Talk:Female genital mutilation/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Comments

This is an ancient Islamic ritual carried out on young girls from the age of six months. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.155.42.18 (talk) 08:41, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes it is, Sharia Law / Fiqh according to Shafii madhhab consider khitan al-inath (female circumcision) as wajib / farD (a duty; as islamically obligatory). Yes, the Majlis Ulama Indonesia (MUI), the Fatwa Council of Malaysia and others want to circumcize boys and girls. Nevertheless we have to overcome any form of Female Genital Mutilation (FGM). 79.251.98.142 (talk) 17:38, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Indonesia

This article continues to perpetuate the misconception that FGM is primarily an African problem. That is simply not true. The number one offender is Indonesia. Here is an excerpt from an NPR article:

Forget about the conventional wisdom that female genital mutilation, or FGM, rarely takes place outside of Africa and the Middle East. Recalibrate that to 30 countries on several continents, according to a new statistical analysis by UNICEF that calculates that at least 200 million females today have undergone some form of the procedure.

About 60 million of affected females come from one country: Indonesia, where about half of the girls age 11 and below have undergone the practice. Yet this is the first time that Indonesia has been included in UNICEF data.

http://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2016/02/08/466033967/unicef-estimate-of-female-genital-mutiliation-up-by-70-million

In light of these new data, which appear to be very reliable, there should probably be a major change in the focus of the article, which is very Africa-centric.

Dansan99 (talk) 09:04, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, UNICEF has recently released new figures. They will be incorporated into the article soon, but it's a big job to properly integrate the information rather than just bolting on what would essentially be a newsrelease, so please be patient. Johnuniq (talk) 10:05, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Page views

A new tool is available:

Pageviews for Female genital mutilation	Pageviews for Talk:Female genital mutilation

Johnuniq (talk) 09:28, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: {{ Graph:PageViews | 90 }} is enough to show current page's views. The template shows the article's counts, not the talk pages:

--Yurik (talk) 16:29, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

@Yurik: I'm wondering why you changed Johnuniq's post here. The graph was showing the talk-page posts too. Or were they wrong in some way? SarahSV ^(talk) 19:34, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin:, apologies, I thought of fixing both of them, and accidentally deleted one. In any case, I think it would be better to show just the article's views, as talk views are too small. But of course that's up for a discussion on what where it should be shown. --Yurik (talk) 19:37, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, Yurik. I'll restore John's post in that case, if that's okay with you. I've just noticed that the usual page-views link has disappeared from the toolbar. It normally goes to http://stats.grok.se/ Now it leads to a page with much less information on it that seems to be hosted by the Foundation. [1] Is there a discussion about this anywhere that you're aware of? SarahSV ^(talk) 20:14, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Answering my own question about whether it's being discussed anywhere. See [2] SarahSV ^(talk) 20:24, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

@Yurik: Thanks for clarifying. On re-reading your post at WP:VPT I see you explained the parameters clearly but I rushed over that part. The talk page stats are not important of course but they are of mild interest to regulars here as the article and talk page show the International Day (February 6) spike of interest as anticipated. That template and the underlying software are magnificent, congratulations to all involved! Johnuniq (talk) 01:36, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Updating

I'm slowly making my way through the article to update figures, according to UNICEF 2016.

Johnuniq, if you'd be willing at some point to update the maps/tables, that would be great, but there's no rush. The three that need it are:

• File:FGM prevalence UNICEF 2015.svg
• File:FGM prevalence 15–49 (2014).svg
• File:FGM prevalence 0–14 (2014).svg.

I can do the latter two if you prefer, though the website I used last time didn't produce such nice ones. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:36, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for updating the article. I would be glad to do all three images although it will take a couple of days. I haven't looked at the figures yet, but I assume there will be three images at new titles, each "2016"? Spelling that out, the three images will be (uploaded at Commons):

File:FGM prevalence UNICEF 2016.svg

File:FGM prevalence 15–49 (2016).svg

File:FGM prevalence 0–14 (2016).svg

Is that right? Johnuniq (talk) 00:00, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that would be great, thank you, but take your time. I've removed the 0–14 for now, and the others are dated, so there's nothing in the article that is actually wrong. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:04, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I have extracted values from the 2016 document as preparation for making the new diagrams. The map is no problem and I have created it, although I haven't uploaded it yet in case there is an error in the values below. Using the same values I can do the 15–49 chart.

Aged 15–49                     Aged 0–14
Country       2015  2016       Country        2015  2016
Somalia       98    98         Mali           74
Guinea        97    97         Gambia         56    56
Djibouti      93    93         Mauritania     54    54
Egypt         91  ~ 87         Indonesia      49
Sierra Leone  90    90         Djibouti       49
Mali          89    89         Somalia        46
Sudan         88  ~ 87         Guinea         46    46
Eritrea       83    83         Guinea-Bissau  39  ~ 30
Gambia        76  ~ 75         Sudan          37  ~ 32
Burkina Faso  76    76         Eritrea        33    33
Ethiopia      74    74         Ethiopia       24    24
Mauritania    69    69         Chad           18
Liberia       66  ~ 50         Senegal        18  ~ 13
Guinea-Bissau 50  ~ 45         Nigeria        17    17
Chad          44    44         Egypt          17  ~ 14
Côte d'Ivoire 38    38         Yemen          15    15
Kenya         27  ~ 21         Burkina Faso   13    13
Senegal       26  ~ 25         Sierra Leone   13    13
Nigeria       25    25         Côte d'Ivoire  10    10
CAR           24    24         Kenya          8
Yemen         19    19         Tanzania       3
Tanzania      15    15         Iraq           3   ~ 8
Iraq           8     8         Niger          2
Benin          7  ~  9         Uganda         1     1
Togo           4  ~  5         CAR            1     1
Ghana          4     4         Cameroon       1
Niger          2     2         Ghana          1     1
Uganda         1     1         Togo           0     0
Cameroon       1     1         Benin          0     0

In the above:

• 2015 = UNICEF The state of the world's children 2015: Executive Summary, Table 9, pp. 84–89.
• 2016 = UNICEF 2016, Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting: A global concern "Percentage of girls and women aged 15 to 49 years who have undergone FGM/C, 2004–2015"
• ~ = value changed

Questions:

• Please confirm the above 2016 values should be in the new map/charts.
• What should happen for the 0–14 chart? The above shows the 2015 chart had 29 entries, but there would only be 20 for 2016. I studied the documentation last year but have forgotten exactly what the values are showing, but surely Mali cannot drop from 74% to nil? Johnuniq (talk) 08:16, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

0–14, 2014

0–14, 2016

• Johnuniq, sorry to reply in the archive. I have no idea why I didn't reply at the time. Thank you for doing the map, and just to confirm here that we have a new table for 0–14. You're right about Mali being odd, and some of the other countries. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:10, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

dead link

As a translator for Chinese Wikipedia, it's quite frustrating to replace lot of wrecked link, hope the author could keep an eye on it.---Koala0090 (talk) 02:34, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Any clues? Johnuniq (talk) 04:15, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

John, discussion here on Doc James's page. It's mostly UN-related links. I've started fixing them. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:28, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Sarah, I'm slowly catching up... Johnuniq (talk) 04:32, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

The UN websites have a habit of moving things, and at least one of the reports is now in a different version, so page numbers will have to be changed too. I'm going to work on it slowly, though, so no panic. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:18, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, maybe it whould be better to archive the website previously whenever using information from United nation. Koala0090 (talk) 07:33, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Koala0090, the difficulty with doing that is that we might rely on out-of-date material. That's the problem I'm facing at the moment. I've fixed the dead links, so if you look at this version, the links are all okay. But there is a problem with one UN report; page numbers have changed in one version, but not in another, so it's going to take me some time to figure out which document to use. If the report has changed, there will be changes to the text too. Apologies if that causes translation problems. SarahSV ^(talk) 07:41, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

@Koala0090: the UN ref that was causing the problem was the 2013 UNFPA-UNICEF Joint Programme evaluation. This is a dead link and isn't in the Internet Archive.

The UN hosts a new page with several reports about its joint programme at UNFPA-UNICEF Joint Evaluation of the UNFPA-UNICEF Joint Programme on Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting (FGM/C): Accelerating Change, New York: United Nations Population Fund, 2013.

I began checking these reports to find the one I had linked to, but those parts of the article were too detailed anyway, so instead I removed/summarized.

This affects two sections: the religion section and UN section. The former doesn't refer to the UN joint programme at all now. The latter does but in shortened form. I hope this will make things easier for you. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:22, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Fine, I will fixed those on Chinese version these days. Thanks for your help:) Koala0090 (talk) 05:54, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome, and I'm sorry you had that bother. SarahSV ^(talk) 06:20, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2016

The current first sentence of the third paragraph in the introduction is not objective, it currently reads: "The practice is rooted in gender inequality, attempts to control women's sexuality, and ideas about purity, modesty and aesthetics."

It should be changed to "Detractors from the practice claim that it is rooted in gender inequality, attempts to control women's sexuality, and ideas about purity, modesty and aesthetics"

The updated sentence is objective because it does not state the opinions of the author as fact. The values of the author should not be rhetorically imposed on those who continue to practice their their culture. 24.124.125.158 (talk) 07:00, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Articles are based on reliable sources. Is there any dispute about the references given for the text in the article? Who says the sources are only "detractors"? Johnuniq (talk) 07:16, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

US figures

Gouncbeatduke, I removed your paragraph based on Newsweek, partly because it was in the wrong section, partly because the article already deals with the US figures based on CDC estimates, and partly because there's a dedicated article about FGM in the US. But the Newsweek article is interesting, so perhaps you could use it to add material to Female genital mutilation in the United States. SarahSV ^(talk) 06:14, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful editing of Wikipedia. I agree with your suggestion of the best location for the information. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 18:26, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks, Gouncbeatduke. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:40, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Jordan

Jordan is stated as a country where FGM is documented in the article.

I went to the reference provided (UNICEF report). The report does mention Jordan in passing within a list of countries where there has been documentation (but no survey data) about FGM practices. However, when I went to the references cited for this information, within the UNICEF report, there were citations of studies from several countries (Indonesia, Malaysia, Colombia) but not Jordan.

Jordan should be removed as there is no primary source for this assertion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Telrayyes (talk • contribs) 11:11, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Interesting. I googled "Jordan fgm" and found this, a journalistic article that makes it clear FGM is restricted to one isolated village. I'm not certain, but I think it was published in 1999 and then republished in 2012. I'll reword our text. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 12:10, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

@Carbon Caryatid: Please give others a chance to respond as it is quite likely there is a reasonable explanation for this meticulously researched article.

The references for the text include ref 2 (UNICEF 2013). The ref displays as ^[2]:23 to show the information is on page 23. In the document, Box 4.1 (page 31 of the pdf, which is numbered as page 23) includes:

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.

Is there a reliable source to indicate that the reference is not correct, or is no longer applicable? Johnuniq (talk) 12:15, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Forgive me if I was alacritous. The thing that caught my attention in reading the good journalistic article I found is that FGM in Jordan, while it clearly exist(ed), was an immigrant phenomenon, just as it is in Europe, Australia, North America. It would thus seem fair to group Jordan with those countries, and not with ones where FGM is widespread and long-standing. But you're right, these matters are best sorted out on the talk page. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 12:32, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm doing other stuff now and will look at the edits later. I take your point. Johnuniq (talk) 00:41, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Carbon Caryatid, that article isn't an RS for this issue. We've mostly used UNICEF as the authoritative source on prevalence. They don't seem to have a country profile for Jordan, so we should probably stick to the 2013 report. Saudi Arabia also complained, as I recall in a letter to the Guardian in response to one of their articles, that FGM there was a purely immigrant phenomenon. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:59, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

New WHO guideline pertaining to management

[3] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:47, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Colombia

It seems as if Colombia is missing from this article. It is traditional to the Emberá people. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 07:39, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Columbia is mentioned in the same list as Jordan: "Smaller studies or anecdotal reports suggest that FGM is also practised in the Congo, Columbia, Jordan, Malaysia, Oman, Peru, Sri Lanka, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates ..." SarahSV ^(talk) 13:30, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

The correct term for the country is Colombia, though. That information should be corrected by users with privileges to do so. Luisftd ^(talk) 04:52, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for pointing it out. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:59, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Moved here

Which ref says what occurred was female genital mutilation? This belongs more in the olympics article rather than this one IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:21, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Extended content

Sport In 2013, it was reported that four elite female athletes from developing countries were subjected to "partial clitoridectomies" and gonadectomies (sterilization) after testosterone testing revealed that they had an intersex condition. These irreversible procedures took place under duress, to enable participation in sport, and without evidence of medical necessity. In April 2016, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on health, Dainius Pūras, criticized "current and historic" sex verification policies, describing how "a number of athletes have undergone gonadectomy (removal of reproductive organs) and partial cliteroidectomy (a form of female genital mutilation) in the absence of symptoms or health issues warranting those procedures." Hi, this one Report of the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, document A/HRC/32/33, paragraph 56 on page 14. Trankuility (talk) 07:24, 30 May 2016 (UTC) References

Ah found it "Recently, certain international and national sporting federations have instead introduced policies banning women with testosterone levels exceeding a certain threshold from participating in competitive sport. However, there is insufficient clinical evidence to establish that those women are afforded a “substantial performance advantage” warranting exclusion.46 Although currently suspended, following the interim judgement in Chand v. Athletics Federation of India and the International Association of Athletics Federations, 47 these policies have led to women athletes being discriminated against and forced or coerced into “treatment” for hyperandrogenism. In fact, a number of athletes have undergone gonadectomy (removal of reproductive organs) and partial cliteroidectomy (a form of female genital mutilation)48 in the absence of symptoms or health issues warranting those procedures.49" [4] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:25, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

This is not FGM. FGM is the ritual removal of the external female genitalia. The first source discusses four athletes who were offered surgery in France to allow them to continue in the female category at sporting events (and the other sources refer to the same examples):

The 4 athletes presented as tall, slim, muscular women with a male bone morphotype, no breast development, clitoromegaly, partial or complete labial fusion, and inguinal/intralabial testes. All reported primary amenorrhea. ... We thus proposed a partial clitoridectomy with a bilateral gonadectomy, followed by a deferred feminizing vaginoplasty and estrogen replacement therapy, to which the 4 athletes agreed after informed consent on surgical and medical procedures. Sports authorities then allowed them to continue competing in the female category 1 year after gonadectomy.

France strongly enforces its anti-FGM laws. Adding this to the prevalence section would be doubly inappropriate, per UNDUE. We have a section on comparisons with other surgeries, but to include this example we would need appropriate sources making a serious comparison to FGM. SarahSV ^(talk) 15:11, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Defining what is, or is not, FGM based in cultural norms regarding femininity is very dangerous territory, including visual appearance. The women are/were elite women athletes, discovered to have an intersex trait only in the course of testing for competition in sport. The UN uses the WHO, UNICEF and UNFPA definition cited on the page. The process was under duress, because otherwise their vocation would have been taken away from them. The United Nations Special Rapporteur on health made that comparison in a document for the UN United Nations Human Rights Council, report linked and quoted previously. User:Doc James also quoted the relevant extract above. The HRC is charged with protecting human rights. That is part of the same system which has (rightly, in my view) problematised FGM in the first place. I would not have posted if the term FGM was not explicitly mentioned, but it is. To not include this is to employ a personal judgment and selectivity ahead of the reports of a system that underpins global work against FGM and other harmful practices. Trankuility (talk) 20:28, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

More on this, it is not up to us to define FGM or the relevance of this case, a reliable source, equal in weight to existing UN sources, says it is FGM, and the data should be included. Trankuility (talk) 00:53, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

That raises the issue of WP:DUE—not every mention of "philosophy" goes at philosophy, and neither is every mention of FGM appropriate in this article. People use words with whatever meaning they choose, but the unfortunate situation regarding these athletes is only distantly related to the topic of this article. Johnuniq (talk) 01:14, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

The UN special rapporteur did not say it was FGM. He said that clitoridectomy is a form of FGM. But clitoridectomy is a form of FGM only in the sense that it's one of the things that usually happens during FGM. Clitoridectomy can be conducted for reasons other than FGM.

The athletes underwent other procedures too, including removal of testes, vaginoplasty and oestrogen replacement therapy. None of that is FGM.

FGM is a cultural ritual undertaken by certain ethnicities as part of a tradition of controlling female sexuality. These four athletes opted to have it done so that they could continue competing. You can argue that they should not have been put in that position, just as you can argue that young women in Western countries should not be made to feel they must have labiaplasty. But neither labiaplasty nor the procedures the athletes underwent are regarded as FGM in law. The argument that they are ethically equivalent fails in several respects, particularly because of Martha Nussbaum's point that FGM is mostly conducted on children using physical force. For us to include a discussion of the athletes and FGM, as we do labiaplasty and FGM, we would need sources that argue for the comparison.

Finally, this involved four athletes. On the basis of a passing remark by one non-specialist, you gave them their own subsection in a prevalence section discussing what has happened to 200 million. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:22, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I disagree on several points. Firstly, the UN sources states that "partial cliteroidectomy" is "a form of female genital mutilation". This is what the Female Genital Mutilation article states: that partial clitoridectomy is Type Ib, a form of female genital mutilation. Secondly, human rights are universal. To argue that some forms or instances of FGM are lesser or greater than others is a slippery slope argument, and coercion does not make female genital mutilation ok. This is also a form of controlling sex or gender to ensure it fits cultural norms. The argument that this is ethically equivalent to FGM is redundant: the source states it is an example of female genital mutilation. Trankuility (talk) 03:07, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

So if any source states something is an example of FGM, it must be mentioned in this article? With its own section? Johnuniq (talk) 03:54, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

It is not the case that the short paragraph I added completely reframes or subverts the existing lengthy article. The article with the inclusion would be 151,141 bytes. The text itself is 2,760 bytes, including 4 citations. This does not seem to be WP:UNDUE weighting. Not every source needs to be cited, but probably every novel instance should be mentioned. Trankuility (talk) 04:33, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Agree it is undue weight in this article. Also what they had I would not describe as "female genital mutilation". If a fully informed competent adult women decides to undergo plastic surgery or if people choose gender reassignment surgery that is not FGM. Even though some of the same procedure used may also be used as a form of FGM. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:09, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Attribution

IMO one does not need to state the source of facts when the fact is simply not controversial.

Thus rather than "UNICEF estimated in 2016 that 200 million women had" one can say "As of 2016 it is estimated that 200 million women had" etc. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:46, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

The FA version did this by the way with "Over 125 million women and girls have experienced FGM in the 29 countries in which it is concentrated" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:00, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Diaspora

Doc James, I'd like to restore diaspora. I used it instead of immigrant communities. It's not a difficult word, and it's linked. It's awkward having to spell it out. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:54, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I would prefer something simpler be used in the lead at least. Would anything else work for you? Immigrant communities is indeed easier but one would need to specific which ones. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:02, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't see diaspora as a problem, especially when linked. It's a more inclusive word than immigrant. But there's no need to use more than one word.

For anyone watching, this is about a sentence in the lead: "The practice is also found elsewhere in Asia, the Middle East and among diaspora communities around the world." James prefers: "The practice is also found elsewhere in Asia, the Middle East and among communities around the world which are from these areas." SarahSV ^(talk) 22:20, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Do you think this flows better "The practice is also found among communities from these areas as well as elsewhere in Asia and the Middle East."

I just asked my wife if she knew what diaspora means and she said no. Also diaspora is classically used in the context of Jewish people though less commonly it can be interpreted more boardly. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:26, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Diaspora covers everything we want to say. A diaspora is a community that has spread out. The word doesn't "other" people the way immigrant and "from these areas" might—the individuals might have been born in the host countries. It's a word commonly found in texts about FGM, including by the FBI and World Health Organization.

If the aim is to reduce jargon in medical leads, that's good, but this isn't jargon; it isn't a medical lead; and there are lots of truly impenetrable medical leads out there that would benefit from this instead. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:46, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Okay agree one needs the term "originating" to describe diaspora so "The practice is also found among communities originating from these areas as well as elsewhere in Asia and the Middle East." The WHO ref is the Bulletin of the World Health Organization.[5] The leads of our articles should be written more easily than a medical journal. I am also working on medical leads as I agree many would benefit from this both inside and outside the medical topic area. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:54, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

The FBI website is not a medical journal. Here it is on Forward's website: "The diaspora's role". Here it is on thisisafrica.me: "Female genital mutilation of Somali diaspora in Kenya on the rise".

All the sentences you've suggested refer to Africa or Asia, but not both. The point is that FGM is found in those areas and in immigrant/diaspora communities elsewhere. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:05, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

These areas refer to the 30 countries in the sentence before similar to how diaspora referred to the 30 countries in the sentence before. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:36, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

• Hindustan Times: "Bohra diaspora responds to anti-FGM campaign":
• UNICEF: "The Somali man from Canada still insists that his wife be circumcised, in spite of ... being part of the Somali Diaspora";
• British govt: "disburse up to £1 million to diaspora communities in the UK to support efforts to end the practice in their countries of origin."
• European Union: "The cost of FGM on human and economic development and the role of diaspora communities is combating FGM".
• Guardian: "the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine worked with City University and Forward, an NGO for women in the African Diaspora to fill the knowledge gap with more accurate statistics."
• Spectator: "To share the story about FGM in the UK means taking issue ... with the Somali diaspora in London."
• BBC, quoting Home Office minister: "By working together with the Welsh government, and local diaspora communities like those here in Cardiff, we can work with communities overseas towards ending FGM in our lifetime."
• CBC, quoting an FGM survivor: "The biggest Somali community in the diaspora is in North America, that’s a big alarm for me."

SarahSV ^(talk) 01:16, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Well than lets revert back to the last stable version and discuss. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:42, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

You've reverted an entire copy edit and update. I have to be allowed to keep this updated. The last stable version, including the version that was promoted to FA, had the word diaspora in it. That is the word those communities use to describe themselves. You are the one who keeps removing it. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:48, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

And you reverted all the changes I made aswell [6] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:50, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Reverting

Doc James, please explain this revert. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:45, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

That was the last stable version as I stated above. You boldly made changes Oct 21st. I reverted some and boldly make changes. And you have reverted all the changes I have made. So we go back to the prior stable version per WP:BRD Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:46, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

See my reply above. The stable version contains the word diaspora. If you want to remove it, gain consensus for that change. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:50, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Diaspora hasn't been in the lead of the article for more than 6 months. I am not even sure what version you reverted back to.

We get lots of criticism for our content being overly complicated and inaccessible. We would do well to at least keep the leads of article simpler. Expecially for an article of such great global significance to people who may speak English as a second language as this one. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:55, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

That is how those communities refer to themselves. Not as "immigrant" communities, not as "from somewhere else"—because they may have lived in the host countries for several generations. They use the term diaspora, as do governments, World Health Organization, United Nations, FBI, academics, charities working with FGM survivors, and the version of this article that was promoted to FA. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:07, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure what is wrong with "The practice is also found among communities originating from these areas". Do you not agree that that is the definition of "diaspora" you are looking for? Can you at least explain why you feel this is "wrong" as you appear to be indicating here? You have also made a number of changes away from what was in the FA. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:09, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Two things are wrong with it. It omits the common term, and your version means something else. Read it carefully. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:17, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

If this "The practice is also found among communities originating from these areas" does not mean the same thing as diaspora than I simply do not know what diaspora means which is further evidence that we should not be using it. Here I am after 11 years of post secondary education and a lifetime of reading and I do not understand the term you wish to use in the lead. Can you explain what diaspora means than? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:19, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Read the versions you have suggested.[7][8][9]

• The practice is also found elsewhere in Asia, the Middle East and among communities from these areas in other countries. [Not only from those areas.]
• The practice is also found elsewhere in Asia, the Middle East and among communities around the world which are from these areas. [Ditto]
• The practice is also found among communities originating from these areas as well as elsewhere in Asia and the Middle East. [Ambiguous]

In contrast, this version is clear, and—importantly— it refers to the communities the way they refer to themselves:

The practice is found in Africa, Asia and the Middle East, and within diaspora communities from countries where FGM is common.

You also need to explain why, for the sake of one word, you reverted the entire copy edit. [10] SarahSV ^(talk) 22:41, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

You also reverted all my edits it appears for the sake of one word so we go back to the last stable version.

So how do you define diaspora?

Would "The practice is also found among communities originating from areas where FGM is common." be less ambiguous? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:43, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I didn't revert your edit. I kept some of it. And yours was very minor compared to mine. I did a fair bit of updating, swapping sources and removing others. It was several hours of work, the kind of work that FAs need. You have undone the whole thing because you don't like one word. That is childish. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:51, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Restored some of it.[11]

You removed the ref I added to the first sentence and restored explaining the origin of uncontroversial data to the lead which was not their when pass as an FA.

No need for personal attacks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:56, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, but now there's a mess with different formatting, so the first footnote doesn't work. Why do you prefer Eric Silverman to Bettina Shell-Duncan? I swapped that ref because she is more recent and remains active in the area, whereas I don't think Silverman is. Why did you remove that women and their daughters are questioned? I hadn't finished the edit, so I don't know what to do now.

The one thing this is teaching me is the importance of not editing anymore, and definitely the importance of not investing a lot of time in anything. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:04, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Yup I am left with the same feelings :-( Fixed the refs. Gah complicated.

I am simple left with the feeling that our supposedly "best" articles fail the audience we are supposedly writing for. And that we are doing it on purpose.

And yes you did revert all my edits.[12] while we have now kept nearly all of yours. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:10, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I kept most of your linking, but I disagreed with your other changes. I started fixing this page yesterday because I've sent it to someone who is a specialist in the area, and I want to improve it before they read it. That includes streamlining the writing and improving refs where possible. It's overwritten in places, too wordy, and there is some repetition.

When you first removed diaspora a few months ago, I tried to write around your change (which introduced a mistake). Yesterday, I decided that I don't want to do that anymore because it's time-consuming and it means the writing can't be as good as it needs to be. I would like to be allowed to go through the whole thing, tighten it and fix the flow. I can't do that if this is going to be the consequence.

Regarding the audience, we don't know who reads this article. When I write, I aim for an intelligent older teenager, someone who wants to learn. I make sure difficult words are linked, and I don't use them gratuitously. But we're not writing for 12-year-olds. The word diaspora is an ordinary word, as all the links I left above show. The important thing is that it doesn't "other" communities in which FGM is found; it is their word for themselves, and they are an important part of "the audience we are supposedly writing for," as you wrote above. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:52, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Will start a RfC on this point as we obviously disagree.

With respect to other stuff feel free to continue making changes. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:25, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I saw some of this during the weekend and meant to comment then, but lost internet for a while and when I came back it had devolved to an RfC. Before commenting there (and fwiw, I think it's an unnecessary RfC), I have a few comments to make here, that I'm making wearing the hat of an editor who followed this article while it was being written and took part in the review process. During those months I was accustomed to seeing Doc James' name on the talk page, so I'm very surprised to see what's happening here. Just to recap, for myself because it's hard to follow the history and I'm hoping Doc James and Sarah will clarify: Sarah made this edit on 20:31, 21 October. Five minutes later, Doc James made this edit on 20:36, 21 October, followed quickly by these changes. The next day at 21:37, 22 October, Sarah pasted in this major copyedit, which Doc James reverted a little over an hour later, at 22:55, 22 October. There are lots of issues here: this is how Sarah works. She prepares a major copyedit and then pastes it in. Since she hadn't been editing for some days before that copyedit was added and because she added another on an article I've collaborated on with her during the same timeframe, I'm sure she was working on these revisions with the intent of tidying FA articles. Furthermore, the reversion is really hard to follow and in my view not necessary because small issues such as where non-breaking spaces are inserted, how page numbers are presented have been changed, which should be non-controversial but are always very fiddly and labor-instensive changes. My suggestion to the two of you is this: Doc James, please allow Sarah to paste in her copyedits, then take suggestions you might have to the talk pages as is the SOP for FAs. I'm unable to sort out what's what at this point, so it's all fairly muddled. It's best Doc James allows Sarah to perform necessary maintenance first. The next step is to raise any issues he might have here on the talk page and give adequate time for page watchers to reply. Having just typed all of this out, I think I'll hold off commenting on the RfC - it really isn't necessary and muddies the waters. Thanks. Victoria (tk) 21:02, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Victoria, yes, that's what I often do (here and with other well-developed articles). I use preview a lot, then I save the version off-wiki. I'll often return to it several times before saving, sometimes weeks or even months later. The process is only partly a copy edit; I'm also reading it from top to bottom, reading the sources again, checking whether those sources are still the best, whether I summarized them correctly, and so on. I slowly make my way through it to become familiar with it again.

This article tends to need a big update once a year when UNICEF updates its figures. That requires a major edit and creating new tables. Otherwise, it needs routine maintenance and some streamlining. There's also a lot of invisible work: reading the aid agencies' output, and checking for anthropologist and African feminist sources, in case anything new should be added. I've been looking for new images too.

That is all quite labour intensive. It isn't rational for me to do it if James will revert the work because he doesn't like one word—and where he will decide on the vocabulary based on his personal familiarity with it, and open unnecessary RfCs to hold things up. (It's worth noting that he inserted three ambiguous versions of that sentence, [13][14][15] none of them the version he has suggested in the RfC.) I know it's impossible to have a free hand with any article, but there has to be a reasonable chance of updates being acceptable to reasonable editors. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:03, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Nearly everything that Sarah tried to do in this edit[16] is now in the article. Part of the confusion came from the edit summary which was "restored text per talk and ce". I thought this was a revert to earlier in time and did not realize it was a copyedit. I see know that that was what ce stands for.

Hopefully we can settle the initial issue and move forwards. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:57, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I started this on Friday and it's now Monday. I could have had it done by now. I've asked you to list your objections, so please do. You restored a lot of the edit, but not all. This is the diff between my last and your last edit. I would like to continue tightening, but there's no point if this keeps happening, so I want this to be sorted first. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:33, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Please comment here [17] and we can adress that issue next if you wish. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:55, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Doc James, the issue I'm having is that it's difficult to tell from the diffs what's happening. It would be best to allow Sarah to put in her copyedit; from what I can tell that was reverted and then you made some additional edits after the revert. It would be best for the full copyedit to be pasted in, and then to take it one step at a time from there. I did notice the change removing UNICEF from the beginning of the sentence, and wouldn't have done that because it turns the sentence from the active tense to the passive. Also, I do think we should be attributing in text; that's generally what we do for such statements on FAs. Of course it's cited and someone can check the citation, but for a statement like that I'd prefer to see who is doing the estimating in the text - it's really best practice. If it's not done that way then there's a chance someone will come along and slap a who? tag on it. Attributing in text avoids having that happen. Victoria (tk) 02:16, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

You can tell what part of SV's edits I rolled back in these edit[18]

We can have a RfC over whether or not uncontroversial facts need to be attributed in the lead or not after the current RfC. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:20, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I can't. I see a revert, then a partial revert, then a bunch of fixing and it's hard for anyone to have to have to go through the history in that manner. Right now I have fuzzy vision (sinus infection) and I'm off to bed, but rather than having an RfC re attributions, I'd suggest posting to FAC talk about this. The article has been through multiple reviews, I was one of the reviewers, and frankly I've never seen an FA I've reviewed go through this level of reversions and RfCs. It's quite astounding. I'll try to figure it out when I'm feeling better. Victoria (tk) 02:28, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

One RfC is an astounding level? The article when it was passed as a FA did not contain the text we are discussing. It said "Over 125 million women and girls have experienced FGM in the 29 countries in which it is concentrated" and "Over eight million have been infibulated, a practice found largely in Djibouti, Eritrea, Somalia and Sudan." [19] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:34, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Other suggestions would be to replace "aesthetics" in the lead with "appearance" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:37, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Are you really threatening another RfC? I'd assumed the first one was done in a fit of pique. Opening RfCs on FAs, especially on something sensitive and complex, is disruptive because it attracts people who know nothing about the topic. It should be done as a last resort, not a first.

The article that was promoted did have the diaspora sentence. But this is no longer about that word. Why won't you list your objections to my lead edits? This is probably the third time I've asked. I can't fix them if you won't explain. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:48, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I am not threatening anything. We disagreed and we needed further opinions. RfC are a good way to get that.

So if we look here [20] we see the "disapora" disagreement in the infobox and the first paragraph. And than we see the really long sentence in the 4th paragraph. Those are the only two changes I rolled back. This page is full of me expressing those concerns. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:54, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

RfCs are a terrible way to get opinions on a topic like this, and they're not supposed to be weaponized. WP:RFC: "Editors are normally expected to make a reasonable attempt to working out their disputes before seeking help from others." I've supported you for years, both your editing and your difficulties with the board. The first time I do stand up to you, this happens. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:19, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I have also supported you for many years in your work on this article SV. I asked multiple times how you would define diaspora.

You have also not responded to this ""aesthetics in the lead with appearance" nor the section below. I am definitely attempting to work out the dispute. I do not know what other opinion is left. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:24, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Will you please list below your objections to my edits? SarahSV ^(talk) 03:30, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I already have listed my objections to your edits a couple of times.

(1) I object to your use of the word diaspora when their are more easily understandable alternatives

(2) I object to your overly long sentence in the fourth paragraph when the content should be dealt with over a couple of sentences. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:33, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

• Re: (1): I'm asking about your other objections. But note that, if you don't understand the word diaspora, you're saying you have a lower reading age than expected by the BBC, CBC, Guardian, Toronto Star, and Wikipedia (e.g. Canadian diaspora).
• Re: (2): You extended the fourth paragraph. I had shortened it.

• My edit: "There have been international efforts since the 1970s to persuade practitioners to abandon FGM, and as a result it has been outlawed or restricted in most of the countries in which it occurs, although the laws are poorly enforced."
• Your revert: "FGM has been outlawed or restricted in most of the countries in which it occurs, but the laws are poorly enforced. There have been international efforts since the 1970s to persuade practitioners to abandon it, and in 2012 the United Nations General Assembly, recognizing FGM as a human-rights violation, voted unanimously to intensify those efforts."

• What are your other objections? You changed more than the above. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:35, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes you told me I do not understand the word diaspora as you state my explanation of it is inaccurate.

You created a 39 word sentence. I did not say I liked what was originally their either. If you look at my edit summary I state I am "Reverted to last stable version". Would you be okay with "There have been international efforts since the 1970s to persuade people to abandon FGM. This has included outlawing or restricting it practice in most of the countries in which it occurs, although the laws are poorly enforced."?

What else did I change? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:06, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

No, you indicated that you didn't know what it means, and you said that your wife didn't know.

James, I am talking about your latest edits, not your "last stable version" revert. Please look at this diff, and list below your objections to my version (the version on the left side of the diff), apart from diaspora and apart from the sentence in point 2 above. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:15, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

You also added diaspora to the infobox. Those are the concerns I have. Doc James (talk · contribs · email)

So all this is about those two uses of diaspora and for no other reason? In that case, may I restore the edit if I leave out those two uses? SarahSV ^(talk) 05:33, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

The above is the third time I've asked this, by the way. [21][22] SarahSV ^(talk) 06:20, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Just those three reasons. Sure you can continue.

Have added back more bits. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:06, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Consensus

James, this is a featured article, and your changes have been contentious. Please gain consensus on talk first for any long-standing text that you want to change. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:55, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

That is what I am working to do. I am fine with this as long as it applies to both of us as some of your changes have also been contentious. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:28, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Which changes of mine were contentious? I asked you at least three times above which changes you objected to, but you didn't respond, except to mention the length of one sentence (but one of the sentences it replaced was just as long). What else was there? SarahSV ^(talk) 19:33, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

And I must have answered like 6 times now and we have a RfC about it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:47, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

This is one of the problems. I don't know whether this is being caused by a difficulty in reading diffs or page histories, or whether I'm communicating badly. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:14, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Appearance versus aesthetics

IMO the appearance is better than the aesthetics as it is a more understandable term. SV has reverted without joining the discussion.[23]

The text would thus be "The practice is rooted in gender inequality, attempts to control women's sexuality, and ideas about purity, modesty and appearance." rather than "The practice is rooted in gender inequality, attempts to control women's sexuality, and ideas about purity, modesty and aesthetics."

Others thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:20, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Could you say what you mean by "ideas about appearance"? I don't think I'd understand that if I came to the article without a background.

As a matter of interest, why have you chosen this article and Tourette's syndrome to do this to? Why those two? SarahSV ^(talk) 19:33, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Certain cultures desire certain appearances. Doc James (talk · contribs · email)

Thanks User:SlimVirgin "beauty" works perfectly IMO :-).[24] The recent changes have made the lead more accessible and I appreciate you taking the time to discuss. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:13, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, James. Glad it worked out. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:03, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Just to point out that the use of 'modesty' to mean 'female sexual modesty(?)' (men are almost never modest in this sense) is itself pretty archaic, ditto 'pure' to refer to sexual abstinence or propriety (or does it mean hygienic?). Is there some way of rephrasing that makes the beliefs clearer to a modern reader? Pincrete (talk) 18:26, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

In Islam males are supposed to be modest aswell. Both sexes for example often swim fully dressed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:50, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Graphic image warning

Hello, I do not regularly edit wikipedia articles, but I have a suggestion. Perhaps a graphic image warning for Complications > Pregnancy, childbirth > External Images is in order.

71.11.113.213 (talk) 03:40, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:05, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Wording in the lead

We are having a disagreement regarding the wording in the first paragraph of the article. Should we have:

1) "The practice is found in Africa, Asia and the Middle East, and within diaspora communities from countries where FGM is common."

or

2) "The practice is found in Africa, Asia and the Middle East, and within communities originating from countries where FGM is common." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:36, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Support no change

• No change - the RFC should have said or offered the existing language as an option, so I'm inserting it, which I also think is better. At "...in Djibouti, Egypt, Eritrea, Guinea, Mali, Sierra Leone, Somalia and Sudan.[3] The practice is also found elsewhere in Asia, the Middle East, and among communities from these areas around the world." the language of the other two options lacks the word 'elsewhere' which conveys the focus is in certain nations by Female_genital_mutilation#Prevalence. So, neither is an improvement and stick with the way it already is. I'm also thinking that 'Africa, Asia, and the Middle East' is too generic -- Asia being an awfully large area -- but that's not what the RFC was asking. Markbassett (talk) 23:51, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I am okay with the existing wording as well but do consider the new wording as addressing part of SV concerns. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:59, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

• I support no change too. I don't think that the wording is too long, or cumbersome. It gives adequate information in a quick glance. The two options are too broad. Asia is a big place, so is the Middle East, and as the original wording explains, FGM isn't prevalent in all Asian, African, or Middle Eastern countries. —Hexafluoride ^{Ping me if you need help, or post on my talk} 07:54, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Support 1st version

1. First version I could live with no change, but the existing version is a bit cumbersome and lengthy for a lede. In the body it would be harmless. I emphatically disagree with the idea that "diaspora" is unhelpful or confusing in context; it concisely, inoffensively, and informatively describes the precise meaning and associated implications relevant in context. It furthermore promotes clearer, more vivid wording. That sentence is neater and more fluently worded than either of the alternatives. Such considerations trump vague ideas that every word must be "fully understandable by the general reader with average reading ability", when the alternative is to write a circumlocution where a single word would have sufficed. There is (used to be? I haven't kept in touch) a simple WP in which we were limited to monosyllabic (disyllabic?) words. In such a medium we could reasonably agonise over every word that only 50% (charitably assuming that the drafter of the stricture meant "median" where he wrote "average") of educated adults would understand, but really, for any high-school graduate in the First World, clicking on a single link in the lede in case of doubt is hardly a forbidding obstacle. Personally I think this is storm-in-teacup stuff, but the underlying principles deserve some serious thought. JonRichfield (talk) 06:43, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
2. Support first version per Jon, but note that this issue has already been dealt with. Neither sentence has been used. The RfC was opened prematurely and is a waste of time. Pinging James. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:43, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

   If you read the above it is easy to see why it was required. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:41, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

   If you (re)read the foregoing explanation it is easy to see why nothing of the sort was required, in spite of the contrary opinions. JonRichfield (talk) 06:55, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

3. Support per JonRichfield Funkyman99 (talk) 02:18, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
4. Support for the reasons given by JonRichfield, 'diaspora' is not an especially obscure term and is not only more concise, but also more precise. A diaspora community is not simply one which descends from a particular place, it also, to an extent, preserves the culture and/or values of the 'homeland'. This article (necessarily) uses a large number of precise anatomical and surgical terms, (do many people - even women - use labia minora/majora on a daily basis? Or do they prefer 'analagous' or euphemistic terms to describe everyday discomforts or problems? How many readers are sure what 'infibulation' means?), therefore using one additional (useful and concise) term to describe the people hardly seems a problem.Pincrete (talk) 16:06, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
5. Support, more precise and seems to be supported by the sources. Kaldari (talk) 02:51, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Support 2nd version

1. Support per "fully understandable by the general reader with average reading ability". Have polled a few people who have stated they are unsure of the meaning of the word "diaspora" and would need to look it up. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:36, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
2. Support. I think 2nd version is more understandable.CuriousMind01 (talk) 11:05, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
3. Support. The word "diaspora" carries a number of disparate meanings. Intuitively the first meaning that comes to mind is a specific group of people who have immigrated in response to a single event. The second version is very clear and there is no loss of meaning. Despite widespread use in official documents of the word "diaspora" the second version is more readable. JFW | T@lk 14:17, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
4. Support. "Originating" is clear and appropriate in meaning, while "diaspora" has connotations that are irrelevant and distracting. Maproom (talk) 07:20, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
5. Support but feel free to WP:PIPE "communities originating from countries" to diaspora if that is useful. The use of plain language does not cause significant loss in this case. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:13, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
6. Support, as per above. Borsoka (talk) 04:28, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
7. Support per Maproom above. “WarKosign” 06:03, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
8. Support as per Doc James Jerod Lycett (talk) 16:36, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
9. Support. Diaspora is limited to the generations who left those countries, while the second version is more extensive. Silvio1973 (talk) 13:37, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

   The term diaspora is not limited to the generations that left their countries of origin, and it's the term used by FGM researchers, charities and survivors. See List of diasporas: British diaspora, Canadian diaspora, Indian diaspora, Somali diaspora, etc. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:09, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

• As you know, this isn't the only area of dispute. You reverted the entire update and copy edit, restored some of it but want to retain the old lead. Does this mean I can fix the rest of the lead and article, apart from the diaspora sentence? SarahSV ^(talk) 00:50, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

That was mostly what I had issues with. This sentence is also overly long "There have been international efforts since the 1970s to persuade practitioners to abandon FGM, and as a result it has been outlawed or restricted in most of the countries in which it occurs, although the laws are poorly enforced." Would be better as two sentence IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:58, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I removed that sentence. You restored it. I'm not willing to discuss every single copy editing decision. This has now taken me all day: hours for the edit and hours discussing with you. May I restore the rest of the edit if I use your latest version of the diaspora sentence? SarahSV ^(talk) 01:03, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

You have still not replied here [25] to justify your removal of my changes.

You are more than welcome to continue making edits to the body of the article as those were not under dispute. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:05, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't know what justification you want for the removal of whatever it was. Please be specific.

If you're disputing all the changes to the lead, please list them here and include them in the RfC, rather than pretending this is about one word. And include mention of your previous three versions of the diaspora sentence, which left it inaccurate. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:26, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

RfC deal with only one question. I have adjusted my proposal based on your feedback. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:39, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

What other issues are there in the lead? Please list them. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:44, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

• I like the first better, despite the more technical lexicon. I find the grammar and referents in the second version confusing. However, I think both can be improved. How about something like "The practice is found in Africa, Asia and the Middle East, and in communities of immigrants from those regions"? —David Eppstein (talk) 01:28, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Sure would be happy with that aswell. Some of the people are born in the new country so maybe "The practice is found in Africa, Asia and the Middle East, and in communities from those regions"? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:39, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

*Suggestion: 2) "The practice is found in Africa, Asia and the Middle East, and other areas of the world with peoples from countries where FGM is common." CuriousMind01 (talk) 11:12, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

SV made a good point that some of the people who undergo FGM are born outside of Africa, Asia, and the Middle East and it is that they are within a community that is from these regions. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:00, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Medical Benefits of Female Circumcision

Don't you think the article should be honest and mention the proven medical benefits of female circumcision? It has been proven to prevent hiv in women.TheCircumcisionExpert (talk) 21:04, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

http://scholarworks.gsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1113&context=iph_theses

"RESULTS: This study shows an inverse association (OR=0.508; 95% CI: 0.376-0.687) between FGM and HIV/AIDS, after adjusting for confounding variables." "DISCUSSION: The inverse association between FGM and HIV/AIDS established in this study suggests a possible protective effect of female circumcision against HIV/AIDS. This finding suggests therefore the need to authenticate this inverse association in different populations and also to determine the mechanisms for the observed association."TheCircumcisionExpert (talk) 21:05, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

"This study investigated whether there is a direct association between FGM and HIV/AIDS. Surprisingly, the results indicated that the practice of FGM turned out to reduce the risk of HIV. "TheCircumcisionExpert (talk) 21:06, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

That is really interesting. Once the study shows up in a peer-review forum, we'll be sure to include it. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:34, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Once the study has been summarized by a high quality secondary source we will include it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:15, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

http://www.tzonline.org/pdf/femalecircumcisionandHIVinfectionintanzania.pdf

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1442755%20

That's great. Here are some other studies which confirm the results. Do they meet the criteria as peer reviewed studies?TheCircumcisionExpert (talk) 11:49, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

It's interesting that all the available evidence seems to contradict the claims of this article.TheCircumcisionExpert (talk) 11:50, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Does not meet WP:MEDRS no Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:22, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

The Pubmed reference says nothing about female mutilation. It speaks to longer exposure and different strains in different populations. Could you produce a reliable 3rd party reference with in depth discussion of the benefits of this procedure? Like national newspaper or medical journal? Cotton2 (talk) 15:28, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Female genital mutilation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151007101527/http://www.pulitzer.org/works/1996-Feature-Photography to http://www.pulitzer.org/works/1996-Feature-Photography
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hmb.utoronto.ca/HMB303H/Case_Studies/Kenya-FGM/FGM_&_Cosmetic_Surgery.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151007101527/http://www.pulitzer.org/works/1996-Feature-Photography to http://www.pulitzer.org/works/1996-Feature-Photography
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150702080920/http://www.kinseyinstitute.org:80/library/Pdf/CIRCUMCISION,%20FEMALE1960-1980.pdf to http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/library/Pdf/CIRCUMCISION,%20FEMALE1960-1980.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:18, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2017

Because citation #76, documenting effects of FGM, is not open-access, I think this later open access article by some of the main authors should be added:

Rigmor C. Berg, Vigdis Underland, Jan Odgaard-Jensen, Atle Fretheim, Gunn E Vist, "Effects of female genital cutting on physical health outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis", BMJ Open, 2014;4:11 e006316 doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006316.

URL: http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/4/11/e006316.full J45346 (talk) 21:41, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Ref [76] citing article titled: A Tradition in Transition: Factors Perpetuating and Hindering the Continuance of Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting (FGM/C) Summarized in a Systematic Review by RIGMOR C. BERG and EVA DENISON? It is available for download w/o registration. I just did so. Click on "Full article" or "PDF". Jim1138 (talk) 21:57, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Citation style

I've been changing the citation format recently, so that United Nations reports are in short cites in the body, linking to long cites in a "Works cited" section, using {{wikicite}}. I did this because, with all the references listed as long cites in the body, it was impossible to see at a glance which UN reports had been used, and whether any were missing.

I'd like to do the same with book and book chapters. It's probably better not to do it with all the citations, because medical editors prefer to use long cites in the body, and people adding news reports will do the same. Anyway, I'm leaving this here per CITEVAR in case anyone objects. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:40, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Female genital mutilation in Europe

"There is no reliable and comparable data on the prevalence of FGM at EU level, as under-reporting and incomplete data are an issue. It is estimated however that hundreds of thousands of women living in Europe have been subjected to genital mutilation and thousands of girls are at risk." source: http://ec.europa.eu/justice/gender-equality/gender-violence/eliminating-female-genital-mutilation/index_en.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.33.80.152 (talk) 05:20, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Gender specific language

In the article, which is locked, the practicioner of the fgm is described with the gender specific term her. They would be a better word. Alwatt3 (talk) 23:08, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Alwatt3, which part of the article are you referring to? Sources on female genital mutilation use gendered language, including "female," "she" and "her." Singular they is often confusing. But if "they" or "he or she" is the better option for what you are pointing to, I agree that we should change it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:34, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

See Female genital mutilation#Short-term and late which includes "...complications depend on ... whether the practitioner had medical training, and whether she used antibiotics and unsterilized or surgical single-use instruments."

I can't take the time now to fix the broken link for the smw.ch reference, but this archive appears to have it. Most practitioners are women (for example, see "It is usually initiated and carried out by women" and its ref in the lead) so "she" is very reasonable, although the sentence could be recast to avoid any pronoun. Johnuniq (talk) 11:21, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I see that Anthonyhcole went ahead and used singular they. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Islamic scholars

According the scholar cited, as well as the website, the claim is true. Simple as that.Music314812813478 (talk) 14:05, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

We tend to use more recent sources and those in English. Can you provide recent En sources that support this? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:06, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I shall add the name of a contemporary Islamic scholar (that is NOT from the UN website), and that is enough to satisfy both your demands and the demands of WP:Reliable.Music314812813478 (talk) 18:55, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

This is a featured article and references of a suitable quality are needed. Lots of things have been written about FGM and about Islam, with many of them contradicting each other. Multiple gold-plated sources would be needed to support text asserting that scholars unanimously agree that FGM is a "prescribed Islamic practice". Johnuniq (talk) 05:52, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Add template:About about circumcision?

On the circumcision article, there is template:About that mentions this article. Wouldn't it be appropriate to go the opposite way as well? I suggest something along the lines of

This article is about female genital mutilation. For male genital mutilation, see Circumcision.

As far as I checked, I don't see anybody to have suggested it before me. I'm afraid, it might be somewhat controversial, but at the same time, you can't deny the consistency.--Adûnâi (talk) 21:57, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Please don't use Wikipedia to conduct campaigns. Once reliable sources predominantly use the terminology you mentioned, and after the other article is renamed, a note here might be appropriate. Wikipedia follows sources; it does not lead them. Johnuniq (talk) 01:56, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

How is this conducting campaigns? Just a simple template to avoid confusion between two different kinds of circumcision, male and female. It's not pushing a particular PoV.--Adûnâi (talk) 15:55, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

The point is that currently the other article is Circumcision, and the term "mutilation" is rarely used in that article. That is in accordance with reliable sources and common usage. The world is slowly changing and it is quite possible that in a decade or two, people will regard cutting bits off any child as mutilation, but Wikipedia has to wait for that. Apart from superficial similarities, there is also extremely little connection between what is described on this page and the corresponding material on the other. Johnuniq (talk) 22:32, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Add template:About about circumcision?

On the circumcision article, there is template:About that mentions this article. Wouldn't it be appropriate to go the opposite way as well? I suggest something along the lines of

This article is about female genital mutilation. For male genital mutilation, see Circumcision.

As far as I checked, I don't see anybody to have suggested it before me. I'm afraid, it might be somewhat controversial, but at the same time, you can't deny the consistency.--Adûnâi (talk) 21:57, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Please don't use Wikipedia to conduct campaigns. Once reliable sources predominantly use the terminology you mentioned, and after the other article is renamed, a note here might be appropriate. Wikipedia follows sources; it does not lead them. Johnuniq (talk) 01:56, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

How is this conducting campaigns? Just a simple template to avoid confusion between two different kinds of circumcision, male and female. It's not pushing a particular PoV.--Adûnâi (talk) 15:55, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

The point is that currently the other article is Circumcision, and the term "mutilation" is rarely used in that article. That is in accordance with reliable sources and common usage. The world is slowly changing and it is quite possible that in a decade or two, people will regard cutting bits off any child as mutilation, but Wikipedia has to wait for that. Apart from superficial similarities, there is also extremely little connection between what is described on this page and the corresponding material on the other. Johnuniq (talk) 22:32, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Agree. The debate is far from over, and there are many issues with the term Mutilation being a misnomer, and there should be a differentiation between Mutilation the follwoing terms: Circumcision, Cutting, Alteration, Surgery etc. Attaching a few citations that can be used to justify the position that Mutilation is an incorrect term inorder to club all the procedures together. If this was the case, then it would only be correct to refer to Male Circumcision as Mutilation, and not circumcision. Female genital alteration: a compromise solution http://jme.bmj.com/content/42/3/148 The WHO Hoax https://www.dbwrf.org/articles/view/21 The Goose and the Gander - Genital Wars http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/23269995.2013.811923 Female Circumcision – The Hidden Truth Seven Things to know about Female Genital Surgeries https://www.sfog.se/media/295486/omskarelse_rapport.pdf Clitoral Unhooding http://www.clitoralunhooding.com/ http://asiffhussein.com/2015/04/02/female-circumcision-the-hidden-truth/ No association between female circumcision and prolonged labour: a case control study of immigrant women giving birth in Sweden http://www.ejog.org/article/S0301-2115(04)00659-1/abstract Ban without Prosecution, Conviction without Punishment, and Circumcision without Cutting: A Critical Appraisal of Anti-FGM Laws in Euro https://www.degruyter.com/view/j/gj.ahead-of-print/gj-2016-0012/gj-2016-0012.xml “Circumcision for Women.” Playgirl 1.5 (October, 1973). 76, 124-125 and Kellison, Cathrine. “$100 Surgery for a Million-Dollar Sex Life.” Playgirl 2.12 (May, 1975). 52-55. https://www.amazon.com/Playgirl-Magazine-October-1973/dp/B0015M2QWC Pleasure and Orgasm in Women with Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting (FGM/C) https://www.academia.edu/21118946/Pleasure_and_Orgasm_in_Women_with_Female_Genital_Mutilation_Cutting_FGM_C The unkindest cut https://www.economist.com/news/international/21700631-rite-passage-ranges-symbolic-awful-where-should-line-be-drawn PRESS RELEASE: 11.13.12 Western Media Coverage of Female Genital Surgeries in Africa is “Hyperbolic” and “One-Sided,” says International Policy Group http://www.thehastingscenter.org/for-media/press-releases/press-release-11-13-12-western-media-coverage-of-female-genital-surgeries-in-africa-is-hyperbolic-and-one-sided-says-international-policy-group/ Muffizainu (talk) 07:12, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Get back to this page after changing circumcision. If that is not your plan, please try to post concise comments with an actionable proposal as advised by WP:TPG. Posting dumps of random commentary does nothing other than confirm what is already known, namely that the internet includes many strange ideas. Johnuniq (talk) 10:19, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Given how often the circumcision comparisons come up at this talk page, I think we need a FAQ at the top of this talk page. How about it, SlimVirgin? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:04, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Revision as of 05:37, 5 August 2017

@SlimVirgin:

You have not provided any reason for reverting the edit, even the the WHO citation? The WHO classifies FGM as Type 1a Type 1b, 2, 3, 4 and so on. http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/topics/fgm/overview/en/ They do not club them together as this article does. Also, the heading clubs Type 1 & 2 together when they are completely different procedures. Also, since Type 1a is the mostly practiced form of FGM, it is important to explain the difference.Muffizainu (talk) 15:48, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

In regard to harm in Type 1a, the WHO has said that they do not have any evidence of Type 1a. https://newsin.asia/female-circumcision-communities-call-religious-freedom-upheld/ THey do however have evidence of other types, but not of Type 1a. If you do have any evidence of harm of Type 1a, then please cite it.Muffizainu (talk) 15:59, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

It is WP:SYNTH for an editor to add a prominent heading such as "Lack of evidence of complications or harm for Type 1a" to an article. That kind of edit is a nudge-nudge hint to the reader that some forms of FGM are fine in every way. However, even if the assertion was known to be correct, the heading would be misleading as the claim is merely that no evidence has yet been found. The fact that breitbart.com had to be used as a reference shows how WP:UNDUE is the assertion. Please ask at WP:RSN whether this source would be suitable for making a medical assertion. Johnuniq (talk) 07:45, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Female genital mutilation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140808051255/http://new.bostonreview.net/BR21.3/Tamir.html to http://new.bostonreview.net/BR21.3/Tamir.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140808051257/http://new.bostonreview.net/BR21.5/nussbaum.html to http://new.bostonreview.net/BR21.5/nussbaum.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:35, 29 September 2017 (UTC)