Talk:Female genital mutilation/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Simplification and translation

Am interested in sending this article for translation. One issue is that the wording is a little complicated. Does anyone wish to work on simplifying it a bit? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:56, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

1999, today, trends, certainty, uncertainty

(I'm responding from WT:MED.) Thanks for the work that has gone into the article. I see the article says "most FGM procedures (80–90 percent) in Somalia, Sudan and Dijbouti are Type III". The source cited is from 1999. The article mentions reported downward trends. One cited source mentions trends in its title. The picture cited mentions large levels of uncertainty. Should we be using a 1999 source to report the current state of things with such certainty? Thanks again. Biosthmors (talk) 11:30, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Biosthmors, UNICEF published a report a few weeks ago with their latest figures, so I'm in the process of updating. But the issue is complicated by their use of different categories from the WHO. Regarding the decline, the issue is also not straightforward. They asked women 15–49 if they could remember and describe what was done to them, then they asked what had been done to those women's daughters. The figures for the daughters is lower, but that is in part because some of the daughters had not been cut at the time of the survey, but were (or may have been) cut later.

UNICEF writes that some of their figures take this into account, but I haven't had time to read it in detail yet to work out what they mean. In case anyone reading this would like to help, the report is here.

Regarding using old figures, this is unfortunately very common. A 2006 study in the BMJ relied on figures for Sudan from a 1989 report. Even the newish agency reports sometimes rely on older figures. I've had to spend quite a bit of time reading footnotes, then following those to other footnotes, and so on, always going back further and further in time. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:38, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I noticed this has been changed as I couldn't find the text again. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 09:53, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Question about sources

I'm checking the reinfibulation section, and may expand it a little. I want to check first that these sources are MEDRS-compliant, if anyone knows:

• Bergrren, Vanja et al. "Being Victims or Beneficiaries? Perspectives on Female Genital Cutting and Reinfibulation in Sudan", African Journal of Reproductive Health, 10(2), August 2006.
• Serour G.I. "The issue of reinfibulation", International Journal of Gynaecology and Obstretrics, 109(2), May 2010, pp. 93–96.

SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:21, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't appear either is indexed as a review, but that heuristic is designed to winnow out cherry-picking medical information based on clinical studies one happens to favor. Good medical knowledge is ideally derived from well-designed clicial trials, systemicatic reviews of the literature, meta-analyses, and appropriate clinical practice guidelines. I'm not sure the knowledge you're trying to pull out of the sources would be subjected to this requirement. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 16:49, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

That said, if someone with Web of Science (I might still have access later today) can check to see if the studies have been cited and then sort those studies for review articles, that might be best. Or one might cite a more recent study that is not labeled a review if the article does a good job of reviewing the data. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 16:55, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Searching PubMed for reviews on the keyword reinfibulation yields a 2011 publication doi:10.1097/GCO.0b013e32834ab544, which might be your best bet if it's not cited already. (I first searched for the term then narrowed to reviews.) Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 16:58, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for this reply. I've been trying to stick to review articles, per MEDRS, but to be honest they are not the best sources in an article like this, because they review articles that in turn rely on the work of anthropologists, aid agencies and local physicians. So when you trace the source's sources you find the sources I would have preferred to use in the first place. But I know if I use those sources people will ask why I'm using an anthropologist source from 1984. I've also found a bit of plagiarism in a couple of the review articles. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:08, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia

Hi Kaldari, I'm not sure about this edit. Where I wrote "it has been documented in ...," all these come from the same source (WHO's 2008 report). To add a primary source to the mix (Alsibiani et al) with Saudi Arabia raises the question of why the WHO didn't mention it. Gerry Mackie (one of the foremost experts on FGM) writes that the Saudis regard it as a pagan custom. So I'd like to revert that until it's checked further. Do Alsibiani et al cite their source?

I've rewritten the Mackie sentence (and will add it shortly), which now reads: "Mackie writes that it [FGM] is found only within or near Islamic communities, but is not practised in Mecca and Medina, Islam's holiest cities, where the Saudis apparently regard it as a pagan ritual." So the whole sentence is now attributed to Mackie. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:59, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

The source is directly about 130 women in Saudi Arabia. It suggests there is free access, but I'm not able to see the whole thing. Kaldari, were you able to read it all? I'm curious if it says anything about the ethnic group. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:15, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

A Guardian article here about that study issued a correction: "This clarification was added on Friday November 21 2008. It was not correct to say that female genital mutilation is practiced "frequently" in Saudi Arabia. The data on the practice of FGM there is not good and therefore its prevalence is unknown. Although some studies suggest that it does occur in the country FGM may be most common amongst immigrant populations. In Dr Sharifa Sibiani and Prof Abdulrahim Rouzi's study the participants were a mixture of migrants and women born in Saudi Arabia."

If it's mostly immigrant communities, we shouldn't really include it in that list. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:20, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I can't find Saudi Arabia in the recent agency reports, so the best I can do for now is the following:

Mackie writes that the practice is found only within or near Islamic communities, but is not practised in Mecca and Medina in Saudi Arabia, Islam's holiest cities. According to Mackie, the Saudis apparently regard it as a pagan ritual, although there have been reports of it in that country, perhaps among immigrant communities.

SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:32, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

• The only reference I can find to Saudi Arabia in the 2013 UNICEF report is on page 23: "Although no nationally representative data on FGM/C are available for countries including Colombia, Jordan, Oman, Saudi Arabia and parts of Indonesia and Malaysia, evidence suggests that the procedure is being performed.63" Footnote 63 mentions material about Indonesia, Malaysia and Columbia, but not Saudi Arabia. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:49, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Requested move of FGM

I recently proposed redirecting FGM to this article as the primary topic. There was an objection to doing it without a requested move, so I've opened one at Talk:FGM#Requested move 03 October 2013, in case anyone here is interested. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:27, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Explaining my revert

Hi MissMargaretBlack, I'm sorry for reverting your recent edits, but there were several problems with them. I'm in the process of trying to get the article to featured-article status, which means that the featured-article criteria apply. In terms of style, this means everything has to be consistent, including the citations. Regarding content, the article should be based on the most appropriate reliable sources. This means for medical issues that the sources are consistent with WP:MEDRS. For non-medical issues, we should rely on academics who specialize in this issue, and for current affairs, high-quality news sources. Sources such as Middle East Forum aren't appropriate.

In terms of whether this is performed as a religious duty, almost all sources say it isn't, so adding that to the lead isn't appropriate. There is a separate article, Religious views on female genital mutilation, where the detail of who-says-what can be explored if there are views of particular Islamic scholars that you want to highlight. Also, adding that "scholars claim" it is pre-Islamic sounds odd, because it can clearly be traced back to Ancient Egypt. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:58, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Also, just a general point about sourcing. There is a vast literature on FGM from all kinds of different academic and non-academic sources, with lots of different views, some of them quite quirky. For that reason it's important to identify the key academic, medical and agency sources that represent the majority and significant-minority perspective, and stick with them, per WP:NPOV. Including the views of tiny-minority sources would be a violation of WP:UNDUE, which is part of the neutrality policy. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:14, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi SlimVirgin - Your desire for WP:FA status is no justification for WP:CHERRYPICKING and WP:POV. Consider UNICEF 2013 report; the article already uses it extensively, which means it is an acceptable and meets what you call as a 'most appropriate' source for this article. I summarized several pages of discussion from UNICEF 2013 report on FGM and "religious duty", with page numbers and quotes. Yet, you strangely claim UNICEF and 'almost all sources' say it isn't. Why? Please explain. For another content contribution, I had used World Health Organization article on FGM, another source extensively used in the current article. Why is WHO not acceptable to you? I am fine if you want to delete the article from peer reviewed Middle East Quarterly article hosted on meforum.org. But along with it, and elsewhere, I had cited WHO article, multiple recently published, peer reviewed, widely cited widely accepted reliable sources, all of which meet WP:MEDRS and WP:RS.

UNICEF, WHO and several of the sources I cited are not "tiny-minority" or WP:UNDUE sources. WP:NPOV requires that this article must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without bias. While we both want what is good for this article, WP:OWN, WP:CHERRYPICK and WP:POV is not the way. While we sort this out, here on this talk page, or an appropriate dispute resolution board, I am tagging this article for POV. MissMargaretBlack (talk) 23:19, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I will take another look at UNICEF if you give me the page numbers you want me to read. I'd appreciate it if you would remove the tag. These are meant to be added as a last resort, not as a first one. Also, you didn't say why you added the POV tag exactly. Which material would need to be added to make the article neutral, in your view?

Some of the sources you added were fine, but others were a red flag. I accept that this was inadvertent on your part. The problem is that there are certain groups and individuals who use FGM as a stick with which to beat Islam, when in fact it predates Islam, is not mandated by it, and many Islamic scholars oppose it. You used at least one of those sources in your edits, so my concern is that there was a focus on making a particular point, rather than on reflecting the specialist sources. As I said above, there are so many sources out there on FGM that we could find someone to say just about anything. But the article has to reflect the majority and significant-minority views of specialist sources, not just of any source that has written about this.

If you let me know the page numbers of the UNICEF report, I'll take a look at it now. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:40, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the pages of the UNICEF report that you cited and quoted from (pp. 66, 69, 70) for your edit to the lead that "FGM is practised as a ... religious duty ...":

• p. 66 doesn't support that it's a religious duty; in fact it implies the opposite;
• p. 69 says that it predates Islam, is not a religious requirement, is not practised by some Islamic groups, and it practised by non-Islamic ones. It then says: "Despite the fact that FGM/C predates the birth of Islam and Christianity and is not mandated by religious scriptures, the belief that it is a religious requirement contributes to the continuation of the practice in a number of settings." Note the qualification. Then it adds: "As illustrated in the previous section and confirmed by ethnographic studies, in certain settings FGM/C is widely held to be a religious obligation." That's followed by footnote 122, which refers to examples from Sudan and Guinea-Bissau, and two sources from 1991 and 2000 (which we should cite directly if we're going to make this point). That isn't enough to add to the lead that it's a religious duty without qualification.
• p. 70: when you read everything it says there, rather than quoting just one sentence, it doesn't support that FGM is a religious duty.

The issue of Islam and FGM is enormously complex and there is no agreement, except that FGM predates it and is not mandated by it. That some groups that practise FGM believe it is a religious duty doesn't mean that it is, especially when you have non-Islamic groups doing the same. Anthropologists agree that it's an ethnic marker. That is the key issue, not religion, which is why even the Ethiopian Jews practised it. The issue is so complex that it really is better to leave the details for Religious views on female genital mutilation, because there each claim and counter-claim can be explored. We can't do that in this article. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:31, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I have read the whole report, and hundreds of article on FGM. I am not new to this field. I am afraid you are picking a side above, deriving conclusions, and doing original research.

You acknowledge UNICEF reporting that "some groups who practice FGM believe it is a religious duty." That needs to be included in this article, because that group is the largest group, in many countries, according to UNICEF. To quote from pages 69 of UNICEF 2013 report,

"'As illustrated in the previous section and confirmed by ethnographic studies, in certain settings FGM/C is widely held to be a religious obligation."'

Whether this belief is right or wrong, is not for you and I to decide, or ignore. The current lede reads: "FGM is practised as a cultural ritual by ethnic groups..." But, the UNICEF 2013 report notes, that those who practice it, widely believe it to be a religious obligation. An accurate summary would be "FGM is practised as a cultural ritual and religious obligation by ethnic groups..."

For convenience of our discussion:

Sources you deleted, that were cited with pages numbers and quotes, for a more balanced NPOV coverage of religion and FGM

1. UNICEF 2013 report (a source already in use before my first edit):

• page 70, Quote: "In some surveys, interviewees were asked specifically whether FGM/C was required by religion. Results, shown in Figure 6.12, indicate that even larger percentages of respondents answered affirmatively. In Mali, for example, nearly two thirds of girls and women and 38 per cent of boys and men regard FGM/C as a religious duty." also see page 67 and 68, Table 6.2, see column 'required by religion' and footnote under Table 6.2;
• page 66: "Many observers have noted that FGM/C is usually embedded in a broader cultural context of practices and meanings, and that the constellation of associated beliefs varies across settings."
• page 69: "As illustrated in the previous section and confirmed by ethnographic studies, in certain settings FGM/C is widely held to be a religious obligation."

2. World Health Organization - United Nations as a source (a source already in use before my first edit):

• An update on WHO’s work on female genital mutilation (FGM) R. Elise B. Johansen, World Health Organization, Progress Report (2011), page 1 and 2; Quote: "Incidences of FGM have been documented in some other countries, including India, Indonesia, Iraq, Israel, Malaysia, Thailand and the United Arab Emirates, but no national estimates have been made. In addition, the practice of FGM and its harmful consequences also concerns a growing number of women and girls in Europe, North America, Australia and New Zealand as a result of international migration."
• on conflicting views of Islamic scholars: Islamic Ruling on Male and Female Circumcision Muhammad Lufti al-Sabbagh, World Health Organization (1996);

As with above UNICEF and WHO sources, you additionally deleted sources I cited from respected journals, widely cited books and review articles, on this subject. Please assume good faith, and explain why you deleted WHO and these sources too? In the current form, the article violates WP:NPOV because it WP:CHERRYPICKS and misrepresents the sources it cites. It also does not summarize the key majority sides per WP:DUE guidelines, or 'significant-minority' views of specialty sources - on FGM and religion - that you acknowledge the article should include. Our discussion above suggests there is a serious NPOV issue on FGM and religion in this article. Per wikipedia guidelines on POV tag, I am adding it back. MissMargaretBlack (talk) 01:54, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Even tertiary sources such as "Encyclopedia of Women & Islamic Cultures: Family, Body, Sexuality and Health , Volume 3 (Editor: Suad Joseph); ISBN 978-9004128194" discuss and state many women in Africa and elsewhere, who undergo FGM, claim to practice it for religious reasons (see pages 71-74 of Vol 3). If you want, feel free to include the sentence "Many scholars believe that FGM is not a religious obligation." MissMargaretBlack (talk) 01:59, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

If you want to make the point that some groups believe it is a religious duty, you could add that to the FGM and religion section. I deliberately kept that section short because it's such a minefield and because we have a dedicated article on it. The section does say, per Mackie, that "[a]lthough its origins are pre-Islamic, the practice became associated with Islam because of that religion's focus on female modesty ...", so that would be an appropriate place to elaborate briefly. Mackie 1996 would be a good source to use. Another good source is Ellen Gruenbaum, The Female Circumcision Controversy, University of Pennsylvania Press, 2001. I can't give page numbers about Islam because it's spread throughout the book, but some of it can be seen on Google Books. Page 44, for example, talks about how pre-Islamic beliefs in Sudan were incorporated into the Islamic belief system.

When quoting UNICEF (or any other source), it's important not to pick out one sentence that supports a view, while ignoring that the rest of the page doesn't support it. Even the Middle East Forum source that you used said: "But most experts dismiss the connection of the practice with Islam." This article has to follow the view of most experts. If we include minority views, we have to make sure they are not tiny-minority ones, and we need in-text attribution for them (not added to the lead in Wikipedia's voice).

The article has to be written so that specialist sources reading it find what they would expect to find, and don't see any red flags. Adding to the lead that it's practised as a religious duty would be a red flag. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:19, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Please note I used the word religious in the lede, not any specific religion.

This article, your suggestions, are predominantly normative - that is how FGM should or ought to be related, or not, to religion. What you and this article is ignoring is the positive, that is the 'reality' in the field, what people admit is their motivation. We need to include the finding in UNICEF 2013, and numerous other sources, that one of the primary reason many women practice FGM is that they believe FGM is a religious requirement (they may wrong in such as belief, but that does not change the reality that they do believe so). I like your idea of including all this in FGM and religion section. Would you like to try, or would you like me to?

The Prevalence section, the Reasons sections and the section on FGM and religion need more balance, neutral presentation with content from more recent WP:RS sources. Relying heavily on a dated source, or a single source, affects WP:DUE (MacKie's old sociology paper is in reference section some 18 different times).

I will think of ideas to fix the lede. MissMargaretBlack (talk) 04:42, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

NPOV tag

Discussion is occurring. Try a RfC first. Looks like you are tagging as you have a disagreement with another editor. I do not see a significant POV issue requiring tagging. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:19, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

This article's lede is WP:CHERRYPICKING UNICEF 2013 source, in emphasizing "FGM is practiced as a cultural ritual", and ignoring what UNICEF states "FGM/C is a religious requirement" as the widely held belief among many practitioners.

It ignores numerous WP:RS sources, including encyclopedias, and various World Health Organization's articles on religion as one of the reasons why FGM occurs. See, for examplethis WHO source:

Cultural, religious and social causes

The causes of female genital mutilation include a mix of cultural, religious and social factors within families and communities.

• (other reasons)
• Though no religious scripts prescribe the practice, practitioners often believe the practice has religious support.
• Religious leaders take varying positions with regard to FGM: some promote it, some consider it irrelevant to religion, and others contribute to its elimination.

Now read: Where and why FGM occurs? - Reasons. No mention of religion at all. That is not neutral, that is POV. It is also not a disagreement, it is a violation of WP:NPOV. How can you not see a significant POV issue here? MissMargaretBlack (talk) 05:09, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

We have this section Female_genital_mutilation#FGM_and_religion? So what do you mean "no mention of religion at all"? And what more do you wish to add based on the WHO source? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:21, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

There is no mention of religion at all in the Female_genital_mutilation#Reasons section. Along with that WHO source, we can list many encyclopedic articles on female circumcision, and dozens of highly cited, peer reviewed WP:RS that prominently discuss one of the reason practitioners continue FGM is because they believe FGM is a religious requirement. The last edit I made had suggestions for Female_genital_mutilation#FGM_and_religion section, along with many citations with page numbers / quotes. Please see [this]. What would you suggest we add in that section from the above WHO source, and my last edit? MissMargaretBlack (talk) 11:45, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I've added to the religion section that there is a widespread belief in certain countries that it's a religious requirement, so the section now looks like this. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:08, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

The article is now more balanced and more complete. Thank you. It still has issues. Please consider the following:

• In the list "particularly Mali, Eritrea, Mauritania and Guinea", include Egypt. The support is on page 71, Figure 6.12 of UNICEF 2013 report. Egypt is listed at 49%, which makes it 'significant'; and meets the 'significance threshold' for WP:NPOV. Further, consider citing page 215 of this New York Times' EDHS summary for Egypt; because it says about 60% women believe female circumcision is a religious requirement.
• UNICEF 2013 is silent about Somalia and DHS survey data on religious requirement; Somalia is significant given its highest reported total and Type III FGM prevalence rates. Include it in the list, with the following WP:MEDRS cite: Adbi Gele et al (2013), BMC Research Notes, 6:122. That paper on FGM in Somalia is recent, and the result section reads: "with an adjustment for all other important variables, female circumcision (the Sunna form) is a religious requirement, and the Sunna form is not harmful, are the two factors significantly associated with the continuation of female circumcision." Feel free to read the whole paper; the paper is persuasive. Please add Somalia to that list of four, along with Egypt.
• On lede, the claim 'FGM is practised as a cultural ritual...', is something the cited UNICEF 2013 report never explicitly states or concludes. It is misleading, feels like WP:OR and WP:NPOV. Please point me to direct support for that conclusion in UNICEF 2013 report, or consider rephrasing it. Here are three suggestions on rephrasing it: (1) be silent about why, just write 'FGM is practiced...' (2) 'FGM is practised for a variety of reasons..., or (3) 'FGM is practiced as a ritual...'

I am in the process of reading the Female_genital_mutilation#Where_and_why_FGM_occurs section and all the cited sources. I will let you know any additional comments I have, to help improve this article. MissMargaretBlack (talk) 16:39, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Another citation to include, in FGM and Religion section, is this 2008 joint statement by UNICEF, WHO and 8 other UN agencies, page 6, column 2. It lists many sources, and would be a useful resource on 'FGM and religion' to readers of this article: Eliminating Female genital mutilation. MissMargaretBlack (talk) 16:47, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. The problem with the approach you suggest is that it would be mixing and matching different source types on the same point to achieve the result that an editor wants, rather than reading the key sources and reflecting what they say. The Abdi A Gele paper is a primary source based on a small urban sample, and the authors acknowledge that it has its limitations. Also, it says there is a belief that the milder forms are religiously required, but Type III is predominant in Somalia, so that would tend to work against the religious point.

I've added Egypt to "particularly Mali, Eritrea, Mauritania and Guinea." Regarding "cultural ritual," there are lots of academic sources for this, so I'll add some as I come across them. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:48, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

You make good points on Abdi Gele's paper - it is also a primary source. I recall reading something from UNICEF on reasons for FGM in Somalia, many months ago. If I find it, I will share.

Yes, mixing and matching sources is not a good idea. Let us not mix and match sources in the lede too, such as 'cultural ritual...'. Break the sentence if you do find support. Currently it seems you are claiming that to be UNICEF's conclusion. MissMargaretBlack (talk) 23:32, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Bear in mind that a religious ritual/practice is a subset of a cultural one, so wanting to add "and a religious ritual" looks odd for that reason too. SlimVirgin II (talk) 01:09, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Religious views article

I'd prefer not to get involved with editing the Religious views on female genital mutilation, but I hope you'll consider rechecking the sources there. There seems to be OR based on primary sources that others can't easily check. For example, you added:

Fatwas have been justified by Islamic scholars for a number of reasons, two major reasons being to fulfill makrumah granted by Mohammed, and to avoid falling into a taboo behavior. Some scholars suggest makrumah means that female circumcision adds to the man's pleasure. The majority of fatwas that permit or recommend Muslim female circumcision lean toward it being commendable or meritorious act on the part of the woman. Zakariyya Al-Birri argues it is better to carry out female circumcision, while Al-Qaradawi leaves the choice to parents according to their beliefs, in spite of the fact that he favours female circumcision, because it protects girls' morality "especially nowadays" claims Al-Qaradawi.

Similarly, Al-Azhar - one of the most respected universities of the Islamic World in Cairo - has issued a number of fatwas on female circumcision over its history. On June 23, 1951, a fatwa from Al-Azhar declared that it does not recognise the abandonment of female circumcision as an option, and that female circumcision is advisable because it curbs "nature". Moreover, this fatwa declared doctors' opinions on the disadvantages of female circumcision as irrelevant On January 29, 1981, another fatwa from Al-Azhar was authored and proclaimed by the Great Sheikh of Al-Azhar. The fatwa insisted that it is impossible to abandon the lessons of Mohammed in favor of the teaching of others, such as doctors, because the science of medicine evolves. The fatwa then recommended to the Islamic community that female circumcision is a duty, and the responsibility of female circumcision lies with the guardian of the girl.

The problem here is twofold. First, it seems to be OR based on primary sources that enwiki readers and editors would have difficulty finding and reading, so it fails verifiability. Second, there is a danger that readers (perhaps particularly those who have immigrated from practising to non-practising countries) will read this and think it confirms that they should carry out FGM on their daughters as a religious obligation. SlimVirgin II (talk) 00:17, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Please move this to the talk page of that article. It will mix up, distract and confuse the issues that this talk page should discuss. Why is #7 a primary source? - it is one of many peer reviewed articles that review and explain literature on this subject. I will take another look at 1-6, and reflect on your comments. Verifiability does not mean internet only; WP:V includes stuff in a good library. I will check the rules. MissMargaretBlack (talk) 01:19, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Why is #7 a primary source? - it is one of many peer reviewed articles that review and explain literature on this subject. I will take another look at 1-6, and reflect on your comments. Verifiability does not mean internet only; WP:V includes stuff in a good library. I will check the rules. MissMargaretBlack (talk) 01:19, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I have copied and moved this to the talk page of the correct article. I did it because a discussion of a separate wiki article here will distract and confuse the issues that this talk page should discuss. MissMargaretBlack (talk) 01:48, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I've restored it. I've posted it here because it's relevant here too, given that you want the article to emphasize the religious aspect and include a wider spread of the practice in Muslim countries. For example, here you used the Newcastle Safeguarding Children Board as a source to say that FGM is practised secretly in Jordan and several other countries in the Middle East. That's not a reliable source for this point, because how could they possibly know that? It does seem as though any source that supports the view (here and at the other article) is being pressed into service, rather than the article reflecting the key sources (the sources that specialists in FGM would agree are the key sources), whatever they say.

As for verifiability, it means that editors must be able to obtain the material without unreasonable efforts. These seem to be obscure texts in another language, with no indication of what they say, how to find them, and whether they're representative. That's why it's best to avoid primary sources, or at least heavy reliance on them, or any reliance for contentious material. If you are going to use non-English sources, you should add a translation of the supporting parts of the text to the footnotes; see WP:NOENG. SlimVirgin II (talk) 01:59, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

You allege, "you used the Newcastle Safeguarding Children Board as a source to say that FGM is practised secretly in Jordan and several other countries in the Middle East". If you check again, I never added 'secretly in Jordan' to this article; show me!! Please do not misquote me. You are not being fair, and are lecturing with prejudice. Further, please note and acknowledge the fact that I included three sources for what I did add: It is also practiced in other parts of the Middle East, Asia, and certain immigrant communities of Europe, North America, Australia and New Zealand. The other two sources were:

• A UN-WHO source that you and this article already has been using: An update on WHO’s work on female genital mutilation (FGM) R. Elise B. Johansen, World Health Organization, Progress Report (2011), page 1 and 2; Quote: "Incidences of FGM have been documented in some other countries, including India, Indonesia, Iraq, Israel, Malaysia, Thailand and the United Arab Emirates, but no national estimates have been made. In addition, the practice of FGM and its harmful consequences also concerns a growing number of women and girls in Europe, North America, Australia and New Zealand as a result of international migration."
• A Swiss Medical Weekly source, that once again this article has been using, long before I made my first edit here: Care of women with female genital mutilation/ cutting - A Review Jasmine Abdulcadira, Christiane Margairazb, Michel Boulvaina, Olivier Irion; Swiss Medical Weekly (Geneva), 2011; 140:w13137; doi: 10.4414/smw.2011.13137

All three combined say the same thing - that FGM is practiced in parts of the Middle East, Asia, and certain immigrant communities of Europe, North America, Australia and New Zealand. So, please stop misquoting me; please assume good faith, please be respectful of other editors and consider all the sources I cited. We may disagree on Newcastle Safeguarding Children Board as a source, but what is your issue with UN-WHO or Swiss Medical weekly in this case? MissMargaretBlack (talk) 02:31, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

The article already said it is practised in the Middle East, specifically in Iraqi Kurdistan and Yemen. You added a quote to a footnote that said: "FGM is a long established and open social custom in parts of Northern and Central Africa but is also practiced in secrecy in the Middle East with evidence found in Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iraq, Oman, United Arab Emirates and Iraqi Kurdistan." You sourced that to the Newcastle Safeguarding Children Board. That would never be an RS for this kind of point.

It's just one example of the problematic sourcing, along with the Middle East Forum and, in the other article, the Islamic texts. Both articles have to be based on reliable and appropriate secondary sources, and must reflect the majority and significant-minority specialist viewpoints, but not the tiny-minority ones. I'm raising the issue because I'd like to prepare the article for an FAC nomination, so it has to stick even closer to the sourcing policies than articles usually do. I'm also raising it because it's horrible to imagine that a girl somewhere might be cut because a parent read on Wikipedia that it's a religious requirement, and that ended up tipping the balance. SlimVirgin II (talk) 02:57, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

The figure, which you now have removed, was misleading. Thank you for removing it. My good faith effort to add a few words was an attempt to clarify that figure, with support from three sources.

Newcastle Safeguarding Children Board is not a blog or opinion or editorial website, it is a Government of UK funded entity, a sub-regional equivalent of UNICEF. I was willing to substitute it with a more reliable source, if you had asked for a better reliable source. Along with NSCB, I included UN-WHO and Swiss Medical Weekly, that say: FGM is practiced in parts of Middle East, Asia and certain immigrant communities. Similarly, Middle East Quarterly is a peer reviewed journal. The authors of that article are not fringe or tiny-minority. They have published their reviews in other peer reviewed WP:RS; UN-WHO and at least 5 UN agencies have cited them, if my memory serves me. Once again, I did not rely 100% on Middle East Quarterly source, I cited multiple sources in addition to it, including UNICEF. If UNICEF/UN-WHO/Swiss Medical Weekly and such sources are WP:RS when you use it, they are WP:RS when others use the same sources. No?

For the other article, I welcome a discussion on that article's talk page. Please note, as with above, I relied on multiple english language WP:RS sources with majority and significant-minority views. Nothing I added there is based on a single source, including a single Arabic language source. MissMargaretBlack (talk) 09:17, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

BTW, the coverage on FGM in Indonesia and Malaysia in this article is very weak. It does not reflect the majority and significant minority views relevant to Indonesia and Malaysia. Please consider reviewing the WP:RS publications on it, and including an appropriate summary here. MissMargaretBlack (talk) 09:20, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Picture Change

Should we change the main picture for this article? The section "Terminology" stresses why "female circumcision" is a non-preferred term nowadays, so it seems imprudent to have the main picture blatantly containing the phrase. --(Moshe) מֹשֶׁה‎ 18:35, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

We're limited in the images we can use because for the most part they need to be free. I've put out some feelers to people that I know have images, but with no luck so far. In the meantime I think the current lead image is good because it shows the opposition within countries that practise it and it illustrates the instruments that are used. I don't see the terminology as a problem. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:42, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

The article itself states that "[FGM] has since become the dominant term within the medical literature, stressing the severity of the procedures and differentiating them from male circumcision" (emphasis mine). Having one terminology as the main image while immediately after stating that that terminology is (a) medically archaic, and (b) associated with a procedure from which it supposedly differs, is somewhat discordant. The Kapchorwa picture can go under "History and opposition". As such, I think File:FGC_Types.svg would be better suited as the main image. It's far more relevant. --(Moshe) מֹשֶׁה‎ 05:28, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

FGM has tremendously important connections to society and culture, and a significant portion of the reliable sources from authoritative international bodies (WHO in particular) covering the topic focus on campaigns to eliminate FGM. Line drawings wouldn't touch on those important aspects at all. The wording in the billboard is a minor issue; the important thing is how the image acknowledges the important societal aspects. I think the existing image is better than the suggested line drawing. Zad68 13:56, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Moshe, regarding this material, please consider adding anything that's well-sourced to Religious views on female genital mutilation instead, which is the dedicated page for that. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Islamic Views on FGM

I was wondering why my edits were removed from the "FGM and religion" section. As of now, this section is only advocating Islamic views against it, yet Indonesia (the world's largest Muslim country, with 200 million) and Malaysia (17 million Muslims) are both strong advocates. Additionally, it seems imprudent to have the preview section only talking about Muslims against it, rather than this (very large) number of Muslims who support it. Aren't we censoring this by not discussing a significant contributor to FGM? The fact that there is already "a dedicated article for this material" is not a good enough reason to remove it; there is already a dedicated article to the Cairo statement, but we still include that. Also, my source for the Indonesian Ulema Council (Indonesia's top Muslim clerical body) is 2013, which is very recent, and more recent than the 2007 Cairo convention - and not all Muslims follow Al-Azhar.
Additionally, this subsection links to khitan, which is Muslim male circumcision (female is "khafdh", which doesn't have a Wikipedia article). The subsection should link to Religious views on female genital mutilation. I'm at least changing that.
If there's no disagreement, I'll revert my edit. Southeast Asian Islam is a big contributor to FGM, so I think it is justified to at least mention it. --(Moshe) מֹשֶׁה‎ 05:31, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

The religious views article was spun off years ago, so any religious detail should be added there.

In particular it makes no sense to add a lot of material here about Malaysia and Indonesia. [1] According to UNICEF's latest report, there is no nationally representative data available for those countries, and they're not among the countries in which FGM is concentrated. The Jakarta Population Council studies that you cited involved a small number of people. Five of the sources you cited were news sources. One of them (reporting the view of the Indonesian Council of Ulema) essentially says what the section said before your edit. In addition, I'm trying to prepare the article for FAC, so the reliance on news sources has to be reduced. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:49, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I've just noticed that the text you added to this article was copy-pasted from a section added to Religious views on female genital mutilation by MissMargaretBlack on 3 October. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:03, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Question about "mainstream"

Hi Moshe, the edit you made – "Mainstream Judaism requires male circumcision, but does not allow it for girls" – implies that some forms of Judaism do allow FGM. That wouldn't be correct, as the source says. Also, I'm not sure what is meant by "mainstream" in this context. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:41, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Arabic Wikipedia's version of this article

ar:Female genital mutilation
It is a mess.

Now I know this is a problem of another Wikipedia but I could use the help of the editors here.

Let me clarify some things; the article is pro-FGM, or rather "female circumcision," its title in the Arabic version.

The article keeps on referring to views and opinions – which are stated as facts – that are contradictory to the current consensus of the reality of such practice. Nevertheless, as I was thinking of editing the article I thought what the editors wrote might be considered arguably at least a "point of view." HOWEVER, by the end of the page I found a section referring to the health benefits of female genital mutilation! I checked the sources and they were two obscure books that I think one of them is Saudi. I did not find any information relating to the other book.

For the sake of clarification, I will translate some of what this section entails:

"Dr. Nagashi Ali Ibrahim and Dr. Ahmed Mohammed Kanaan mentioned in the Theological (Fiqhi) Medical Encyclopedia that some of the reasons for desiring and demanding female circumcision include that if a female is left uncircumcised, she becomes very lustful, more desiring of men, because leaving her this way flares her sexual desire which might make her fall into sinful behavior, an example of which is the prevalence of obscenities among non-Muslim women, which is not the case with the Muslim ones. In addition to the resulting abundance of the secretions that are in this "subject," (referring to the vagina) which results in a foul smell. And the women who are uncircumcised are always confused and have a sharp temper, disordered "strayed" thinking, and an angry mood."

I have done my best to stay as close to the text as possible.

As a result, I decided to delete the entire section because of the sci-fi it contains. However, due to the massive amount of edits on Arabic Wikipedia from pro and anti whatever topic that may come to one's mind, almost any edit needs to approved by an administrator. Needless to say, after 3 months of waiting for this edit to be "reviewed," it was reverted by a Wikipedia administrator.

What can I do now to manage the removal of such information? Is there any way?

Mohamed 03:11, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

It appears the content you removed was restored, probably by a bot. Can you put up an wp:edit request on the talk page? Add good references supporting the harm of FGM. Does WHO have an Arabic translation? That might be a good start. A wp:requests for comment might bring in others. Open a high level discussion somewhere such as a wp:Village Pump equivalent? You may need to convince a number of people about the harm FGM causes. You might want to assess who might be involved in such a discussion and what their opinions are. At the very least, you might be able to add a opposing view to Ibrahim's. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 17:18, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Jim. I am going to try and do that. Mohamed 14:02, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

In line Original Research tag

The lede claims 'FGM is practised as a cultural ritual...'. The cited UNICEF 2013 report never explicitly states or concludes this. It is WP:OR and violates neutrality in the lede. According to wikipedia WP:OR policy: Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the source, or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source.

Please identify page number of the UNICEF report where UNICEF makes that conclusion, or revise this appropriately. I am holding off from using a Template:OR, for now. MissMargaretBlack (talk) 14:47, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Please aim for collaboration—there is no need for your first post on a new topic to preach about OR (you can't seriously think that anyone here is unaware of standard operating procedures?). Why not use a heading that refers to the issue rather than some irrelevant tag? On the issue, did you see the reference which includes: "That it is practised as a cultural ritual, see, for example, Julie Cwikel, Social Epidemiology: Strategies for Public Health Activism, Columbia University Press, 2006, p. 423."? Johnuniq (talk) 01:24, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Category:FGM victims and Category:Anti-FGM activists

Category:FGM victims and Category:Anti-FGM activists have been nominated to Categories for Discussion. Anybody interested in commenting, for or against, can do so here. __ E L A Q U E A T E 14:24, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

the United Nations and FGM/C

Published in 2008 “Progress for Children: A Report Card on Maternal Mortality” touches upon the performative act of Female Genital Mutilation/ Cutting, or FGM/C, as one of several contributing factors to high maternal mortality rates. The report asserts that FGM/C can have fatal ramifications during childbirth, for both mother and child, and furthermore, that such can drastically increase the risk of such adverse incidents as prolonged or obstructed labor and post-partum hemorrhage (confirmed in the 2006 World Health Organization journal paper “Female Genital Mutilation and Obstetric Outcome: WHO Collaborative Prospective Study in Six African Countries”). The report goes on to claim that death rates are higher among infants of those whose mothers who have undergone FGM/C, and that above mentioned risks only increase with the severity of the mutilation suffered (i.e. FGM I, II, or III). Although it is not explicitly stated within the text that the United Nations principally disagrees with the practice of FGM/C, by thoroughly examining the report, most notably the conclusion and the language or rhetoric used to reach that conclusion, it is clear that this is in fact the case. The report definitively states that “FGM/C is a reflection of gender inequality and discrimination, a form of violence against girls”. The language that the author chose to use to describe this particular set of circumstances, i.e. gender inequality, discrimination, and violence, speaks volumes. To break it down, those who perpetuate discrimination or violence, or at least wish to, endeavor to do so inadvertently, rather than consciously. By informing the public that FGM/C is a gender discriminatory practice, the United Nations delegitimizes FGM/C, and those who preform such castration. It is clear that the United Nations is in opposition of FGM/C because no one works to overturn what he or she has worked so hard to advance. Sarahsmith328 (talk) 23:09, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

References

I've declined this edit request as it is not clear to me exactly what is wanted. I guess the above is text proposed as an addition to the article? Where? The text is not suitable for an article at Wikipedia because it appears to be advancing an argument, whereas articles here have to be a due summary of material from reliable sources. Johnuniq (talk) 23:25, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Student editing

A student, Aamoab2, has added an essay to the article as part of a course, and the student and tutor, ProfMurphy from the University of Illinois Springfield, are reverting Doc James and myself. [2][3][4]

I'm opening this to request that they come to the talk page to propose changes, rather than adding them over objections. There are multiple problems with the additions, including problems with the writing, the sourcing (primary sources), UNDUE, and the fact that much of the material is already in the article. Notes have been left for the tutor here and for the student here. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:30, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Agree completely. This is concerning. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:03, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Issues with this text [5] include:

1. We do not provide linkouts to sites like this [6]
2. This is a primary source [7] We should be using secondary sources per WP:RS. As is this [8]
3. Please provide PMIDs for journals
4. This content is about prevalence and should be there, maybe as a subpage? Prevalence of female genital mutilation by country

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:24, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

In addition just about everything is already in the article. There's no point in explaining again what the medical complications are, as though they are necessarily different in Europe. Perhaps it could be added to Prevalence of female genital mutilation by country, or to a new article Female genital mutilation in Europe. Adding it here makes the article too long and repetitive. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:36, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Agree, would not create a new article though but merge it into the prevalence one. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:41, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. I have some serious concerns about the wholesale deletion of a legitimate, if novice, contributor's additions to a Wikipedia page. This would seem to violate the spirit of crowd-sourced information that Wikipedia embodies. The comments above (finally!) make some substantive claims about the contribution. I will address them in turn:

Linkout to sites; in fact many, MANY Wikipedia entries linkout to NGO sites as external links; I'm not sure who the "we" refers to in this claim. Myself and my student are also part of "we" that is Wikipedia, are "we" not? Or was there some initiation ritual we missed?

Primary sources: articles in peer-reviewed journals are NOT, according to Wikipedia's own definition, "primary sources." Unless the authors themselves have participated directly in an act of FGM, their scholarship is not "primary." The articles referenced employ qualitative research methods to study and analyze a social phenomenon. This degree of separation from the FGM phenomenon qualifies the articles as "secondary sources".

PMIDs: I do not know what this is but I doubt its absence justifies wholesale deletion of an author's work. Did anyone first consider providing this info before deleting the associated text? In other words, did you improve or just negate someone else's earnest effort? Construction rather than destruction?

Prevalence: this seems like a legitimate concern that I will leave to the student author to address, as is the constructive suggestion that some of the additions are better suited to a different entry. ProfMurphy (talk) 22:56, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is much more than a series of crowdsourced web pages, and each edit has to actually improve the article (I don't mean literally "every" edit, but if an editor performs a sequence of edits in half an hour, and if the result is not an improvement, other editors must revert the edits). Any user can work in their sandbox, for example User:Aamoab2/sandbox. If wanted, they can start by copying wikitext from the article, using an edit summary like this (to attribute authorship of the text):

copy from [[Female genital mutilation]]

That will display in the history of the sandbox as a link:

copy from Female genital mutilation

There is a little more to it (categories should be disabled)—try WP:HELPDESK, but that can be ignored as a bot will eventually fix it.

There is an enormous conflict between established editors who need to maintain articles and educational institutions who are attempting to get free tutoring. There are potential benefits for both sides, and many established editors are happy to help on the assumption that the encyclopedia may benefit. However, an article cannot be turned into an essay; there are plenty of free websites where people can post whatever they want. Johnuniq (talk) 23:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• Hi ProfMurphy, if you need to grade your student's contributions they still exist in this version of the article. Having them reverted, for all the reasons mentioned above, is not unusual but that doesn't mean the edits can't still be "seen" by clicking that link. Hope this is helpful. Edits can and are frequently reverted if they don't adhere to our (Wikipedia's) guidelines and policies, which are quite stringent for medical articles - for obvious reasons. Victoria (talk) 23:39, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
• I resent the implication that anyone in this instance is attempting to get "free tutoring." My student has engaged in a semester long research project and is attempting to make a substantive, scholarly contribution to Wikipedia. I have discussed with her the issues raised above and will leave it to her to resolve. I am aware of the preservation of content in the history pages of entries (for the purposes of grading).ProfMurphy (talk) 18:05, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

This is not correct "Primary sources: articles in peer-reviewed journals are NOT, according to Wikipedia's own definition, "primary sources." " They are indeed primary sources and we are requesting that you and your students use secondary sources such as review articles.

One can look up what a PMID is. We also have advice at WP:MEDHOW Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:29, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your perspective. I will rely on my PhD in a historical discipline from a top 10 U.S. research university to guide me in what constitutes a primary and secondary source. Unless the authors of said articles are themselves conducting FGM or are the survivors of FGM, the scholarly articles are secondary sources. They are one degree removed from the primary sources, which are the persons directly involved in the activity. They are not written at the time of the event nor are they written by the direct participants. The primary source here is the social activity of FGM, it's perpetrators and victims. The issue of "peer review" is irrelevant. According to your criteria, almost all the sources supporting the FGM entry would be disqualified as "primary." Why are they not being delted wholesale? Clearly something else is at work here. ProfMurphy (talk) 00:39, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Look at the pubmed search for "female genital mutilation" [9]. Notice the little tab to the left that says reviews, click on it. It should take you here [10]. Reviews are secondary sources. Maybe I should be saying "please use review articles" as this may be clearer. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I have decided to move my post to the Prevalence of female genital mutilation by country page under the Prevalence section.Aamoab2 (talk) 22:32, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

The prevalence article is about 'prevalence'. Wikipedia discourages two conflicting duplicate articles on the same topic. Anything about prevalence of FGM belongs there. General discussion, history, reasons, health effects of FGM on women, efforts on FGM, etc belongs here. In addition to suggestions above, you may want to start your own wikipedia article on notable aspects of FGM, or consider WP:DISPUTE for further guidance. MissMargaretBlack (talk) 20:03, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Not exactly. What we do is we have main articles that give an overview and than subarticles that go into greater details. I have no great concern with Aamoab2 expanding the subarticle. Check out the article on obesity were we do this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:19, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Are you suggesting the creation of redundant or conflicting articles? POV or redundant content forking is not consistent with community agreed guidelines. See WP:CFORK. Yes, WP:SPINOFF is fine. MissMargaretBlack (talk) 21:22, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

No i am suggesting creating a sub article per WP:SPINOFF. Anyway I think you have done a nice job summerizing what the student added [11] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:34, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

FGM and non-Islamic religions

The article says, that "FGM ... is found only within or near Muslim communities". It also clarifies, (albeit in the past tense only), that "Outside Islam, FGM has been practised by the Christian Copts in Egypt and Sudan, and by the Beta Israel of Ethiopia."

This is misleading, because followers of various African indigenous (traditional) religions practise FGM as well. The examples include Maasai or Himba people, who are certainly not Muslims.

I suggest rephrasing, I borrow the words from this article:

"FGM is not practiced exclusively by followers of one specific religion and predates both Chrisitianity and Islam by centuries. In the FGM risk countries it is practised by followers of all denominations: Christians, Moslims, animists and non-believers and followers of indigenous (traditional) religion (e.g. Maasai, Himba). The practice seems to be very extensive among the Muslim population in the FGM practicing countries and as such has acquired a religious dimension."

Then I would continue with the current text from wikipedia:

"There is no mention of FGM in the Bible or Quran. Although its origins are pre-Islamic, it became associated with Islam because of that religion's focus on female modesty and chastity, and is predominantly found within or near Muslim communities"...

--SlovakBarbie (talk) 12:39, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

The source, Gerry Mackie (1996), says: "FGM is found only in or adjacent to Islamic groups," not that it is practised only by Islamic groups. We can't replace an academic source with the website you linked to. Also, it's better to direct any material about the religious aspects to Religious views on female genital mutilation. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:08, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

New review

Perron, L (2013 Nov). "Female genital cutting". Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology Canada : JOGC = Journal d'obstetrique et gynecologie du Canada : JOGC. 35 (11): 1028–45. PMID 24246404. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:06, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Documentaries

I think there should be a section for documentaries under resources. Has anyone discussed this previously? There's quite a few out there (for ex. A Handful of Ash) South19 (talk) 12:36, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Apparently in September of 2013 SlimVirgin edited it out because the section was too long. I guess it's ok without a section. --South19 (talk) 13:53, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, sorry to be slow to respond. I only removed them because the FR section seemed a bit long, but I don't mind if you restore some or all of them. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:08, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

clarification in lead

The article should point out it is a type of genital mutilation with links to all forms of this subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.221.174.27 (talk) 20:48, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Is there any reason why we don't have photos of a circumcised/uncircumcised vagina?

Wikipedia is not censored. ScienceApe (talk) 22:06, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

In addition to WP:NOTCENSORED there is WP:GRATUITOUS. Specifically, "Offensive material should be used only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available. Especially with respect to images, editors frequently need to choose between alternatives with varying degrees of potential offensiveness. When multiple options are equally effective at portraying a concept, the most offensive options should not be used merely to 'show off' possibly offensive materials. Images containing offensive material that is extraneous, unnecessary, irrelevant, or gratuitous are not preferred over non-offensive ones in the name of opposing censorship. Rather, they should be judged based solely on other policies for content inclusion." If there is a less offensive way to convey the encyclopedic information, that's preferred. Zad68 03:19, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

NOTCENSORED is not relevant, and I don't think GRATUITOUS is a key factor—the problem is the lack of a suitable image. I saw the OP when it was posted but did not respond due to its spectactular misuse of NOTCENSORED, and because no sensible discussion can follow an introduction like that. Johnuniq (talk) 03:34, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

John oh yeah, WP:NOTCENSORED has got to be the most often-misused shortcut... See WP:CGTW #12 if you haven't already. Thought I'd give it a shot at trying to help correct it here. Zad68 03:45, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a useful link. Apart from venting, I was wanting to say that I don't think any productive discussion is going to occur in this section, and my comment about NOTCENSORED was for the OP. If someone has a proposal for an image, I would be interested to hear it. Johnuniq (talk) 05:12, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Just so you know, I accused Zad of bias and agenda pushing on the circumcision article, so he is just contradicting me for the sake of it. I assumed the only reason why there's no image of a circumcised vagina was due to people not wanting to show images of it due to their own sensitivities, but my initial question was asking why. If that's not the case, then I withdraw that rebuttal, but I do think there should be a photo of both. ScienceApe (talk) 22:01, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

No, I think you are right, showing an intimate picture of someone who has been disfigured due to FGM is unnecessary. I think this photo or something similar but not the disfigured genetalia. http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-SjLG-57gKXY/UYN0Ff05KvI/AAAAAAAABCw/Atp9kGKzXkk/s1600/fgm-girl.jpg31jetjet (talk) 05:53, 10 February 2014 (UTC)31jetjet

Interarticle or otherwise navigational problems

Female circumcision redirects to Female genital mutilation, the former of which contains some Wikitechnic messages, and the latter of which immediately outlines the World Health Organization's information about the subject, yet while there are some references to other tissue-removing modifications of the external genital region of the female body, which could be thought of or confused with "circumcision," they appear much later in the article (that is, in the "criticism of the opposition" section, of all places). As mentioned therein, there are modifications of the body, or more specifically elective surgeries, such as clitoral hood reduction and labiaplasty, stark contrasts to the WHO categorizations of FGM. The navbox Template:Female genital procedures is present, but navboxes are sometimes terse in a not so insightful way (or disputes may exist as to which ones deserve to appear or not to appear by default in collapsed form, in a given article). As well, etymology is or seems to be cleverly evaded. Why? Furthermore, how can this be considered a "good article"? -- Lindberg 05:08, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Nussbaum quote in "Reasons" - check source

“ Uncircumcised women are seen as highly sexualized; philosopher Martha Nussbaum argues that the practice presupposes women to be "whorish and childish." ”

It's not clear whose opinion it is (local community's or Ms. Nussbaums) and whether it's referring to performing or not performing FGM. Can someone check the source?

In case it's her interpretation it should perhaps be moved to "growth of opposition". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loard (talk • contribs) 16:53, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

It has been changed to:

“ According to philosopher Martha Nussbaum, uncircumcised women are seen as highly sexualized, in that the practice presupposes women to be "whorish and childish." ”

There might be a mixture of fact and opinion at play here, but the only way to know for sure is to check the source. The idea that a presupposition about women being specifically "whorish and childish" exists reflects opinion, whereas "uncircumcised women are seen as highly sexualized" might be a matter of fact, but only if statistical surveying (of primary sources), peer-reviewed analysis thereof and publication of the evidence has been undertaken by people (the secondary sources) making the claim. -- Lindberg 04:09, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

citation formatting

not understanding the benefit of this recent edit. listing PMIDs & DOIs seems far superior than just a URL that may later break.  —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 22:38, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Edit style is determined by the primary editors of the article which in this case is Slim. The most important thing is consistency. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:46, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

health benefits

Studies in Tanzania indicated a 50% reduction in HIV infection in circumcised women. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32XrHLZaHIw&index=5&list=UU2DG1FmhcbeBmVgOhhjZhog — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.214.26.183 (talk) 12:25, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I doubt it. FGM can make having sex painful causing them to abstain. Not having sex is a good way to avoid HIV. Using FGM to encourage women to not have sex is obscene. Youtube is not considered a reliable source; it is classified as self published. Anybody can make and post on Youtube, so it does not have any authority. You would need to supply something published on a peer reviewed medical journal such as Lancet or by the World Health Organization. See WP:MEDRS for locating acceptable sources. Jim1138 (talk) 21:59, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

The issue is that these stats exist and are being used to promote FGM. All references to genital cutting as a prophylactic are used to support FGM even if they don't pertain to girls. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.214.26.183 (talk) 04:18, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

"Stallings et al. (2005) reported that, in Tanzanian women, the risk of HIV among women who had undergone FGC was roughly half that of women who had not; the association remained significant after adjusting for region, household wealth, age, lifetime partners, union status, and recent ulcer.

"Female circumcision and HIV infection in Tanzania: for better or for worse? (3rd IAS conference on HIV pathogenesis and treatment)". International AIDS Society.

Kanki et al. reported that, in Senegalese prostitutes, women who had undergone FGC had a significantly decreased risk of HIV-2 infection when compared to those who had not.

Kanki P, M'Boup S, Marlink R, et al. "Prevalence and risk determinants of human immunodeficiency virus type 2 (HIV-2) and human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) in west African female prostitutes". Am. J. Epidemiol. 136 (7): 895-907. PMID — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.214.26.183 (talk) 23:15, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 July 2014

To add extensive resources on FGM on web: http://www.mbali.info/boardindex.htm#FGM and http://www.mbali.info/docs.htm#GENDER and http://www.mbali.info/oldarchives.htm.

Moebali (talk) 02:40, 17 July 2014 (UTC) Moe Bali @moebali@live.com

•  Not done - Personal, political advocacy webpages with asymmetric repositories of links. Middayexpress (talk) 14:09, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Inaccurate statement

It should say regarding Type 1a "rarely if ever performed alone IN AFRICA" since the citation is for SUDAN specifically, not the entire world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JBauer242 (talk • contribs) 17:55, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Request for a source

Middayexpress, in case this gets lost in the above, can you post here a good source for this:

In 2013, UNICEF in conjunction with the Somali authorities reported that the FGM prevalence rate among 1 to 14 year old girls in Somalia's autonomous northern Puntland and Somaliland regions had dropped to 25% following a social and religious awareness campaign.

I'd like to add it to the prevalence section, but if we're citing UNICEF, we need to cite it directly to them. I've taken a look but can't find it in their 2013 report.

The source you added was the Jakarta Post/AP, citing a "survey released by UNICEF and the governments of Somaliland and Puntland" ("Somalia: Female genital mutilation down". Associated Press via The Jakarta Post. 16 April 2013.). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:04, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Ok. Middayexpress (talk) 21:42, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I found something on page 5 of the UNICEF report:

In Somalia, questions on FGM/C were included in the 2011 MICS conducted separately in the Northeast Zone (also referred to as Puntland) and Somaliland. Data are preliminary and have not been used in this report since they do not allow for the calculation of national figures.

So there is a 2011 Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey that is regarded as preliminary, and that we don't have direct access to (that I know of). If you can find this survey and/or some really good news sources, we can consider adding something to the prevalence section, though UNICEF's view of the data as preliminary perhaps means we shouldn't. It will depend on how good the sources are. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:34, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the one. It's already pretty well-sourced, from the Associated Press. Reuters and the Boston Globe are alternatives [12] [13]. Middayexpress (talk) 22:47, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

The Boston Globe is the same AP story. News reports about FGM often talk these things up, so we really need to see the original report, or at least the UNICEF press release about it. I'll take a look around for it, and if you could do the same that would be helpful. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:27, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

You said or some really good news sources i.e. the AP & Reuters. Middayexpress (talk) 23:30, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

They're fine for straightforward news, but not for something like this. We need context, details, analysis, authority. So what we need is the original UNICEF report, or at least someone who explains it in detail (e.g. UNICEF's own press release about it). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:33, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Undue

Hi Middayexpress, I see you restored this edit. The material about Ahmed is unsourced that I can see, and would anyway be UNDUE. We can't include a reference to everyone who has campaigned against FGM (along with a photograph), so the photos in that section are limited to people whose influence in the 1970s is acknowledged internationally and by academics.

I'm trying to prepare the article (very slowly) for an FAC nomination. That means the article has to stick to the policies, and the writing has to be tight and well-sourced. I'll be removing the Ahmed material again shortly, but I wanted to leave this here by way of explanation. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:41, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi SlimVirgin. The material on Hodan Ahmed was/is sourced to the National Democratic Institute, where she serves as a Senior Program Officer [14]. She's also not just any random anti-FGM campaigner; she is the primary official in Somalia who helped secure the constitutional provision banning the procedure. Please see below. Middayexpress (talk) 15:10, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Hodan Ahmed

The information on FGM-related legislative change in Somalia (specifically, the official banning of the procedure in 2012) led by the Somali parliamentary consultant Hodan Ahmed was for some reason reduced to a single sentence, and her name and image were also removed. The leftover, abridged paragraph was then joined with another unrelated paragraph on the UN General Assembly. I've adjusted this to match the treatment of Egypt (another high prevalence area) in the same section: it has its own paragraph and that country's primary driver of FGM change, Nawal El Saadawi, is correspondingly shown. I've also joined the blurb on Somaliland with the Somalia material, as the latter region is a Federal Member State of Somalia. Additionally, I've noted the significant drop in the FGM prevalence rates in Somalia's Puntland and Somaliland regions. Middayexpress (talk) 15:10, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I see you've added it for a third time. Could you gain consensus for this, please? As always, it's a question of sources. The three women with photographs in that section (including Nawal El Saadawi) are known internationally, and are discussed in multiple academic sources. They are there because they worked against FGM before anyone else did, in the 1970s. They are the pioneers.

Against this, Ahmed's work is from 2010, and the source is a press release from the group she works for, the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (NDI), writing about itself:

Ahmed’s desire was to see women activists and women parliamentarians come together to advance the causes they both supported. And that led her to NDI, where she has worked since 2010 to support Somalia’s legislative strengthening program. In addition to helping women parliamentarians master the basic requirements of being a legislator in Somalia’s new parliament, the program worked to bring the parliamentarians together with civil society organizations to advocate for women’s issues. Those efforts helped lead to a constitutional provision banning female genital mutilation.

The parent article can't host a photograph of everyone who has recently worked to oppose FGM in individual countries. Prevalence of female genital mutilation by country might be somewhere it would work, or a separate article about FGM in Somalia. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:46, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Understood. However, Hodan Ahmed is indeed the principal figure responsible for the new anti-FGM legislation in Somalia (which, like Egypt, is among the higher prevalence countries). She established the Somali Women Parliamentary Association, which lobbied for the law. Her leading role was noted at the recent global Girls' Summit in London, where she represented Somalia ("In 2012 Somalia adopted a new Constitution officially banning FGM thanks to political activist Hodan Ahmed, who, with other Somali women, lobbied long and hard for the law" [15]). Saadawi may be more pertinent in this regard in Egypt, but not in Somalia, which is discussed in that same "growth of opposition" section. Also, the page has a file of ordinary Samburu girls who are about to undergo the procedure, in addition to the philosopher Martha Nussbaum whose work doesn't directly involve anti-FGM campaigning, so this shouldn't be a problem. Middayexpress (talk) 17:25, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

That section is about the growth of the opposition (per the header), the historical growth. The change of law in Egypt is mentioned there in detail only because it was a watershed. The practice began there, the opposition began there, and finally it became illegal there in 2008.

The photographs in that section are of the pioneers. It looks odd suddenly to see an image in that section of someone from 2010, with no sources to support notability. This is the paragraph I'm requesting that you gain consensus for:

Hodan Ahmed secured a constitutional provision banning FGM in Somalia.

In August 2012, Somalia adopted a new Federal Constitution officially banning FGM. The provision was secured by Somali parliamentary consultant Hodan Ahmed, who through her work as Senior Program Officer at the National Democratic Institute, had lobbied for the law. In 2013, UNICEF in conjunction with the Somali authorities reported that the FGM prevalence rate among 1 to 14 year old girls in Somalia's autonomous northern Puntland and Somaliland regions had dropped to 25% following a social and religious awareness campaign. In the latter region, awareness raising was led by pioneering campaigner Edna Adan Ismail.

The drop in prevalence attributed to UNICEF in 2013 has to be sourced to UNICEF, not the Jakarta Post/AP. I've just looked through the 2013 UNICEF report and can't find it there, so a page number would help. Also, it would belong in the prevalence section. The awareness-raising sentence is also inappropriate in the "growth of opposition" section. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:43, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

The section mentions the growth in opposition right down to 2013, so her presence there isn't particularly odd. Also, you suggested above that the NDI piece on Hodan Ahmed was problematic because it was a primary source, but are now asking for a primary source from the UN on the drop in prevalence rates instead of the Associated Press. I can supply either, but we need to be clear on what the parameters are. (As an aside, I note you believe, like Seligman, that the practice likely originated in Egypt). Middayexpress (talk) 17:57, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

We bring the paragraph up to date as of 2013, but not for individual countries. Again, the photographs and the women highlighted were all pioneers from the 1970s, and their prominence is supported by multiple, academic sources.

As for primary sources, the 194-page UNICEF report contains the most up-to-date figures about prevalence, so it's regarded as authoritative, and I would say it's a secondary source in this context. But regardless, it can't be compared to a press release. If the only source showing someone's notability were a press release from UNICEF, that wouldn't be a good-enough source either – especially if that person worked for them! SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:02, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

If the issue is that we should have another photograph of an African campaigner, it would make more sense to include one of Edna Adan Ismail. She spoke out in 1977 and is mentioned in the Hosken report. There's a good photograph of her in the article about her, but I'd want to check the licence before adding it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:55, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

An African campaigner is not a problem because Saadawi is herself African; Egypt is also mentioned up to 2008. The practice may have originated there, but the higher prevalence rate of infibulation is today in Somalia (though this is rapidly changing). Perhaps if growth in opposition to FGM had peaked in the 1970s then it would no longer be relevant. That said, I think the recent developments in Somalia that are noted above also need to be mentioned given its relative commonality there, unlike the UK. If we just state that Somalia has a ~98% prevalence rate and leave it at that (i.e. without pointing out that the rate has significantly dropped in the northern half of the country since anti-FGM legislation and campaigning were enacted), readers will be left with a misimpression as to the actual status of FGM in the territory. Also, Edna Adan Ismail is not a significant figure in anti-FGM campaigning much less legislation outside of her Somaliland region. Though she is mentioned in the old Hosken Report (as I believe is also the existence of excised mummies and the practice of infibulation in ancient Arabia), she played no role in securing the anti-FGM law; that would be Hodan Ahmed. Regarding the UNICEF report, it is a primary source because UNICEF itself collected the prevalence rates. It therefore can be compared to the NDI press release since Hodan Ahmed works for the NDI itself. I already linked above to another source establishing that Ms. Ahmed is the principal driver behind anti-FGM legislation in Somalia, and represented the nation in this capacity during this summer's global summit. Ahmed also discussed her successful campaign to secure the anti-FGM law at the Madeleine K. Albright Luncheon, where she was a guest speaker [16]. Middayexpress (talk) 20:31, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I can't see any need to highlight Somalia in that section. Can you post here a good source for the rates having dropped in certain areas? If that's correct, we can add it to the prevalence section.

Again, the paragraphs about the 1970s – beginning "Egyptian physician Nawal El Saadawi was one of the first ..." and the photographs of the women, are about that period – the Hosken report and before it. Lots of people started speaking out after Hosken, but it is interesting to note who did it before that.

Edna Adan Ismail was a significant figure in the 1970s in this field, one of the first to speak out. I'll add more sources to that effect. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:52, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

The section is ostensibly not only about the 1970s, but about the general growth in opposition to the practice. Edna Adan Ismail was also not a significant figure for Somalia as a whole on this issue, much less elsewhere. Today, her work is restricted to her Somaliland region, as I've explained. Again, it's Hodan Ahmed who is the principal driver of anti-FGM campaigning and legislation in Somalia as a whole. It's her that represents Somalia worldwide on this issue ("In 2012 Somalia adopted a new Constitution officially banning FGM thanks to political activist Hodan Ahmed, who, with other Somali women, lobbied long and hard for the law" [17]). Also, how do you feel about relaying what Hosken Report (1994) notes about the existence of excised mummies and the practice of infibulation in ancient Arabia? Here is a snippet:

"When excavating Egyptian graves, archaeologists found mummies that were excised - so state several medical publications from Egypt and the Sudan. Some archaeologists claim that the mummies were so well preserved that not only clitoridectomy could be established but infibulation as well. Others deny the mummies were infibulated, but it is generally agreed that excision was practiced already in ancient Egypt by the ruling class. For instance, in a general discussion of female circumcision, Dr. A. Huber, who worked for many years in Ethiopia, states that in a female Egyptian mummy of the 16th century B.C., signs of excision were detected. Dr. Shandall, in his study of female circumcision and infibulation in the Sudan, states that "A large number of circumcised females were found among the mummies of ancient Egyptians, but only a few infibulations were encountered." "Infibulation was practiced by ancient Arabs long before Islam", relates Dr. Shandall; and he adds that this was done to protect shepherd girls against likely male attacks, while they were out alone minding the sheep." Middayexpress (talk) 21:42, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Hodan Ahmed isn't notable enough for a photograph in that section. I'm trying to prepare the article for FAC. That photograph, and the text about her, would jump out as UNDUE and poorly sourced.

Re: mummies, Hosken isn't a reliable source for this point. There are academic sources in the article that explain what's known about FGM and mummmies. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:03, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Fine. We can leave the Hodan Ahmed and other individual country material out of the section, just as long as it is clear that it is her who is the principal anti-FGM authority in Somalia as a whole. My only remaining requests are that the change in prevalence rates in Somalia's two northern regions is noted (as discussed below), and also that the historical testimony on the practice of infibulation in the Arabian peninsula is mentioned somewhere alongside the ancient Egyptian origin for the custom in general. Middayexpress (talk) 22:18, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Other issues

Thanks, I'm glad we're agreed about that one issue. Re: prevalence in Somalia, I'd like to add that to the prevalence section. That currently says of downward trends:

In 2013 UNICEF reported a downward trend in some countries. In Kenya and Tanzania women aged 45–49 years were three times more likely to have been cut than girls aged 15–19, and the rate among adolescents in Benin, Central African Republic, Iraq, Liberia and Nigeria had dropped by almost half.

The 2013 UNICEF report doesn't say anything about Somalia in that regard that I can find; if you can find a page number that would help. The press release that accompanied the UNICEF report about the downward figures said: "In Somalia, Guinea, Djibouti and Egypt, FGM/C remains almost universal, with more than 9 out of 10 women and girls aged 15-49 being cut. And there has been no discernible decline in countries such as Chad, Gambia, Mali, Senegal, Sudan or Yemen." [18]

Re: "historical testimony on the practice of infibulation in the Arabian peninsula is mentioned somewhere alongside the ancient Egyptian origin for the custom in general," I don't know what that refers to. There are academic sources discussing the origin in the article. If you have other academic sources, please post them here and I will read them. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:28, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

No prob. That's a different UNICEF paper, though; the one that the AP refers to is on Somalia alone. Regarding the historical testimony on the practice of infibulation in the Arabian peninsula, there's a link below to one such study from Guy Pieters and Albert B. Lowenfels [19]. Middayexpress (talk) 22:38, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

What would you like to use that article to say? (I'm about to post a revision that removes that courtesy link from the Pieters article, by the way. I'm mentioning it in case you think I removed it because you posted it.) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:51, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

This, from Guy Pieters and Albert B. Lowenfels: "Since early Arabian writers do mention infibulation and clitoridectomy, it seems likely that infibulation originated in southern Arabia and from there spread to Africa. For hundreds of years these two regions, although separated by the Gulf of Aden, have had close contact so that the custom could have spread along well-established trade route. High mountains and an almost impenetrable desert would have prevented this strange procedure from spreading into northern Arabia and the Yemen." Middayexpress (talk) 23:26, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

That's not an appropriate source for this point. We need to use a specialist academic source (e.g. historian, anthropologist, sociologist, someone who has done specialist work on this point). Mackie is a good source for it. I can't see any reason to expand on what he says. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:32, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

That is a specialist source, one exclusively on the topic, and published in a peer-reviewed journal to boot. Mackie asfaik is a historian and says nothing about the origins of infibulation in the Arabian peninsula nor how it spread from there. Btw, I notice you transferred a file of Edna Adan Ismail to Commons. I thought we had an understanding that if Hodan Ahmed (the actual primary anti-FGM campaigner in Somalia) can't be shown in representation of Somalia, neither can Ismail or any other individual country campaigner. Middayexpress (talk) 23:49, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

And sure enough, Pieters and Lowenfels were already cited [20]. Middayexpress (talk) 00:16, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Seligman & origins

Seligman's theory on FGM/C's Hamito-Semitic origins in the Red Sea area was relegated to footnotes, although it is the principle theory on the practice's provenance. This hypothesis has the oldest historical testimony supporting it as well. Also, the origins section indicates that the origins of the practice are obscure, yet it is unambiguously titled "Origins in Africa". This header is too open-ended since the historical evidence of the practice within Africa only supports an origin in or near Egypt, where FGM is still widely practiced. Given this, the header should either be simply titled "Origins" or "Origins in Egypt". Middayexpress (talk) 15:10, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Do you have any sources that support that Seligman's is the principle theory? Also, I'm not clear how it differs from what's already there. I don't have access to JSTOR at the moment (hopefully only temporarily), so it's making source-checking awkward. I have no problem changing the header to "origins." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:27, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Great. Regarding Seligman, I agree that what he asserts about the pratice's likely place of origin doesn't differ much from what's already indicated in the origin section. This is ostensibly because his circum-Egypt theory is the mainstream hypothesis. That said, Guy Pieters and Albert B. Lowenfels note that infibulation likely originated in Southern Arabia and from there spread to the Horn of Africa since early Arabian writers do mention infibulation and clitoridectomy [21]. Middayexpress (talk) 17:45, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

The problem with writing this article (and with reading it) is that it's the parent article, and it has to cover a huge amount of stuff. I find it exhausting to write, because one minute I'm dealing with medical issues and having to work with MEDRS, the next anthropology, the next colonial history, and then ancient history and mummies!

It means we can't get into any of the issues in detail, and UNDUE comes into play very quickly. There's a lot of coverage about FGM at the moment, so everyone wants to add the latest thing they have read about (editors from the UK keep adding the latest development there – politician X has pledged to do Y). The article just can't accommodate it, so editorial decisions have to be made about the most notable issues, the most notable sources, the most notable people.

The reason I focused on Eygpt in the "growth of opposition" section is it that illustrates lots of the key FGM issues in a nutshell. FGM began there, and the non-colonial opposition to it began there too. Then it went back and forth: it was banned in hospitals, so it was being carried out in dangerous ways outside them, then it was unbanned in hospitals so that doctors could do it, turning it from a human-rights issue into a medical one. That went against the grain of the international campaigns, which were trying to take the focus away from medical issues and toward human rights.

Then a girl died in Egypt while a doctor was performing it. The religious authorities then declared against it, and the government was able to ban it entirely. That ban was a watershed (although it's unclear what enforcement is like). That long history is why there's a paragraph in that section about Egypt. It's a kind of wrapping up. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:54, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I've addressed the Somalia issue above. Regarding the historical testimony on the practice of infibulation in the Arabian peninsula, this is something that should probably be mentioned alongside the Egyptian origin for the custom as a whole. Middayexpress (talk) 20:31, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Edna Adan Ismail

There is some kind of POV pushing going on here, but I can't work out what it is. This is a difficult and time-consuming article to work on, even without this. I can't take it through peer review and FAC with this going on.

What is the reason for removing "Somali midwife Edna Adan Ismail (later Somalliland's first female foreign minister) began speaking out in 1977 ..." from the paragraph about activists in the 1970s? [22]

Sources for Ismail from the footnote (also removed):

"For Edna Adan Ismail, see Fran Hosken, The Hosken Report: Genital and Sexual Mutilation of Females, Women's International Network, 1994 [1979], pp. 49–50, 121: "Edna Adan Ismail was the first woman and health professional to speak in public in Somalia on the health problems resulting from excision and infibulation, when she addressed the Congress of the Somali Democratic Women's Organization (SDWO) in March 1977" (p. 50); Gloria Steinem, Outrageous Acts and Everyday Rebellions, Henry Holt & Co, 2012 [1984], p. 324; Abdalla 2007, pp. 201–202; Alexandra Topping, "Somaliland's leading lady for women's rights: 'It is time for men to step up'", The Guardian, 23 June 2014."

SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:24, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

The reason is, as already explained above, Edna Adan Ismail is not the primary anti-FGM campaigner in Somalia, much less elsewhere. She primarily operates from her hospital within her Somaliland region. Suggesting otherwise is misleading. The actual primary anti-FGM campaigner in Somalia is Hodan Ahmed (whom you just removed all mention of [23]). That's who actually represents Somalia on this issue on the global stage: "In 2012 Somalia adopted a new Constitution officially banning FGM thanks to political activist Hodan Ahmed, who, with other Somali women, lobbied long and hard for the law" [24]. The solution is thus simple: mention both, as before. Middayexpress (talk) 00:38, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether she's the primary campaigner. We don't claim that she is. That paragraph is about the tiny number of women who spoke out in the 1970s. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:53, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

It does matter because since she's not the primary campaigner, she's not more notable than Hodan Ahmed for the section as a whole. Middayexpress (talk) 14:00, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Original purpose of infibulation

The original purpose of infibulation doesn't seem to be noted, apart from what appears to be an allusion to Gerry Mackie's suggestion that infibulation "originated as paternity-confidence mechanisms under conditions of imperial female slavery". Shandall (1967), Hayes (1975), Pieters and Lowenfels (1977), Boddy (1982), and Grassivaro-Gallo and Viviani (1992), among others, have proposed alternative explanations. The latter include population size control, an association of infibulation with cleanliness and purity, protection from predators by minimizing scent, safeguarding chastity, protection from assault, and ancient superstitution:

• "Infibulation is also thought to have originated as a means of maintaining the fine balance between population size and resource availability (Hayes 1975), an early method of birth control one might say" [25].
• "Boddy (1982) relates Sudanese infibulation to a complex of symbols for pure, clean, and smooth (she is correct, I believe, that infibulation emphasizes female fertility by de-emphasizing female sexuality)" [26].
• "Grassivaro-Gallo and Viviani (1992) claim that Somali infibulation is an evolutionary adaptation to make female shepherds and goatherds odorless and safe from prey" [27].
• "Later an obsessive preoccupation with virginity and chastity evolved into the practice of infibulation[...] infibulation may at times have arisen as a means of population control in desert lands of Africa and elsewhere in Africa" [28].
• "Perhaps infibulation represents a primitive effort to prevent evil spirits from entering the woman's body her vagina. Belief in evil spirits is part of almost every religion, and infibulation may be an example of an ancient superstitution" [29].
• "Infibulation was practiced by ancient Arabs long before Islam", relates Dr. Shandall; and he adds that this was done to protect shepherd girls against likely male attacks, while they were out alone minding the sheep" [30]. Middayexpress (talk) 14:00, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

• Those details could be added to Infibulation. The parent article can only skim the issues because it has to cover so much. At the moment we say in the origins section that the primary purpose was prevention of pregnancy among slaves, citing William Browne (1768–1813) in 1799 and João dos Santos, 1606. Your addition of "originated as paternity-confidence mechanisms under conditions of imperial female slavery" repeated that point, so I'm about to remove it.

  All this writing is likely to change, by the way, as the article is prepared for peer review, so it might make sense to wait until then. One of the points of the review will be to spot issues that need tightening or expansion, or better sources.

  It's worth stressing again that the Hosken report can't be used as a source for any of these details. That was a speculative, political piece of writing, very influential, but not something that can be used as a source for ancient history or what was done to mummies. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:27, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Links

Just noting here, in case anyone wonders why I'm removing links, I'm taking out courtesy links that lead to anything inappropriate. In the case of Mackie's articles (he hosts them on a university site), I'm swapping them for JSTOR links because I noticed one of the pages has gone down a few times. But I'll leave the Mackie courtesy links in one of the citations, and in the references section, so people can use them too. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:55, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Writing

Middayexpress, please stop adding that Type II "originated as paternity-confidence mechanisms under conditions of imperial female slavery." The paragraph already says twice that it originated to prevent pregnancy, and once that it was done to slaves for that reason:

William Browne (1768–1813) wrote in 1799 that the Egyptians practised excision (Type II), and that slaves in that country were infibulated to prevent pregnancy.[118] The Portuguese missionary João dos Santos (d. 1622) wrote of a group inland from Mogadishu who had a "custome to sew up their Females, especially their slaves being young to make them unable for conception ..."

There's no need to add a third way of saying it. Also, please stop removing "Mackie writes ... that patterns of slavery across the continent account for the patterns of FGM found there." That's a crucial point. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Please quote where in Mackie he suggests "that patterns of slavery across the continent account for the patterns of FGM found there", cause I'm not seeing it [31]. Also, the passage above isn't enough since Browne's assertion pertains to Egypt alone, whereas Mackie's indication that infibulation "originated as paternity-confidence mechanisms under conditions of imperial female slavery" pertains to the pratice in the pre-Islamic period in general, including outside of Egypt. Middayexpress (talk) 17:37, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

You're pushing the pre-Islamic point again. I wish you wouldn't do this. Much of Mackie's work here and elsewhere (e.g. 1996, pp. 1008–1009 from "Imperial Female Slavery") is about how the patterns of FGM mirror the patterns of slavery, and later trade in general (rich men meeting poor women). I tried to copy/paste for you, but it won't let me.

I don't think I can take the article to FAC with this going on. The idea that I can't include that Edna Adan Ismail (from Somaliland) was one of the earliest campaigners in the 70s unless we include a photograph of a recent campaigner from Somalia is very depressing. It seems the choice is abandon the article or spend ages arguing for sanctions on AN/I. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:33, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

As already pointed out, Somaliland is a Federal Member State of Somalia. Ismail's anti-FGM work is and has always been mainly restricted to that region, where her hospital is actually located. The actual anti-FGM representative for Somalia as a whole on the global stage, including its Somaliland region, is Hodan Ahmed ("In 2012 Somalia adopted a new Constitution officially banning FGM thanks to political activist Hodan Ahmed, who, with other Somali women, lobbied long and hard for the law" [32]). My proposal was thus to mention both, as before. At any rate, Mackie mentions in the same pagraph that he is referring to the pre-Islamic period. On the other hand, I ask you again to quote where he suggests "that patterns of slavery across the continent account for the patterns of FGM found there". If you are unable to do so, it is original research and does not belong in the article. Middayexpress (talk) 19:01, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Pieters and Lowenfels

Guy Pieters and Albert B. Lowenfels' 1977 paper on female circumcision is cited on the page for a description of the procedure [33]. Yet when I proposed mentioning its central assertion that infibulation originated and dispersed from the Arabian peninsula, it was suggested that that paper was not an appropriate source for this point and that we instead need to use a specialist academic source such as Mackie's paper. Why the double standard? More pointedly, which if any Wikipedia policy supports this? Middayexpress (talk) 19:10, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Two physicians writing in the 1970s are cited for a description of FGM from that period (as a "see also" in a footnote). That is fine as an item of historical interest. But they're not appropriate sources for where FGM originated, because they're not ancient historians, political scientists or anthropologists, just as they're not appropriate sources for the plays of Euripides or the moons of Saturn. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

As it so happens, Pieters and Lowenfels (like Mackie) allude to historical accounts: "Since early Arabian writers do mention infibulation and clitoridectomy, it seems likely that infibulation originated in southern Arabia and from there spread to Africa. For hundreds of years these two regions, although separated by the Gulf of Aden, have had close contact so that the custom could have spread along well-established trade route. High mountains and an almost impenetrable desert would have prevented this strange procedure from spreading into northern Arabia and the Yemen." Middayexpress (talk) 19:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Origins

Please find current academic sources for any points you want to make about the history of FGM. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:46, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

What's current to you? Kindly provide a specific date. Cause Pieters and Lowenfels are, again, already cited on the page. Middayexpress (talk) 20:01, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't have a date but for origins we rely mostly on Mackie 1996 and Knight 2001, so nothing before that. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:06, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I see. Surely, then, you don't object to Ellen Gruenbaum's work from 2001, which mentions pretty much the same thing as both Pieters and Lowenfels (1977) and the Hosken Report (1994): "Al-Safi states that "Female circumcision with infibulation was practised by ancient arabs [the uncapitalized form often means "nomads" in Sudanese writing] long before islam [sic] to protect the shepherd girls against likely male attacks while they were out unescorted with their grazing sheep"" [34]. Middayexpress (talk) 20:38, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Gruenbaum gives that FGM origin and others suggesting they are rather dubious. Or, is that your point? Jim1138 (talk) 21:20, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

My point is stated above, in the first post. Where does Gruenbaum suggest this particular historical testimony is dubious? Middayexpress (talk) 21:25, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

(ec) The Hosken report is from 1979, not an academic source, not an RS for origins, and Middayexpress is aware of that already. I have no idea why it's being pushed, except that perhaps it supports the pre-Islam theory. But we already say that, so why labour it?

Mackie and Knight are specialist sources who have looked into the origins of FGM in depth (Gruenbaum hasn't, as I recall), which is why they're used. I'm in the process of looking around for others, but they are thin on the ground, and I can't see the need for them.

If someone wants to create Origins of female genital mutilation, they're welcome, but this is the parent article. We can't deal with every single issue in depth. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:31, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

You say that the Hosken Report is not an academic source, yet it, like Pieters and Lowenfels, is liberally referenced throughout the wikipage. You now say Gruenbaum hasn't looked into the origins of FGM in depth, yet she too is cited in the article. At any rate, if need be, I can supply additional historical testimony indicating that ancient Arabs practiced infibulation. Middayexpress (talk) 21:55, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

@Middayexpress: At the top of the next page of your Gruenbaum Google ref above. I agree with SlimVirgin, this is too indepth for this article. Start Origins of female genital mutilation, perhaps? Jim1138 (talk) 21:36, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Selectively highlighting only certain origin theories does not make for a neutral article. Especially when a more balanced summary of FGM's origins could be provided in only an additional two or three lines. If it's the notion that ancient Arabs practiced infibulation that's the real problem, then it would be best for the sake of time if this were stated outright. Middayexpress (talk) 21:55, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

The FGM article is about the practice, not the origins. Adding numerous origin conjectures to the article is not helpful. Arab origins are not clear to me. It appears that a number of the sources you provided above suggest Arab origins as well. I don't see a reason for adding more to the section. Jim1138 (talk) 22:25, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

The FGM article is about FGM in general, including its actual origins. Summarizing the main origin theories on the practice in proportion to their prominence is entirely in line with WP:NPOV; selectively mentioning only one of them is not ("editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic"). All that does is give readers a one-sided perspective on what is actually a multi-faceted issue. Middayexpress (talk) 22:56, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Fine, but doctors are not reliable sources for history. That's standard WP:RSN fare—a source can be reliable for one thing yet unreliable for another. Johnuniq (talk) 11:26, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Medical journals are reliable sources on medical subjects, which this topic in part is. Most of the authors above are, ironically, also cited as references by Mackie himself. Middayexpress (talk) 15:09, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with SlimVirgin, Jim1138 and Johnuniq (if I'm reading him right here) that the OP's proposal wouldn't improve the article. And, as SV says, the article already mentions a pre-Islam theory, with appropriate weight--this is a WP:SUMMARYSTYLE article and not every topic can be plumbed in depth. I disagree with a "shotgun" approach to sourcing where it's proposed that everything that ends up in a Google search result go into the article--I'm concerned that approach would end up with an unbalanced article, with too much weight given to relatively minor theories, just because many sources (of whatever age or quality) can be found. Instead, available sourcing should be reviewed and the best-quality sources carefully selected, especially if this article should go to FAC. Also, the myopic reading of Gruenbaum to support a position on which the source actually argues for the opposite, as Jim1138 points out, is very concerning. Zad68 13:02, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

What pre-Islamic theory might that be? Cause there doesn't appear to be anything theoretical about the existing excised ancient Egyptian female mummies (who predate the birth of Islam). Mackie's paternity-confidence-related explanation for the original purpose of FGM/C is also just one of several competing hypotheses, as shown in the OP. There's no legitimate reason why it should be privileged over the others. Even the UN Special Working Group on Traditional Practices puts forth a different, dual origin theory [35]. Middayexpress (talk) 15:09, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Since nothing specific has been proposed here, Middayexpress would you please rewrite the proposed section? Perhaps put it into Talk:Female genital mutilation/origins? Then, see if it gets consensus. Jim1138 (talk) 16:36, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Sure, I can rewrite the proposed section. But first I'll try and bring it to the attention of the wider WikiProject Africa for additional input. Middayexpress (talk) 14:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

More on infibulation amongst ancient Arabs, from a UN Economic Commission for Africa study [36]: "Ancient Arabs were believed to have practised infibulation to protect unescorted shepherd girls from attacks by male aggressors." Middayexpress (talk) 14:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Mackie & paternity-confidence

Mackie explains that his whole FGM/C theory is a "paternity-confidence" hypothesis. The latter term therefore must be used to describe his approach [37]:

"As far as I know, Ortner (1978) was the first on record with a theory relating the complex of female purity, family honor, seclusion, chastity, and fidelity (with reference to footbinding and female genital mutilation) to a past of highly stratified empires. Extreme resource polygyny and consequent hypergynous competition in an imperial past elicited the complex of honor and modesty, which persists beyond the originating conditions. Stacey (1983:40—43) applied Ortner’s theory to the case of footbinding. Dickemann (1979, 1981) presented a similar theory of paternity confidence in much greater detail, but with a strongly sociobiological bent. I borrow and modify the paternity-confidence hypothesis and, with the help of simple game theory, supplement it with an explicit theory of the endurance and demise of mutilating practices. I use Schelling's (1960, 1978) account of conventions as solutions to recurrent coordination problems to explain the universality and persistence of footbinding and infibulation, which originated as paternity-confidence mechanisms under conditions of imperial female slavery."

Also, Ellen Gruenbaum describes Mackie's theory as occupying one extreme of the FGM/C original-purpose theory spectrum [38]: "Contributions to this volume all fall along a wide continuum of approaches to the question of "meaning." At one extreme, Mackie in Chapter 13 that all female genital cutting ultimately stems from a concern with premarital female chastity, paternity assurance, and marriageability, although this association may no longer be explicit in all practicing societies." Middayexpress (talk) 14:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Could you please take Jim's advice above and create your version at Talk:Female genital mutilation/origins? That way we can compare them side by side. It's unclear why you keep adding "paternity confidence." The section already says this twice, so I'll probably remove it again as repetition when I make the next edits. Please gain consensus for it and explain why it's needed. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I didn't cite any new origin theories (though I could have), so that's beside the point. As explained and shown in the OP, I completed what Mackie -- who is an extreme source per Gruenbaum -- actually states regarding his own theory. He himself describes it as centered on paternity confidence. Middayexpress (talk) 16:47, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Peer review

I'm currently preparing the article for a formal peer review, before a possible FAC nomination. To get ready for the review, I'm in the process of going through the article line by line, checking the text against the sources. The aim is to make sure that the sources are reliable and appropriate, and that the text reflects them. Parts of the article are likely to change as a result, and sources may be swapped. I'm also trying to improve the writing as I go along.

It would help a lot if people could post here any concerns or proposals for change, along with citations (citations are more helpful than raw links). That way, I can keep it as a list to check when I'm in the relevant part of the article. If I don't get to it immediately, it doesn't mean I'm ignoring it. It's just that I need to keep my train of thought going.

The loss of access to JSTOR has slowed things down, but apparently it's about to be restored, so I hope the process will speed up soon. Many thanks to everyone for being patient! SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

A request

Note: I posted this to Middayexpress's talk page, and he moved it.

Hi Middayexpress, the situation at FGM is becoming really problematic. I want to avoid asking for admin action, because it's such a time sink, so I'm writing to appeal to you instead.

The article is being prepared for a peer review, prior to an FAC nomination. That means the writing has to be good and tight (no unnecessary details, nothing that violates UNDUE), the medical sourcing has to be MEDRS-compliant, and overall the sourcing must be, not only reliable, but appropriate. That means using ancient historians for ancient history, anthropologists for anthropology, medical review articles or position statements for medical issues, etc. And for overviews and analysis, we use FGM specialists.

An academic with a background in this has agreed to review the article and offer suggestions. I need to have a reasonable degree of confidence that anything I change as a result of that advice will stick.

Once a first draft is in place for the peer review, then you can post your objections, either on the talk page before the review or during the review itself. But continually reverting now means we are pulling in different directions.

Will you please help me with this? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:54, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, the input of WikiProject Africa members (myself included) before, during and after the peer review can only help tighten the article. If this is your goal too, then you should welcome it. Middayexpress (talk) 22:03, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

During the peer review would be very helpful, but I have to get it there first, and material is being added that doesn't comply with the policies or doesn't improve the writing. Once the academic review begins it's going to become even more problematic. That's why I'm asking you to hold off, and at least let me get a first draft in place.

All the things you're arguing about might disappear anyway because the article is being rewritten. So we are both wasting time arguing about text that may soon be replaced.

Will you please allow me to put a draft in place? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:15, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm looking at WP:PR, and it indicates that "Wikipedia's peer review process is a way to receive ideas and feedback from other editors about articles." It also states that: "Peer reviews are open to any feedback, and users requesting feedback may also request more specific feedback. Unlike formal nominations, editors and nominators may both edit articles during the discussion." Given this, I don't see a problem with WikiProject Africa members (myself included) helping out in that regard. Indeed, the policy appears to recommend this. Middayexpress (talk) 22:31, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay, rather than taking it to the noticeboards, perhaps we can have a discussion here about how to proceed, because I can't deal with this alone. Pinging Zad68, Jmh649, Johnuniq.

The issue is that, for many months, Middayexpress has been adding material based on inappropriate sources or poorly written, or he removes good material, and repeatedly reverts. Three current examples:

1. Adds and restores non-MEDRS-compliant text (search for "according to British gynecological surgeon Harry Gordon" [39][40]
2. Repeatedly removes that Edna Adan Ismail was a notable anti-FGM activist in the 1970s (which is well-sourced); she was one of the earliest. It is this edit, which Zad restored.

   Because Ismail is from Somaliland, Middayexpress has said he will only allow her to be included if a paragraph about Hodan Ahmed, a current Somalia anti-FGM campaigner, is also added; search this diff for "Hodan Ahmed". He has said he is doing this to make clear that Ismail is currently not the best-known activist in that area. The campaigner he wants to add, Ahmed, is sourced only to a press release from the organization she works for. The quid pro quo anyway misses the point that the inclusion of Ismail is about the 1970s.

3. He is repeatedly adding to the origins section: "Mackie presents a novel theory on the original purpose of FGM, arguing that infibulation in Africa "originated as paternity-confidence mechanisms under conditions of imperial female slavery." [41] Why include this, why the quote, and who is saying it is novel? And if it really is novel, why mention it?

   The section already says that Mackie argues that, whatever its origins, infibulation in Africa became linked to slavery. That is surely enough. The section gives examples of travellers talking about slaves being infibulated to prevent pregnancy, so that's already dealt with.

There are also minor style issues he keeps changing (e.g. he changes "(c. 64 BCE – c. 23 CE)" to "(c. 64 BCE–23 CE)", which is wrong), and when he adds references, he often leaves out page numbers or article titles in books, so I have to search to find the material, which is very time-consuming.

What can be done about this, if anything? It's difficult to take the article forward with this going on, and discussions make no difference. The only option is to keep over-writing his edits, but I feel bad about doing that, and it means I might overlook something.

An FGM specialist has agreed to review the article and make suggestions, so it's important that he doesn't find an article that seems to minimize the impact of FGM, or where material he suggests is instantly removed. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:34, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

• Also pinging Jim1138, who commented earlier. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:36, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

All of the above was already discussed and explained in detail in the sections above (e.g. [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47]). The only thing that wasn't is the minor style change from "(c. 64 BCE – c. 23 CE)" to "(c. 64 BCE–23 CE)". If you'll notice, most of the other early dates on the page don't have spaces between the hyphen, so I was making this consistent. At any rate, since you bring up issues of direct pertinence to WikiProject Africa, perhaps the regulars AcidSnow, 26oo, Awale-Abdi and Inayity would care to weigh in? If you wish for us to wait until you prep the page for peer review, that can be considered. But in the meantime, let's try and keep things impersonal. Middayexpress (talk) 00:02, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it was discussed, but discussion seems to make no difference. Zad and I explained that your edit about the effects of FGM wasn't MEDRS-compliant, but you restored it anyway. Zad and I both added Ismail, but you removed it anyway. Jim and I asked you to propose your version of the origins section on a subpage, but you kept adding it anyway.

It means that time that should be spent improving the article is spent on this instead. It can't continue. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:10, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

See, that's just it. I didn't remove mention of Ismail's anti-FGM work; I instead contextualized it further down the page within her actual area of operation in Somalia [48]. Also, the Austveg et al. (1998) paper that you suggested wasn't MEDRS-compliant because it wasn't a literature review or systematic review is, in fact, a literature review and thus is indeed MEDRS-compliant (as shown here [49]). I also did not add any new origin theories anymore than you did. Mackie was already cited on the wikipage, and I quoted from the exact same work of his as you. That said, if I agree to let you prep the page ahead of the peer review, will you at least agree to let other WikiProject Africa members assist you in this? This is what WP:PR itself recommends. I will gladly leave the editing to others if I can be assured that the page is in competent, responsive hands. The presence of an actual specialist academic scholar would be ideal in that regard. Middayexpress (talk) 01:01, 1 August 2014 (UTC)