman Patricia Schroeder introduced bill HR 3247, which prohibits genital mutilation of girls within the United States. It provides education to immigrant communities on the health risks and legal liabilities of the practice. As of today, this bill has not been passed. The Women's Health Equity Act (HR 3075, sections 261 through 263) proposes criminal penalties for all medically unnecessary female genital mutilations and for the Secretary of the US Department of Health and Human Services to undertake education and outreach activities. Some patients argue that if it becomes illegal for health professionals to perform the procedure, they will turn to unskilled workers who will perform the procedure under unsterile conditions.
Black 1995
  • During the past three or four decades, ethnic groups who practice FGM have immigrated to Britain, mainly as refugees. The main groups are from Eritrea, Ethiopia, Somalia, and the Yemen. It has been estimated that in their own countries over 80% of women have had the operation. There is evidence that the operation is being performed illegally in Britain by medically qualified or unqualified practitioners and that children are being sent abroad for a “holiday” to have it done [1]. In Britain the procedure is usually performed between the ages of 7 and 9 years. The Prohibition of Female Circumcision Act of 1985 outlawed the practice of FGM in the United Kingdom [2]. Under this act it is an offense to “excise, infibulate, or otherwise mutilate the whole or any part of the labia majora or labia minora or clitoris of another person,” or, “to aid, abet, or procure the performance of another person of any of these acts on that person’s own body.” [1]. A person found guilty of an offense if liable to a fine or to imprisonment for up to give years, or to both, if convicted on indictment before a judge and jury in a crown court. In Britain there have been no prosecutions under the act, but convictions have been obtained in France [1].
  1. ^ a b c Female Genital Mutilation in Britain. J. A. Black, et al. BMJ: British Medical Journal, Vol. 310, No. 6994, (June 17, 1995), pp. 1590 – 1594
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference a was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  • During the past three or four decades, ethnic groups who practise female genital mutilation have immigrated to Britain, mainly as refugees. The main groups are from Eritrea, Ethiopia, Somalia, and the Yemen. It has been estimated that in their own countries over 80% of women have had the operation, which is invariably infibulation. There is evidence that the operation is being performed illegally in Britain (see below) by medically qualified or unqualified practitioners and that children are being sent abroad for a "holiday" to have it done. In Britain the procedure is usually performed between the ages of 7 and 9 years (p. 1590).

    Female genital mutilation was made illegal in Britain by the Prohibition of Female Circumcision Act 1985. Under this act it is an offence to "excise, infibulate, or otherwise mutilate the whole or any part of the labia majora or labia minora or clitoris of another person," or, "to aid, abet, or procure the performance of another person of any of these acts on that person’s own body." A person found guilty of an offence if liable to a fine or to imprisonment for up to five years, or to both, if convicted on indictment before a judge and jury in a crown court ... In Britain there have been no prosecutions under the act, but convictions have been obtained in France (p. 1591).

Gallard 1995
  • Wikipedia, citing Black 1995 in error (the source is Gallard 1995, p. 1593, an article underneath Black's):
  • Today in France, ministries and public institutions feel directly involved. Prevention kits (posters and leaflets) have recently been published and distributed by the prefecture of the Ile de France as a result of the work of several associations [1]. Now used only in the Paris area, this material will soon be available all over France. At the moment an estimated 100,000 immigrants live in the Paris region. If only half of these women are excised it can be said that 20,000 women and 12,500 girls living in France have either suffered female genital mutilation or will do so. Of these, 90% live in the Ile de France region; most are from Mali, a few from Senegal [1].
  1. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference o was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  • Today, ministries and public institutions feel directly involved. Prevention kits (posters and leaflets) have recently been published and distributed by the prefecture of the Ile de France as a result of the work of several associations. Now used only in the Paris area, this material will soon be available all over France. ...

    At the moment an estimated 100,000 immigrants live in the Paris region. ...

    If only half of these women are excised it can be said that 20,000 women and 12,500 girls living in France have either suffered female genital mutilation or will do so. Of these, 90% live in the Ile de France (Paris region); most are from Mali, a few from Senegal.

Kaplan-Marcusan 2009
  • Wikipedia, citing Kaplan-Marcusan 2009 for the first sentence:
  • The first cases of FGM in Spain were detected and reported by healthcare professionals in 1993. Since then, new mutilations have not been reported in Spain, although it is known that some families take advantage of vacation trips to their countries of origin to carry out FGM [1]. From the national census, from countries in which these practices are carried out, residing in Spain in 2005, it is estimated that around 9,545 women have undergone some type of FGM and approximately 3,824 girls are at an age of risk of having this done within the next few years.
  1. ^ Perception of primary health professionals about Female Genital Mutilation: from healthcare to intercultural competence. Adriana Kaplan-Marcusan et al. BMC Health Services Research. (January 2009)
  • The first cases of FGM in Spain were detected and reported by healthcare professionals in 1993. Since then, new mutilations have not been reported in Spain, although it is known that some families take advantage of vacation trips to their countries of origin to carry out FGM. From the national census, from countries in which these practices are carried out, residing in Spain in 2005, we have estimated that in our country around 9,545 women have undergone some type of FGM and approximately 3,824 girls are at an age of risk of having this done within the next few years.
Ab Rahman Isa 1999
  • Several recent publications by Toubia et al, which have reviewed existing data on FGM, indicate that although female genital practices are said to be carried out among some Muslims in Malaysia, it is not clear whether these are ‘non-cutting’ rituals, similar to those found in Indonesia, or a form of clitoridectomy [1].
  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference m was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  • Several recent publications by Toubia et al, which have reviewed existing data on FGM, indicate that although female genital practices are said to be carried out among some Muslims in Malaysia, it is not clear whether these are ‘non-cutting’ rituals, similar to those found in Indonesia, or a form of clitoridectomy.
Kane 2000
  • Wikipedia, citing Kane 2000 for two of the sentences:
  • An estimated 120,000 women living in Australia came from countries where some form of female circumcision is traditional [1]. Despite efforts by many of these countries to eliminate the traditions – efforts which are showing some success – continuing migration to Australia of girls and women who have undergone circumcision means that numbers will remain fairly substantial for some time.

    In 1994 the Family Law Council prepared a report for the Attorney-General recommending a two-part strategy of education and legislation to prevent the practice of FGM within Australia [1]. Most states and territories now have legislation specifically banning FGM, and there have been both commonwealth and state/territory education initiatives involving the potentially affected communities and health professionals. However, not all health professionals have the training to identify and respond to the health and psychological needs of those women and girls who have undergone FGM outside Australia.

  1. ^ a b Challenges to Reproductive Health in Australia. Penny Kane. Journal of Population Research, Vol. 17, No. 2, (November 2000), pp. 163 – 173
  • An estimated 120,000 women living in Australia came from countries where some form of female circumcision is traditional (Gilbert et al. 1997). Despite efforts by many of these countries to eliminate the tradition—efforts which are showing some success—continuing migration to Australia of girls and women who have undergone circumcision means that numbers will remain fairly substantial for some time. ...

    In 1994 the Family Law Council prepared a report for the Attorney-General recommending a two-part strategy of education and legislation to prevent the practice of FGM within Australia. Most states and territories now have legislation specifically banning FGM, and there have been both commonwealth and state/territory education initiatives involving the potentially affected communities and health professionals (Gilbert et al. 1997). However, not all health professionals have the training to identify and respond to the health and psychosocial needs of those women and girls who have undergone FGM outside Australia.


Given the above, the "by region" section ought to be removed; a lot of it was problematic for other reasons too. Anyone wanting to restore it should first check it against the sources, rewrite as needed, and make sure that the sources are appropriate and that the material isn't already covered in the article. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:10, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the material that was added here on March 18. Another student made this edit that day about Africa. I've left that in the article for now, but some of it is problematic. For example, the material about Wanzo, the evil power, was unsourced when added. Someone later added a source to the end of the paragraph, but Wanzo isn't in it; I can see a source for it on Google Books, but it isn't cited anywhere in the article. There are similar issues elsewhere. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:33, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

The practice's global distribution is now totally skewed. One gets the impression that FGM/FGC/FC is at its origin a Pan-African practice when this could not be further from the truth. In reality, female circumcision dates back to Pharaonic times and was originally exclusive to the ancient Afro-Asiatic communities of the Red Sea littoral. It only later spread to other populations inhabiting other parts of the continent; in many cases as recently as the 18th century. This is why there exist documents dating from antiquity which describe the practice being customary in Northeast Africa, but nowhere else on the continent. This is also why several excised Egyptian female mummies have been uncovered. The global distribution of the custom will therefore have to be re-written and re-added. Because as it is, way too much weight has been placed on Sub-Saharan Africa. If editors here are unwilling to do that, that's okay. I will request administrative help in this endeavour. Middayexpress (talk) 18:25, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I want to apologize for the confusion and hassle that my section has caused. I am planning on re-writing my section tonight and including more sources and quotations where necessary, as well as re-wording my sentences. I understand that the "by region" section is pretty large, and took up a lot of space on the FGM page. I was considering writing simply a paragraph about how FGM is prevalent throughout the world, and then including links below to different pages. For example, the "United States" section that I have would go under a section I would create on the "United States" page called "FGM" or "FGM in the United States", and then on this FGM page I would simply link to that section, instead of including the information on this page. Do you believe that this would be a better solution? That way I wouldn't re-discuss issues on the FGM pages that have already been mentioned. However, I'm very open to any suggestions that you might have for improvement! Thank you, and sorry again about all of this...I'm not yet very experienced with Wikipedia! Shannon7mcnamara (talk) 20:38, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi Shannon, thanks for leaving a note and an apology. The problem is that adding large amounts of text and sources to an article that's already relatively well-developed creates work for other editors who have to check the text against the sources (and we can't always see them), rewrite parts of it, and make sure it's integrated into the existing text. So yes, it would definitely be easier in that regard if you were to create new articles (e.g. Female genital mutilation in Europe), and link to them here, or else ask that your work be graded on a user subpage. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:57, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice! Do you suggest that I create different pages for different continents (such as the FGM in Europe page that you proposed), or add information about FGM onto pages for countries that already exist (for example, under the "Health" section in the United States page). I think that your idea of creating different pages would be best. That way I can create pages for continents that I have information about (such as North America, Europe, Middle East, etc.) but I don't have to leave a blank space for areas that were hard to find information about FGM on (for example, it was really hard to find specific information about FGM happening in South America) Shannon7mcnamara (talk) 21:39, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
I don't know what your course requirements are (how many words you have to write, and by when), but in your shoes I would choose one area of the world and I would write just one article about FGM in that area, on a new page, not as part of an existing article. That way, you can choose the region that has the best source material, or a region that you would enjoy writing about.
Alternatively – whether you're adding material about one area or multiple areas – you could add it to Prevalence of female genital mutilation by country. That article isn't as well-developed as this one, and it's more list-like, so it would be easier to slot new information into it – in the sense that it would be easier to see whether the information is already in the article. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:02, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Female_genital_mutilation/Archive_8&oldid=1136723104"