Talk:Female genital mutilation/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 17

Semi-protected edit request on 28 November 2014

Orchid Project was founded in 2011 in London to help end Female Genital Cutting. Julia Lalla-Maharajh, Orchid Project’s founder, was volunteering in Ethiopia when she came across the scale and extent of female genital cutting there. She returned to the UK determined to do something about this. She volunteered with various NGOs working on FGC to discover more about the possibilities for ending FGC. In June 2009, she was on the Trafalgar Square Plinth, raising awareness about FGC. In January 2010, Julia entered a YouTube competition to attend the World Economic Forum. This called for one human rights activist to make a 3 minute video to highlight their urgent cause. In a global vote, she was sent to Davos to hold a debate with the head of UNICEF, Amnesty International and the UN Foundation. This was facilitated by Nick Kristof, co-author of Half the Sky. At Davos Julia met leaders from all over the world. Far from being disinterested, everyone urged her on and the question asked over and again was: “What works in ending FGC? How can we work together to end it?” She found some of the answers to these questions when in early 2011 she visited Tostan, a Senegal-based NGO whose community empowerment programme is leading to widespread abandonment across Western Africa. For the first time, instead of finding people being silenced, talking furtively about a taboo, working on the margins, Julia found entire communities celebrating their ability to choose a life without cutting. Returning from Senegal, she began to realise that an organisation focusing solely on ending female genital cutting was necessary to give the issue the requisite attention it deserves. In 2011, Orchid Project was founded to fulfil this role.

Female genital cutting is an abuse of human, women’s and child rights. It contravenes a girl’s right to a whole body. It happens to girls without their permission and often against their will. It increases and perpetuates gender inequality. When FGC is practised on girls at a young age, it is often a precursor to child marriage, a further violation of girls’ rights. Female genital cutting is held in place by the entire community. Even if one person wants to leave their daughter uncut, it will be hard for them to act alone. The entire community must be engaged in a decision to collectively abandon FGC. Programmes that are based on education and empowerment, allowing communities to understand more about their human rights and responsibilities and also allowing them to talk openly about FGC are the most effective. Female genital cutting ends by an entire community choosing to abandon the practice and then collectively declaring this in front of one another. This means that the existing social norm of cutting their daughters shifts to a new social norm of not cutting their daughters. Once it is acknowledged that the practice is a constructed norm, people realise that FGC is not a useful or positive part of their lives, and they choose to abandon it. To solidify this commitment, public declarations of abandonment are vital. When a group of people stand up and publicly declare that they will no longer practice FGC, they are held accountable by everyone. In addition, the abandoning community must invite its inter-marrying communities to witness the declaration. This is because the witnessing community must be aware that their sons will now marry uncut daughters. The communities witnessing the public declaration also begin to question their own practices. This knowledge spreads through local, national and ultimately regional levels. Abandonment spreads exponentially. Since communities are linked via social networks, abandonment becomes quicker and easier as the movement gains momentum. This process of “organised diffusion” is what we are seeing in Senegal – a country which could completely abandon FGC by 2015. FGC programmes need to be non-directive and non-judgemental. Rather than dictating actions, opening up a conversation on the practice and its health and human rights impacts leads to self-directed questioning of practices and eventual abandonment. Orchid Project is a UK charity with Worldwide reach.

Cyndiegue (talk) 09:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

It is copy and pasted and plus it is overly promotional. By the way is the ORCHID project under a creative commons license? That one be one step forwards in collaborting. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:52, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 December 2014

Orchid Project is a UK-based organisation that seeks to deploy Tostan's human rights based approach to tackle FGC by providing the kind of educational and human rights information that inspires communities to reflect on how they organise themselves and why.

On the issue of gender, The Orchid Project, which is dedicated to ending the practice, gives a wry analysis: “Female genital cutting is required in order to make a good marriage match, because it is thought to indicate purity and virginity. In this sense, men support the practice by only marrying women who have undergone FGC. In order to reach collective abandonment of the practice, men must be willing to marry a woman regardless of whether or not she has been cut. Although FGC puts women at a marked disadvantage in society, the practice is primarily perpetuated by women and passed down from mother to daughter. Men may have a very limited awareness of FGC and its consequences. The practice is very much considered a 'woman's issue' and men tend not to get overly involved outside of the marriage process.” The work of The Orchid Project has been invaluable in showing, with great clarity, the reasons, history and arguments surrounding female genital cutting. For anyone learning about this issue, The Orchid Project is the first and best place to go. They point out that female genital cutting is not a religious issue, that it spans many countries and that it has serious physical and mental consequences for the women and girls who have undergone it. They are also clear-eyed about what it will take for the practice to stop: “Female genital cutting is a [what is known as] social norm. This means that it is held in place by the entire community. One individual acting alone cannot shift a social norm - the entire community must work together collectively.”

In particular, the London charity Orchid Project is working to help Senegal put an end to female genital mutilation — making it the first country where the practice was once widespread to stamp it out. Orchid Project, set up by businesswoman, Julia Lalla-Maharajh, believes “cutting” will be eradicated entirely from the West African country within the next two years.

References

Cyndiegue (talk) 12:56, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Cyndiegue, your suggested edits still don't seem like improvements to this article. Specifically they do not appear to have sufficient sourcing for the proposed content, do not comply with the Wikpedia content policy regarding WP:WEIGHT, and still appear promotional. The Huffington Post items aren't good choices for sources to establish weight regarding a general topic, they are both blogs by activists and really could only be used to establish the views of the individual bloggers. Similarly the Standard article is by a "Campaign editor" and directs readers to sign a petition. Beyond that, the amount of proposed content is disproportionate compared to the content in the article based on much stronger sourcing, and contains enormous quotes instead of summarizing. To get a mention of what appears to be a small, new advocacy organization in this article you'll need to find an independent authoritative source that demonstrates this organization is particularly noteworthy and influential. What's been provided hasn't established that yet. Zad68 13:28, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Obermeyer material

I've restored the material Harizotoh9 removed.

To what extent FGM is invariably harmful is also disputed. Anthropologist Richard Shweder cites reviews of the medical literature by epidemiologist Carla Obermeyer, who suggested in 1999 and 2005 that serious complications were the exception. In 2003 Gerry Mackie disputed Obermeyer's findings, arguing that she had exaggerated the claims of the medical literature before dismissing them.

I could go either way on this. What do others think? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:34, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm in two minds. I would normally favor taking a firm WP:UNDUE line and it would be reasonable to argue that Richard Shweder's views on medical issues are undue. However, it is not so easy to write off Carla Obermeyer's work, which Shweder merely presents. I've never wanted the paragraph removed in the past because it seemed desirable to present the best possible case for the pro-FGM side (while still using reliable sources) as that makes it harder for readers to conclude the article is Western propaganda. If pressed, I would say to leave the paragraph in the article and revisit the issue in a year or so to assess what is said on the issue at that time. My guess would be that by then more studies will show the expected conclusion, namely that FGM, particularly given its haphazard application, does cause serious medical complications, so we would then remove the paragraph as undue. Johnuniq (talk) 02:17, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

"Little knife"

Congratulations on getting this featured! I have to say, I didn't myself realize just how proprietarian this procedure really was. But I don't understand the quote Those men who do manage to penetrate their wives do so often, or perhaps always, with the help of the "little knife." This creates a tear which they gradually rip more and more until the opening is sufficient to admit the penis. I'm not clear on whether the little knife is an actual knife or something else. Wnt (talk) 23:56, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think any clear information is available, but my opinion is that the quotation marks are hinting that the term "little knife" (in a local language) is a euphemism for a small knife that the husband might use. The whole paper (a bit overpowering) is here but it says nothing beyond what is quoted in the article. The term "little knife" is mentioned in Systematic Review of Health Complications (WHO 2000) (p. 84/181) which I'll quote:

Psychosexual [results]

• Marriage problems
• penetration difficulties
• defibulating cut by husband often clumsily done
• extremely painful, "souvenir d'horreur"
• repeated sexual contacts stop new wound sealing
• obligation of new husband to be seen with his ("little knife") dagger on his shoulder to show he has opened and taken possession of his new wife. (In Djibouti where no daggers are allowed to be carried it is replaced by a stick or scabbard).

Johnuniq (talk) 01:34, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the improvements. I didn't realize that JSTOR plays keep-away even with publicly accessible articles -- the link that was there before ( [1] ) actually offers us the opportunity to pay $43.00 for what the journal itself is making freely available! Even after Aaron Swartz I didn't realize just how sleazy... a site-wide inquisition into such links may be appropriate. Anyway, I hope some further research will sort this out more conclusively. Wnt (talk) 14:08, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Images

I see my attempt to bring this article into line with our MoS was undone. The issues are: why would we want the images hardcoded to random sizes? They will look daft on some resolutions and screen sizes. WP:IMGSIZE recommends not doing this and instead letting users set their own image size preferences. We also don't normally give photo credits to a non-notable photographer in the image caption. The image file itself is the place for this. Thoughts? --John (talk) 06:44, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I have no problem removing the name in the caption. I'm planning to remove it in my next series of edits. Re: image sizes. I would like them to be big, and this is how the article was promoted. I've tried using upright=1.35 instead of 300px, but the problem there is that, for someone with a default of 300px, the image will be huge. This is why I prefer to fix them. Also, using the upright parameter makes it harder to get several of the images to anything near the same size. So again, for the sake of neatness, I fixed the sizes, as many editors do. The mobile version handles images differently, so people looking at this on very small screens won't be affected. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 06:55, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

The article was thoroughly reviewed (peer and FAC) and no one commented about the image formatting. I think the images should stay as they are because there is no setting which covers all cases, and SV has taken the trouble to determine what works well for many readers of this article. Johnuniq (talk) 11:21, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

At some point somewhere I've noticed discussion about boosting thumbnail size to 300px, which I think is a long overdue change. In the meantime, I don't see a reason to change the images, particularly right before the article hits the main page. The upright parameters render tiny images for my browser, so my view is to keep them as they are. I didn't notice that they were a problem when reviewing the page. Victoria (tk) 18:17, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

All the white-space below the lede, to the right of the table of contents: this is a problem (for me at least, I'm old-school newspaper layout . . . never waste paper w/o print) on many articles (viewing on a laptop). I like the picture at the top, perfect size, very stunning! Wonder if there are any other pics to fill up that white-space? Raquel Baranow (talk) 18:37, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

"There is no setting which covers all cases" is the reason we prefer to leave images unhardcoded. MoS compliance is a FA criterion. --John (talk) 19:24, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Over the months of placing images and graphs, I checked the article on a cellphone, tablet, and two laptops with different screen sizes, using different browsers and different widths, and this particular layout seemed fine. I can't re-test a different layout at this late stage.

@Raquel Baranow: I don't like the white space next to the table of contents either, but finding free images for this article has been difficult. There are some powerful FGM images that are copyrighted, and I could perhaps have claimed fair use for a couple of them, but fair-use images are almost always challenged when an article goes through the featured-article process. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 19:46, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I added a couple of {{clear}} templates which might help. Feel free to revert if it makes it worse. Image rendering is very much browser dependent. Victoria (tk) 20:55, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that, Victoria. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 21:54, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

divs → blockquotes for quotes?

Would anyone object to replacing the <div>...</div> tags used for blockquotes with more semantic <blockquote>...</blockquote> tags (with the same styling)? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 04:11, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Curly, can you say what the benefits of doing that are? Someone mentioned doing it before, but I couldn't understand what the underlying difference was. Thanks for asking, by the way. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 04:26, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

It's more semantic (meaningful), which, for example, makes it easier for machines to do things with it. It tells a machine "this is a quotation", whereas a div is about as general and uninformative a tag as it gets ("this is a bunch of text"). In the end, it will look the same to readers. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 04:57, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I have no objection in principle, Curly, if it will look the same and be easy enough to modify in future. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 05:14, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't realize you were SlimVirgin, with your current signature. Anyways, I've gone and done it. I hope I didn't screw anything up. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:39, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

It looks fine. I didn't realize it could be swapped like that. Thanks for doing it. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 08:23, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Centers for Disease Control

Just noting here that today's Guardian seems to have its figures slightly wrong. It reports that in 1997 the CDC said 168,000 women and girls were living with FGM in the US in 1990. In fact, the CDC said 168,000 had undergone it or may have been at risk (p. 372).

Today the Guardian reports that it has obtained a new CDC report, as yet unpublished, which reports 513,000 living with FGM in the US. That raises the question of whether it is, as before, 513,000 with FGM or at risk.

There's no way to check so I've included it, but added "reportedly":

In the United States the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) estimated in 1997 that 168,000 women and girls living there in 1990 had undergone FGM or were at risk.[220] A more recent, unpublished, CDC report, obtained by The Guardian in February 2015, reportedly estimates that 513,000 women and girls in the US have undergone FGM.

Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 22:07, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

The New York Times clarified today that the 500,000 figure in the US is women/girls who have undergone it or are likely to do so. Thank you to Raquel Baranow for adding that ref. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 17:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Sources

This article is still using a few old primary sources. This article, while fascinating, may be one example ? http://www.google.ie/?gws_rd=cr&ei=_1plUsryMYLWtAbv9YCIAg Some editors get very cross and cut out some such primary references from analogous articles such as the male Circumcision article. In general, but not exclusively, secondary sources are preferred, particularly for TFA articles.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 17:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Tumadoireacht, can you give an example of a primary source used inappropriately? Your link didn't seem to lead to anything (for me, at least). Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 18:05, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Ready?

This is due to go out as TFA in a few hours, yet there are still problems with it. A Featured Article should not contain material like this, and a TFA never should. Then there is the image problem noted above. I suppose it is too close to the cut-off to replace this with a more thoroughly-reviewed article. Note to self; be more vigilant in reviewing TFA queues ahead of time. As this stands, I am not confident it represents our best work. --John (talk) 19:52, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi John, thanks for catching those errors. I see that Johnuniq fixed them. I'm taking a run through myself now - have read about half the page and not found any other problems. I'll take a look at the images again and see if any minimal rejigging is necessary, but as I said above, I'm not seeing issues with the rendering. Victoria (tk) 20:37, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

John, I made those typos yesterday because your arrival has made me nervous. I'm asking you please not to continue. I've put a lot of work into the article – years on and off reading about FGM, months of intense writing, and a lot of time spent arranging and responding to internal and external reviews. It has had a GA review, an informal peer review, a formal peer review, an FAC, and two external specialist reviews.

I would like to be able to keep a clear head so that I can go over the article carefully, and make sure everything is in order. Then it would be lovely to be able to enjoy the time that it's on the main page, which for years felt like a very distant goal. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 20:38, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

• John, I did a little bit of editing on this article a long time ago, and it's not easy since it's huge. It's also important. Minor errors notwithstanding, I am proud of SV that this gets to be on the front page--in the meantime, let's do what we can to catch anything else that may have slipped by all those reviewers, including yours truly. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Drmies, thanks for saying that. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 00:23, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

• What do you think of the idiosyncratic image formatting and the kooky "image credit" in a caption? It seems a funny thing to edit war over. Of course it's an important topic and of course we can be proud that it is being promoted. But it should be as good as it can be and one editor's protectiveness should not be allowed to countermand the standards that Featured Articles are held to. I'm going to re-remove the image credit, and I'd appreciate clueful input into the image formatting question. --John (talk) 07:01, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I've looked at both versions of the image formatting and must say I much prefer it as it stands. Andreas JN466 09:15, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

• • That's fine, but that's a function of the exact setup you are using. I admit it looks ok on my desktop and my laptop too the way they are currently set up, but nevertheless WP:IMGSIZE is policy and complying with it is an FA criterion. Unless there is a special reason beyond "It works ok for me" to use this formatting, it should be brought into compliance. Is there such a reason? I am not seeing it. --John (talk) 18:44, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Concentrated

Hi DRosenbach, it may seem like a minor issue, but regarding the change in the lead from "concentrated" to "primarily performed," do you mind if I change that back? "Concentrated" is a word several RS use, including UNICEF. Also, from a writing perspective, one word is better than two, and with "primarily" and "typically" in one sentence, another word would flow better. Do you feel that "concentrated" is unclear? Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 18:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Sarah on this one. Less is more, and be true to sources. --John (talk) 18:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, if that's the way it's usually referred to -- I just thought it was an awkward way of saying that. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 19:34, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll restore it for now, but I'm open to other suggestions if you still think "concentrated" is awkward. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 19:38, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Great article!

I was particularly impressed at the comprehensive and well-balanced nature of this one. Good job! Brutannica (talk) 03:16, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

+1. A labour of love, and one of Wikipedia's finest. Andreas JN466 12:48, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Brutannica and Andreas, much appreciated. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 22:40, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Map

I don't understand the repeated removal of the link to the map of Africa. [2][3] It's there because most readers almost certainly aren't familar with its geography, so I placed it underneath the prevalence map so that they could see what the blank spaces represented. It was promoted with the link, so please gain consensus before removing it again. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 17:23, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I am not convinced it is germane on this article. We certainly can't use the "Click here for... " form of words. Again, as above, I am wondering how this article passed FAC and TFA selection with stuff like this. Issues like this, while rather trivial, would tend to fail at FAC. Why is it so important to have this here, with the odd wording? --John (talk) 17:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

It helps people to see where the primary FGM countries are in relation to others, what's east, west, etc, and where the non-FGM (or reduced or unknown FGM) countries are. It's educative. I am guessing that most of the readers of this article have almost no knowledge of African geography. An earlier version of the article contained the map itself, but I reduced it to a link in the caption. I can't see a problem with "click here for ...", but if you can think of better wording I'm open to suggestions. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 18:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

If it was a map of the southern states of the US or France, would we highlight a link to a more detailed map of the area? Or would we just leave it to the curious reader to click on the relevant geographical wikilink, which in this case is Prevalence of female genital mutilation by country and which is linked twice in the article and once in a template? Making such a big deal of our readers' supposed ignorance of African geography distracts from the subject here, in my opinion, and should not be done in a Featured Article. --John (talk) 19:11, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

If there were a section about how something was happening in certain areas of France and the US, but not others, and geographical contiguity was sited as responsible for the practice's spread and continuity, I probably would add a map for readers in other countries. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 19:34, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

But File:FGM prevalence UNICEF 2015.svg already shows the geographical contiguity beautifully, and to further explain the geography of Africa beyond those areas that practise FGM seems inapropos here, and may also seem like patronising cultural bias to some. I do not think FA best practice would be to make such a geographical link beyond the scope of the article. --John (talk) 19:39, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Re: your first point, not really. It shows, for example, that it's concentrated in northern Sudan but not South Sudan. People not familiar with the map will not notice that, and it's an oddity (and not the only one). Do you mind waiting until it's off the main page? It will be easier for me to focus then, and we can ask other people to comment too. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 19:43, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

John. Following the example of Umberto Eco, I watch pre-prandial quizzes, and I get the same impression as he did. Those of us raised in another bookish error, um. era, tend to grossly overestimate younger generations' spatial-visual awareness of map topologies: we were raised on them. Far too many I encounter have no sense of these areas, and can't tell east from west/north from south. I thought long and hard before reverting you,-because I've never seen from you anything but perceptive advice- but this was one reason for doing so. Nishidani (talk) 20:15, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I read your article, and I think you've done a great job overall of presenting the topic. The writings looks just fine, but like John, I have to take issue with some of the formatting. Most of it is nonstandard, some in the extreme. For example, there is an abundance of external links in the body of the article. Some may be appropriate there, but looking them over, I think most probably belong in an 'External links' section. Also, I noticed one instance of using "(above)" to indicate the position of a photograph being discussed in the text, which is generally discouraged. But, perhaps more importantly, the African map being linked above the color-coded map (the one to which John has above objected) is actually out of date (Sudan is listed as a single country). I think this would have benefitted from a good once-over before FAC to correct some of the more nonstandard items.-RHM22 (talk) 20:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Re: non-standard, I write for the reader, rather than only with other editors in mind, though of course I don't ignore what other editors are likely to think. But I try to balance, and if something makes sense for the reader, I do it. Re: external links, can you give an example? I can't quite work out what you mean. Re: the map. If it's not up to date, that's a good point, especially as I've just made the point about South Sudan. File:AfricaCIA-HiRes.jpg includes South Sudan, but is a few years old. (Actually I think this one used to be in the article.) Can you see anything in it that's out of date? Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 20:34, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I understand the accessibility aspect, but I have to question the necessity of the quote boxes, for example. Some include links to externally-hosted images, when it might be more appropriate to just show some photographs in the body of the article, rather than linking to other websites there. I noticed that Commons has a few images of the aftereffects of this procedure. Did you choose to link to external images to avoid shocking readers? I can understand that rationale, but I wouldn't personally agree with it, since there is and should be a reasonable assumption that such visually uncomfortable photos might be found in an article about a rather uncomfortable topic. Other images (especially the Pulitzer winners) aren't really necessary to the article at all. While they are certainly evocative, they aren't really illustrative, and those chosen to be linked seem perhaps a bit arbitrary. In my opinion, it would be more appropriate to include external links in a separate section. The exception to that would be if no suitable (free) images are available, in which case some 'before and after'-type links in the body would certainly be a reasonable concession.

Regarding the map image: I noticed that you changed it to the one you mention above, which is a good improvement, in my opinion, especially since the color-coded map includes South Sudan.-RHM22 (talk) 20:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

There are very few free FGM-related images, so I've linked to external images, and I made my own quotebox rather than use the external-images template, which I don't like. I'm not aware of any images on Commons where we can be sure of the provenance. I had hoped to get images from the UN, but they will only release them under a non-commercial licence.

Re: shocking. Yes, I would like to avoid shocking, but it's a moot point for now, because any free images I've seen that might shock have been problematic. And shocking isn't the only concern. One issue for African writers has been the way the Western media assumes the right to publish images of women with FGM or at FGM ceremonies without their consent, as the article says. I don't want to repeat the offence that I'm describing. A link to such images is arguably offensive already, in the view of those writers, but it's a middle position. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 21:17, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, it is just my personal preference to avoid in-body links except when unavoidable. I don't object to including the links to the Pulitzer pictures, but I personally think they're distracting in the body of the article. Also, the location of the quote box for those images is a bit out of place, since they aren't mentioned in that section. Would you object to moving that particular quote box to the section in which the photos are mentioned? I've created a demonstration here. I like this version because it removes the need for the "(above)" bit which links to another portion of the article. In addition, the photograph of Nussbaum is aligned to the left, which looks a little nicer to me in relation to the Nnaemeka photo. It might be better to wait until the TFA is over to implement any significant changes; I'm just giving some suggestions. In case Victoria is referring to me and my comments, I'd like to make it clear that I'm not denigrating the article. Rather, I think that there might be a few too many external links and other things, which might distract from the fine prose and information.-RHM22 (talk) 22:38, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Apart from spammers, everyone prefers to avoid in-body links—the question is whether a particular link is undue or unhelpful. I don't think we should bikeshed unimportant details like where a particular box goes, however, the proposal has the benefit of removing "(above)" at the cost of making the "Support from women" section an unattractive block of text. In addition, the photographs belong in their current section because they show women supporting the process. I support waiting until TFA is well over—let's return next week. Johnuniq (talk) 00:39, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, trivial details are often the difference between navigability. In this case, it makes little sense, in my opinion, to keep the quote box in a section in which it has little relevance, when its contents are explicitly discussed at a later point in the article. While the plain text might be a bit unattractive, it makes more sense from an 'ease of use' perspective (self-referencing is expressly discouraged in the MoS). Using the quote box here isn't really any different than using a photo. Like I said earlier, my personal preference is to move most of the external links to a special section, but in lieu of that, they should at least be added to the appropriate sections. Also, to be clear, I haven't removed any images (in my above linked sandbox suggestion). I just moved them around slightly to accommodate the quote box. I'm not going to push the issue, because this isn't my area, but I would definitely suggest at least moving the quote box per my suggestion, or in some way similar.-RHM22 (talk) 01:58, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

• Regarding the map, I have to agree with Nishidani, who I thanked for his thoughtful comment and will do so here publicly. I'm angry at the reactions here from the WP community towards this effort. (Redacted) In my view the map is necessary. It was discussed in the reviews, I believe, and if I'd thought it was overkill, as a reviewer I would have brought it up. Instead of belaboring the point with the main contributor here, either let it go, or say something to the reviewers, or wait until it's off the main page. This article got promoted months ago, went through months of reviews, and now all these issues have to be taken care off suddenly? By a single person? I'm not impressed. Victoria (tk) 21:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for saying that, Victoria. RHM22, I would love to take a brief break from this. The Pulitzer Prize links used to be lower, but that left the Support from women section as a wall of text. Also, those photographs demonstrate the point that this is done by women, so I moved the box there. Shortage of carefully sourced free images has been an ongoing problem. I'm in touch with people who I hope can help, but finding copyright holders has been a slow process. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 00:34, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

• I understand the concern regarding the 'wall of text' effect, but I do still feel as though the ease of use of displaying the links in the appropriate section outweighs the potentially less attractive appearance of the plain text. Anyway, I don't have any interest in badgering you about it. This isn't my area, so the minutiae is best left to the author(s). My opinion has been noted, and I will leave that sandbox up as it stands in case you'd like to revisit it at a later date.-RHM22 (talk) 01:58, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks, I appreciate that. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 02:02, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Like all good rules, the strict protocols governing qualification for FA quality articles on Wikipedia are designed to debar work that lacks comprehensive thoroughness, reliability, aesthetic appeal, and writerly fluency. They are not designed to create margins for picking away at articles, like this, which magnificently embody all of the requisite virtues, indeed, in its descriptive depth and cogent exfoliation of the subject, this one goes way beyond the usual FA standard. When one editor has taken a year out of his or her life to ensure such palmary results, the Wikipedia community should concede a certain leeway to the drafter with regard to minutiae. Democratic communities that subscribe to exacting standards, rarely see them observed in individual performance. But when they do, they do well to honour the achievement by conceding a certain discretionary authority. I say this as someone who has at times strongly disagreed with SV, and as someone who knows personally what sacrifices are demanded of those of us who push through a poor, inadequate but fundamental article over the standard FA highbar. Well done, splendidly done.Nishidani (talk) 14:32, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

We are not a democratic community though, we are trying to write a free online encyclopedia. To this end we have house styles and house rules. An article which does not observe these has no business being promoted as our finest work. There are many great things about this article, but it seems like the peer review process failed us as we displayed it in an unsatisfactory state. We need to look at how we can clean it up, and we need to look at the process to prevent this from happening again. --John (talk) 17:52, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, direct me to any free online article, in an encyclopedic format or otherwise, which comes within a mile of this article, and I'll rethink this. Perhaps I just haven't searched hard enough.Nishidani (talk) 18:40, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I've looked at the images in both the sizes you preferred and the sizes they currently are. I prefer them as they are. They show just enough detail to not make me want to go into the Media Viewer, which I consider a plus – and not an accidental one, but one that is the result of editorial judgment. Per my reading, MOS:Images allows that level of editorial discretion, and I don't think the image sizes reflect badly on this article or related review processes. Andreas JN466 23:37, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

POV in lead

The intro states: "The practice is rooted in gender inequality, attempts to control women's sexuality, and ideas about purity, modesty and aesthetics." This sounds like a rather politicized statement to me. Could this be reworded in a more neutral way? Essentially there are two views here: that of Westerners, who view the practice as a form of inequality, and that of the participants, who view the practice as socially important. This sentence directly endorses the Western viewpoint, rather than attributing it to sources. 67.188.230.128 (talk) 21:12, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

This is a succinct summary of the standard view (note the words "rooted in"). Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 00:26, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I would agree that this "standard view" is still a point of view, and this should be presented as such. There are a lot of absurd practices (some very harmful, some not) such as genital mutilation, and stating that any practice is rooted in "gender inequality, attempts to control women's sexuality, and ideas about purity, modesty and aesthetics" is not provable. We could state that all mutilatory practices are rooted in those things too. How can this be demonstrated as "the standard view"? It would be better to state that many people believe it to be such, and provide a source. Awernham (talk) 16:56, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Hanny Lightfoot-Klein

Hi Yohannesb, just to explain my revert, [4] I've used Lightfoot-Klein as a source in the article to describe the partial deinfibulation on the wedding night, because it's a standard description. The orgasm claims are less clear, and to juxtapose that source with peer-reviewed material is arguably a violation of WP:MEDRS (our medical sourcing guideline). Also, the conclusion of your edit, that the clitoris doesn't matter, doesn't follow from the previous sentences. The degree of damage is a major factor.

On the other hand writers do talk about the differences in sexual responses. If that section is ever developed (and I think a daughter article would be a better place, because it's a complex issue), Asma El Dareer's Woman, Why Do You Weep? is a good place to start, along with Lightfoot-Klein and more recent African academic and medical sources. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 22:51, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Hanny Lightfoot-Klein

The material I added is from The Journal of Sex Research. Since 1963, that journal has been a peer-reviewed scientific journal covering the study of human sexuality and the field of sexology in general. Therefore, it is not a violation of WP:MEDRS (our medical sourcing guideline). Read it carefully. It says, "Scientific journals are the best place to find both primary source articles about experiments, including medical studies, and secondary sources. Every rigorous scientific journal is peer reviewed. Be careful of material published in a journal that lacks peer review".

I also have added it on the right section.

Yohannesb (talk) 18:33, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

@Yohannesb: The Lightfoot-Klein article is a primary source, in that she's reporting interviews she conducted herself. See WP:MEDPRI. It's a well-known article and it can be used, but it has to be placed in context to avoid violating MEDRS and WP:UNDUE (part of the neutrality policy): what the study's limitations were, what secondary sources have said about it, particularly medical sources, whether and how it differs from recent medical studies.

The ideal thing would be to create a daughter article (e.g. Female genital mutilation and sexual function), then we can link to and perhaps summarize it here, per WP:SUMMARY. But if you do consider creating an article, please only do it if you're willing to expand it a little so that it doesn't place undue emphasis on Lightfoot-Klein. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 23:30, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

We thought, we finally have found a medium that is neutral from biases. However, you are making this article only one sided. The whole issue of FGM has been around this myth, that is, it kills women's sexuality. After it was researched over 5 years, it has been found false by renowned medical journal. I don't think women's evolution has changed over the past 30 years. Therefore, your argument, because your finding is from recent journal doesn't make any sense. We, Africans, have been called "Savages" because of this issue. But, when it was found that it has no effect on women's sexuality, you cannot swallow the truth, the brutal truth. Yohannesb (talk) 15:21, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello Yohannesb, I agree with SV's revert of your edits. The manner that you wrote the material is way too promotional sounding even if we were going to use the material (which I don't think we should because it is a primary research.)

I agree with the plan to use systematic reviews whenever possible to provide the best evidence available for this article. By using combined research data, the systematic review finds areas where there is strong agreement among the original research studies. They also minimize biases. Whenever possible, systematic reviews are the type of references that the article needs to adhere to because of the reliable source policy for medical topics. For that reason, Lightfoot-Klein's research, which is a small study, can not be taken as the sole evidence that women undergoing FGM have sexual desire, pleasure, and orgasm similar to women who do not undergo FGM. So we can not highlighted that finding in this article the way that you wrote it.

Additionally, I read the entire text of the Lightfoot-Klein article and don't think that your edit captures the content of article fully. There are many passages that strongly indicate that the women have serious urogenital problems that interfere with their sexuality. Saying that a majority of these women are able to experience some level of sensation and pleasure is distinctly different from saying that they are like other women (in the same or different culture) but didn't have FMG. I looks to me that you are massively exaggerating the importance of the wording in this abstract when the final discussion in the article it's self uses much less decisive wording to preface the rationales and conclusion.

So, I agree with SV's revert of your edits. And would be extremely reluctant to have the primary research be highlighted in any article on Wikipedia that discusses sexual desire, pleasure, and orgasm. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 21:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

The research conducted and the conclusion reached is not Meta-analysis. It is one sided and biased. In order that article to be Meta-analysis, the paragraph I've added must be included. All "15 studies involving 12,671 women from seven countries" were living in the UK. It is not clear how long they have lived in the UK. Any circumcised woman that have lived in the UK for a long period of time has already been brainwashed to believe that her sexual pleasure is less enjoyable. Moreover, the finding doesn't talk before and after FGM. This FGM issue has been grossly exaggerated beyond any proportion.

There is different king of FGM. In Sudan, they call it Pharaonic circumcision...it involves by putting together fleshy layers and leaving a narrow hole as it is shown in the picture. The write's findings is that the first time, "the Sudanese bride undergoes conditions of tremendous pain...". However, afterwards, her sexual pleasure is not so different from uncircumcised women. Therefore, the Sudanese women interviewed are not brainwashed to believe that their sexuality is less pleasurable than, say, white women. Yohannesb (talk) 23:06, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

This article is not about sexual pleasure or the function of the clitoris so it is not the appropriate place for debate on those issues. Hanny Lightfoot-Klein has made many excellent contributions, but she is not an authority on the topics mentioned in the proposed text. Many studies have been published on different aspects of humanity and they often contradict each other, and that is why articles should use great care when reporting findings—WP:MEDRS is written for "biomedical" material but its concepts apply to any claim about how the body works. Johnuniq (talk) 23:39, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Yohannesb, anthropologist Ellen Gruenbaum is interested in Lightfoot-Klein's work. She discusses the sex research in chapter five of The Female Circumcision Controversy: An Anthropological Perspective, University of Pennsylvania Press, 2001. Although she goes on to discuss the work as interesting, she begins the discussion by saying: "Lightfoot Klein's observations lack methodological rigor and the sound ethnographic contexualization that would enable me to report her findings with confidence" (p. 142). Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 23:56, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Sarah (SV), The argument of "ethnographic contexualization" is very weak. Human beings are physically the same regardless of their ethnicity, race, or national origin.

This article says << Feelings of shame and betrayal can develop when women leave the culture that practices (sic) FGM and learn that their condition is not the norm, but within the practicing (sic) culture they may view their FGM with pride, because for them it signifies beauty, respect for tradition, chastity and hygiene. >>

So, the article admits that there is a psychological influence of the women that leave the culture that practices FGM. Thus, interviewing circumcised women in the UK will produce different results than interviewing women in Sudan. Therefore, this article is biased and one sided. It is wrong to report it as Meta-analysis. Yohannesb (talk) 15:57, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Yohannesb, the article as written makes it clear that there is not a large body of good research available. So, I think that we can leave it to the reader to understand that we are working with limited information. Despite the limited information in reliable sources, we can not manufacture NPOV by giving too much weight to lower quality research.

The current wording in the article conveys that there are differences in women that are in a practicing culture and those that leave the culture. "Feelings of shame and betrayal can develop when women leave the culture that practises FGM and learn that their condition is not the norm, but within the practising culture they may view their FGM with pride, because for them it signifies beauty, respect for tradition, chastity and hygiene.[9] So, I don't think we are misleading readers.

And I want to point out that the information as written in this article about sexual function is not wrong even if you take into account the work you cite by Lightfoot-Klein. She is highlighting the idea that despite attempts to completely inhibit a women's sexual desire and pleasure with FMG, the culture was not successful in doing it. She speaks to the idea that women in this culture still have sexual feelings. That idea is interesting but doesn't counter the evidence that women who are cut have more sexual dysfunction compared to women who are not cut. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 17:33, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Sarah (SV), 5 years of research and over 800 people interview is not lower quality of research. The lower quality research is this article, that is, an article written in the UK by interviewing women after brainwashing them that their sexuality is inferior because of the FGM. How do the women know the difference? It is like telling a man woman's sexuality or telling a child about maturity.

Be that as it may, after a long denial, you've finally admitted that, according to the research of genuine women (whose brain was not brainwashed), women in Sudan do have sexual pleasure despite going through FGM. Yohannesb (talk) 03:24, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Social norms

I think the article is missing same or part of an important issue the "social norms" behind FGM cutting. The most resent statistical report by Unicef [5] mention that this practice is based in social norms in which family choose to cut her daugher becouse other member important to them have their daugthers cut, and because they think these other members of community think they should have their daugther cut (see figure 3.1). Also to follow this "social norms" could give to the these girls "sexual restraint, femininity, respectability and maturity" according to the community and not to follow these "social norms" to social exclusion (only these is explain briefly in the article) harassmend, exclusion from important communal events and support networks, as well as discrimination by peers. [6] these "social norms" deeply embedded in the community are a source of great pressure in the girls population to conform these norms, if a girl do not carry FGM, marriage and childbearing will be denied for them [7]. Now days the European Commission and also USAid utilize the term [8][9] also the US department of state [10]. So why no us too?--Bsea (talk) 04:44, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

The lead includes "It is usually initiated and carried out by women ... who fear that failing to have their daughters and granddaughters cut will expose the girls to social exclusion", and the reference for that statement includes an extract from the UNICEF 2013 report: "There is a social obligation to conform to the practice and a widespread belief that if they [families] do not, they are likely to pay a price that could include social exclusion, criticism, ridicule, stigma or the inability to find their daughters suitable marriage partners." Also, see the Social obligation section which includes another UNICEF quote: "self-enforcing social convention". In other words, the information seems to be in the article, although possibly something extra from the sources you mention would be useful, bearing in mind that articles tend to deteriorate when extra points are accumulated. Johnuniq (talk) 06:40, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Coverage at Somalis in the UK article

Editors of this article may be interested in this discussion about whether the issue of FGM should be discussed in the Somalis in the United Kingdom article. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Reliability of Sources

I think there is an issue of the reliability of some sources used in the article, or at least the reliability of their representation. A recent edit was reverted for not using a 'secondary source' (although the source it did use is quite highly regarded and well-cited in the field, so should at least be included in the article to indicate the contentiousness and uncertainty of the issue of sexual pleasure in women who have undergone a genital cutting procedure). Very many sources in the article are not secondary sources (as far as can gather from the Wikipedia guidelines). Furthermore, the secondary source actually used in that section is not accurately represented. The source itself identifies the unreliability of its own results by saying "Caution is warranted in interpreting the results of our systematic review, given the quality of the evidence was too low to warrant conclusions about a causal relationship between FGM/C and sexual consequences, largely due to the weaknesses of the observational design of all included studies." This unreliability is not evidenced in the description of the result in this article which thus fails to exercise the caution advised by the authors of the study.

One primary source (which I'm taking to mean not a literature/systematic review of multiple publications, although I'm unclear on Wikipedia's exact definitions) which is cited without sufficient scrutiny is the WHO study on obstetric outcomes of FGM. This study has been criticised elsewhere as employing some creative use of statistics -- see point 7 in the linked article. Moreover, there are other large scale studies which have been neglected entirely and provide different results (e.g. that of Morison et al.). I don't think primary sources should be excluded from the article entirely, nor edits reverted with the sole justification of not using 'secondary sources' (although I do think the addition in the original reversion I mentioned was flawed, I think it should have been amended, not removed entirely). On the contrary, a variety of high-quality primary sources should at least be mentioned in order to give more accurate coverage of the actual research on the topic, and the fact that the black-and-white public perception of the effects of female genital cutting is completely at odds with the academic discussion which is far more unclear and contentious.

An asymmetry of scrutiny of sources risks fostering inaccuracies. Outsightful (talk) 17:43, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I see that some similar stuff has actually been discussed elsewhere on the talk page. I'll leave this here because I think it adds a little more than those other discussions mentioned but also because I'm new to editing on Wikipedia and I'm not really sure what standard protocol is anyway (I have no idea what I'm doing) Outsightful (talk) 17:54, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

@Outsightful: Thank you for your comments. This is a reply to your comments here, and to the comment in the earlier section.

The paper you cited above (by two anthropologists, Ellen Gruenbaum and Richard A. Shweder, and a gynaecologist, Lucrezia Catania), expresses a minority position, and in several of its examples an extreme-minority one. Our article, for the most part, has to reflect the mainstream view, including that of the World Health Organization and UNICEF. Our policies and guidelines dictate that, particularly our neutrality policy, WP:NPOV, and our medical guideline, WP:MEDRS. In addition to following internal policies, the article went through two external specialist reviews.

I did include significant-minority views throughout, and several of the points in the paper you cited are in the article. We cite some of the authors or reviewers of that paper (Essen, Johnsdotter, Abdulcadir, Ahmadu, Gruenbaum), and other minority-view sources (Boddy, Nnaemeka, Tamale, Korieh).

The difficulty for us is that our medical guideline, MEDRS, requires that we mostly rely on medical review articles (secondary sources), rather than individual studies written up by their authors (primary sources). It also requires that we reflect the mainstream view, and that we're exceptionally careful when describing minority medical views. That presented a problem. For example, we weren't sure how to handle Carla Obermeyer's work, and in the end decided to leave it out.

I would have no objection if someone were to write a careful paragraph on the minority medical position, and any responses to it from mainstream specialists. Before being added to the article, I think it would have to be checked by someone from WikiProject Medicine, and I would also prefer to show it to an external specialist source. In addition, we would have to discuss where to place it; it might belong in the "Criticism of opposition" section, rather than in the "Complications" section. But if someone can produce a paragraph that would pass muster, I wouldn't oppose it. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 20:39, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Male genital mutilation and comparison

Whilst I don't have direct knowledge of female genital mutilation, I have a male friend who at 43 is somewhat traumatised from having his penis cut about as a child. I find the passage "Until the 1980s FGM was widely known as female circumcision, which implied an equivalence in severity with male circumcision" somewhat insensitive. Nick Hill (talk) 09:33, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Nick, the mildest form, Type I, is the equivalent of cutting off the male glans, so the aid agencies stopped using female circumcision to make clear that it differed in severity. I'm sorry if it comes across as insensitive, but it's what the sources say. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 17:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Weell, you're describing Type 1b, not Type 1a, but let's let that slide. While I don't think the current wording is insensitive, I think it is simplistically compressed. Better would be something like this:

Until the 1980s FGM was widely known as "female circumcision", by analogy with male circumcision. The name and analogy became deprecated as inaccurate and implying an equivalence in severity.

The current wording might suggest to some readers that the name "female circumcision" was deliberately chosen to imply an equivalence in severity. That is not necessary, and to support such a strong claim would require a more specialised etymological source. FWIW, the OED First edition's earliest cite of circumcise "to perform an analogous operation on females" is this 1863 text; if you have access to the online edition there might be more info there. jnestorius^(talk) 23:02, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

It's not clear to what extent Type Ia is ever performed. Most women experience Ib or some version of II. I can't see any difference in meaning between the article's version of that sentence and yours, but the former is more succinct. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 01:18, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

The difference in meaning is that "The current wording might suggest to some readers that the name "female circumcision" was deliberately chosen to imply an equivalence in severity" whereas the revised version does not. "Some readers" is not "all readers"; apparently you are not among them; I for one am. jnestorius^(talk) 20:03, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

This is not consistent with the current literature on the subject; the activism these days is at severe odds with the academia. The analogy of clitoridectomy with penile amputation or amputation of the glans seems to originate with an oversimplified anatomical equivalence originally drawn by Nahid Toubia. This is rejected by modern scholarship, and even Toubia herself writes in more recent work of such assumptions, "Although these arguments and assumptions may have a limited degree of validity in rare cases, they are not universally true. Appropriately neutral evidence to substantiate these claims has not been gathered. In many cases, female circumcision actually results in less functional impairment and fewer physical complications than male circumcision" in this book. In this comment by Johnsdotter, who is quoted elsewhere in the Wiki article, she points out that foreskin-clitoris has been suggested as a more accurate analogy (although I would suggest, along the lines of Toubia, that meaningful analogies are difficult to make on such complex topics and should perhaps be avoided). I can tell that an admirable effort went into this article, however, there is some inaccuracy and it does not adequately reflect the current landscape of the academia and the contentiousness of some of its sources (e.g. the WHO study on long term consequences). For a well-sourced article which criticises some elements of the discussion of female genital cutting, and outlines the fact that the activism and public discourse is not consistent with the academic one, see this. Its authors/signatories consist of a number of leaders in the field and several are quoted in the Wikipedia article. Outsightful (talk) 14:08, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I've responded below. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 20:41, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Citation formats

Hi Magioladitis, can you please gain consensus here – per WP:CITEVAR, WP:STYLEVAR and Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle – before changing the citation formats or splitting up paragraphs? You've moved the order of references, [11][12] unbundled references, [13][14] split up a paragraph in the lead, [15] and added lots of templates. [16] With every AWB edit, you add unnecessary white lines between the headings and subheadings (Yobot, Magioladitis).

I'm about to revert the changes, and I'd appreciate it if you would stop until there's consensus here on talk that the changes are needed or preferable. Many thanks, Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 02:42, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Sarah (SV) did you just give me 1 minute before reverting? I did not have enough time to respond. For the use of {{Paragraph break}} please read it documentation. Paragraph tags should be avoided and in fact no other page uses them. The changes were done without AWB so I do not get the bots template. If you think that references should stay stuck together, explain it somewhere in the page. This has nothing with automated tools. It has to do that i have not understand that you prefer them this way. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:29, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

In what way are you attempting to improve the article? Johnuniq (talk) 10:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

The {{nobots}} template was illegally applied. Please read the instructions on the doc page before applying. As you did not apply it via the instructions, it was reverted.

As it has already been brought to SlimVirgin's attention before she reverted and left this message, replacing <p> with {{Paragraph break}} is done for accessibility reasons to allow those using screen readers easier navigation and be able to read the entire article. This is made clear on the doc page of {{Paragraph break}}.

Replacing <p> has nothing to do with WP:CITEVAR nor WP:STYLEVAR as it does not change the style or referencing structure.

This was already brought to SlimVirgin's attention on User talk:Magioladitis and she did not respond back. Thus this is not Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Also, changes for accessibility are not controversial. Bgwhite (talk) 06:55, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

So I am working to translate key medical topics into more than 100 languages with my partners at Translators Without Borders. And this is one of those key articles. I hate all these fancy template that only work on En Wikipedia. We need less of them not more of them. Here is what happens with the {{Paragraph break}} template in Swahili [17] It doesn't work. The <p> however works just fine. Thus I have restored the <p> If you get your fancy new template working in all 278 languages than you can use it. Currently this decreases accessibility not increases it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Doc James Did you not have the courtesy too look above. "Replacing <p> with {{Paragraph break}} is done for accessibility reasons to allow those using screen readers easier navigation and be able to read the entire article." You are now denying those with screen readers. Please state a reason to deny ANYBODY the ability to read the entire article. Also, you pointed to the Swahili Wikipedia page, which has completely different template than any other Language Wikipedia page, of course it wouldn't work. Bgwhite (talk) 07:04, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Did you not see that I restored it to how it was before for accessibility reasons? This is to make the content easier to translate. Install this template in all 278 languages and than you have my support. Until than you do not. We have installed the cite journal template in about 110 languages now. It was a massive amount of work. Fixing one problem by creating a problem for someone else is not a solution. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:06, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Easily translating into another language does not trump ENGLISH blind users the ability to read the entire page. Your 30 seconds (an easy find/replace) to convert the page is not worth English blind users the ability not to read the entire page. What is a valid reason to deny blind users the ability to read the entire page? Bgwhite (talk) 07:10, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

So you are claiming that screen readers simply will not work? Somehow I don't think so. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:12, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Great Doc James, threatening me with a block because you don't think blind users don't matter. You obviously didn't read. {{Paragraph break}}. It doesn't work because screen readers cannot "see" what is after the <p>. I've been down this road before with TOC placement and this exact template. If there is content between the TOC and first section header, screen readers do not "see" it. Screen readers have to do a special key, but when no article anywhere on English Wikipedia has content between TOC and first section header or <p> tags in references like this, then the users does know to press the special key. Other example is blank space between lists, which you cannot have. It breaks it into multiple lists of one item, which becomes very hard to navigate, thus is not allowed.

Again, What is a valid reason to deny blind users the ability to read the entire page? Why is your 30 seconds of discomfort more important to millions of blind readers? Bgwhite (talk) 07:22, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Just tried it and it works with these p with chromevox.

If this was the huge issue you make it out to be I would have though you would have been happy to install this on all other languages of Wikipedia?

Nice straw man. This would be like me saying that you do not care about anyone who speaks any language other than English. Or you do not care about blind people who speak any other language other than English. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:36, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Now there are a number of solutions that may solve this issue.

1. Install this template on all Wikipedias
2. Use <div></div> instead of <p> if that is what the issue is
3. Not use these at all

Lets give Slim some time to comment / some time for discussion to occur. These "p" have been in the article for many months. A few more days is not the end of the world. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:41, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I use ChromeVox too, but it is not nearly the same as the high priced screen readers. Also, you are not blind, thus have the ability to "see" where you are going. The reason is clearly stated in {{Paragraph break}}.

As you are calling me liar, you should read the past talk page message about this. It was already added to this page by consensus and by Slim. It was done and shown to help those with screen readers.

I'm saying... you think your 30 seconds of inconvenience is more important than to blind readers ability to read the entire page. You are putting your inconvenience ahead of millions of readers. Bgwhite (talk)

Were is the dif of Slim adding it? I am working to get content out to the 94% of the world that does not speak English (the other 6.5 billion). We do this by making translation easier not harder. Not sure if you are interested in commenting upon the above suggestions or not. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:56, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

That's is wonderful that you are translating the article, especially an important one like this article. People have translated articles for years with templates in them. But adding a template does not interfere with you doing it. You will still be able to translate it. Adding the template does not alter the look of the article to a sighted person. Not adding the template DOES alter the ability of a blind person. Also, a billion people speak and/or read English. A couple of weeks ago, a person didn't count an Indian movie important because nobody in Asia speaks English. When told of how many hundreds of millions in Asia "speak" English, he said they don't matter. Yes, I told him that was a bigoted statement too.

You spending 30 seconds to translate an article has nothing to do whatsoever this discussion. This has absolutely nothing to do with translating any article into any language because it can still be done. Six people have spoken up on this page how this template helps screen reader users. It has shown to be helpful to screen reader users. One person's inconvenience or how a page looks does not overrule a blind's person ability to read an entire page. Bgwhite (talk) 08:35, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay so population of the world is 7.3 billion minus 1 billion equals 6.3 billion.[18]

Anyway so I take it you are unhappy with <div></div> as a compromise? You appear not to be willing to even discuss it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:44, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

HTML tidy removes <div></div> from a page. It doesn't work. Bgwhite (talk) 09:32, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

While the Template:Paragraph break says that this is how it works. And if one looks at the inside of it one sees <div class="paragraphbreak" style="margin-top:0.5em"></div> Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:56, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

It is interesting as this template originally used <br /> until 2014. Than it used <p> and now it uses <div> in the last couple of months. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Bgwhite, it was Magioladitis who added the no-bots template. [19] I don't know what it means to say it was "illegally applied."

I'm going to ask a developer what the problem is with <p> between ref tags, and whether it can be fixed; and if it can't whether they can suggest a more elegant solution than adding dozens of templates, and one that won't affect translations. It makes sense to try that first.

The <p> tags are only one of the issues. There's the shuffling around of the references and the constant addition of white space (though these edits may stop if AWB edits do). It would be good if the edits could be replaced by discussion about whether these changes improve the article. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 23:28, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes I must say that this has been one of the less civil conversations I have had on Wikipedia.[20] It is fascinating that this supposedly "critical" template for people who are blind has only existed since Sept 20th, 2014 and only exists on EN Wikipedia. I also do not get that supposedly the method by which the template works which is <div>s cannot be used directly. And that Bg states that you added this fancy new template [21] and then when one requests a dif seems to ignore the request. Anyway further verification of their claims are needed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:14, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, Magioladitis removed the nobot template that he added and then you re-added it with this edit. Also, Magiolagits' last edits were for adding the template, refs didn't shuffle around like his previous edits (atleast that I noticed). Note, a developer was present in the previous discussion about the template. The template does not alter the look of the page. It should be identical with and without the template, unless someone has changed a setting in their own common.css file. The benefit is those with screen readers, otherwise regular readers will not notice a change.

Doc James Sorry, but you took it up a notch when you brought up your "accessibility" is more important. You danced too. That you can't see that is appalling.

Read the previous discussion about the template and why <div class="paragraphbreak" style="margin-top:0.5em"></div> is used. It also ties into the main css file, which is different on every Wikipedia language.

Wikipedia is an evolving creature, along with web browsers, screen readers and people's attitude's. How many times does MOS pages get changed? There was a concerted effort to remove non-standard placement of Table of Contents (TOC) about six months ago. 20,000 articles had it. It was a much bigger problem than most accessibility issues as content simply "disappeared". "Why is this an issue now" was brought up multiple times, along with such comments as the blind don't matter, blind don't deserve to use computers, I'm too old to change my ways on TOC, looks are more important, it's too much of an inconvenience, and my personal favourite... my definition of "can" is different, so the rule doesn't apply to me. I guess you can say I became jaded after that miserable experience. I no longer have any tolerance towards any discrimination like this. <p> became an effort to remove a few months back. There haven't been many in refs like this... 20 pages at most. Which is one reason it hasn't been much of an issue in the past. Bgwhite (talk) 09:04, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

There are well over 500 articles that include <p> (example: Pain). Over 160 articles have </p> but no <p> (example: Petroleum), and over 30 have the mistaken <p/> but no <p> (example: Enrico Fermi). I know this topic has been thrashed out on this talk page previously, but please allow some time for people to catch up with what is proposed. An enormous amount of article development has occurred since the time of the last discussion, and it is only now that the p issue can be addressed. I suggest returning in three days. Johnuniq (talk) 10:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Bgwhite you have still not addressed the questions. If you cannot explain why using the div directly does not solve your problem without giving me a problem we really have nothing more to discuss.

Language is an accessibility issue. You are more than welcome to insult me all you like if you consider it something different. Me referring to language as an accessibility issue is not an insult directed at you. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:52, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I already did address your question. HTML tidy removes <div></div> from a page. It doesn't work. It is also explained in the previous talk page discussion at [22] and how it is dependent on the site's common.css file. You have insulted me too. Stop that "I'm perfect" routine. For someone who doesn't care, you keep bringing it up. This is not a language "accessibility" issue as you say. It is an issue of taking 30 seconds to find/repace {{paragraph break}} with <p>. The accessibility issue is adding the template for the benefit of millions blind people. You just do not get it that I find it highly insulting that you label 30 seconds an accessibility issue and the blind not an accessibility issue... and you keep bringing this up.

For Johnuniq and others who may see this...

1. The template does not alter the look of the article in anyway. It comes out identical.
2. It does help those with screen readers.
3. This has already been discussed on this talk page before at [23].
4. The template and the code it creates is dependent on the site's common.css file, which is different for every language Wikipedia.
5. The only one it harms is Doc James or somebody translating the article. It takes an extra 30 seconds to do find/replace when he translates the article. One already has to remove/change templates (such as navboxes or good icon) and categories when translating the page.
6. People already translate articles with many incompatible templates, with infoboxes being one of the worst offenders.

So Doc James, you told me I was unwilling to compromise. Why aren't you willing to compromise to take and extra 30 seconds when you translate the page for the benefit of millions of blind readers? What downside is there besides 30 seconds of time? Bgwhite (talk) 21:56, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

<div></div> works fine for me [24] <br> works fine aswell Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm a screen reader user. I've received email communications about this kerfuffle from various people ... and as I've suggested to some of them in private and will now suggest in public, enclosing the references in <p> and </p> tags would also get around this problem, without having to use templates. The regular <p> tags don't work so well in references, for some reason. Graham87 16:24, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Perfect thanks. That sounds fine. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:43, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

No consensus

As evidenced by the above discussion, the assertions of User:SlimVirgin, User:Johnuniq and User:Zad68 don't constitute a consensus. Why does their version of the article take precedence over mine? Isn't reverting my changes more than 3 times in 24 hours still edit warring? PolenCelestial (talk) 17:28, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

This article was recently promoted to Featured Article status, which involves careful review by experienced editors, so clearly the existing content has consensus. What there's no consensus for, so far, is changing the content away from that which passed WP:FA. Zad68 17:57, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 30 April 2015

The lead is likely the only bit most users would really read, thus precision there is by far more necessary than elsewhere.

"27 African countries" is FAR too vague. It should read "Egypt, Sudan and 25 Sub-Saharan African countries". Egypt is not only the "group leader" in terms of percentage and absolute numbers, but is also in most ways much rather part of the Arab world and the Middle East than it is of the "black continent". I see little chance of ingenuous counter-arguments to this. Sudan is a borderline issue, should be added for accuracy in the use of terminology. Arminden (talk) 12:50, 30 April 2015 (UTC)Arminden

Not done: The page's protection level and/or your user rights have changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:47, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Prevalence

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Female_genital_mutilation&diff=659223604&oldid=659223495

All the sources necessary for my edit are cited in the prevalence of female genital mutilation by country article as I stated in the summary. Do I need to copy and paste all 238 of them in order to include it? Obviously it's convenient to revert because "unsourced" when the real reason is censorship. PolenCelestial (talk) 01:22, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Polen, you added that it's most common in 29 African countries, rather than 27, which is not what the source says (UNICEF); and that it's most common in Indonesia and Malaysia, which isn't correct (or isn't documented), though it does happen there. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 01:27, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Aside from the miscount Sarah mentions, the edit also changed it from the count of the countries where it is most prevalent to "worldwide" which isn't supported even by the sourcing at prevalence of female genital mutilation by country, and in this overview article it's more encyclopedic to focus on where it's most prevalent. Zad68 01:51, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Why are you debating as if that particular source were the only authority? It is an incomplete set of data, it doesn't claim to account for all FGM worldwide.

Indonesia: 85% (calculated from verifiable source for prevalence among Muslims times percentage of Muslims)

Malaysia: 57% (calculated from verifiable source for prevalence among Muslims times percentage of Muslims)

Oman: 78%

UAE: 34%

Kuwait: 38% (in prevalence article)

It is also prevalent in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, Jordan and Syria according to the sources in the article, which is basically all the rest of the countries in the Middle East. "Worldwide" at the beginning (before listing most common areas) because FGM has been documented in just about every country in the world (presumably not Antarctica), including by non-immigrant populations of many (all?) countries in South/Southeast Asia, Australia and several Latin American countries.

29 African countries (data sourced from prevalence article):

Benin 13%

Burkina Faso 73%

Cameroon 2%

Central African Republic 26%

Chad 45%

Cote d'Ivoire 42%

Democratic Republic of the Congo 5%

Djibouti 98%

Egypt 95%

Eritrea 89%

Ethiopia 75%

Gambia 77%

Ghana 40%

Guinea 96%

Guinea-Bissau 50%

Kenya 27%

Liberia 58%

Mali 92%

Mauritania 71%

Mozambique 1%

Niger 20%

Nigeria 30%

Senegal 28%

Sierra Leone 91%

Somalia 98%

Sudan 89%

Tanzania 15%

Togo 50%

Uganda 5%

I'm restoring the edit as the administrator hasn't responded to the discussion on her talk page[25]. PolenCelestial (talk) 22:49, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

References

This is not an article written by an attributed author who may be assumed to take responsibility for its conclusions and any calculations that it contains. At Wikipedia, and particularly with an article like this, it is necessary to wait for reliable secondary sources to catch up—we cannot overrule UNICEF's conclusions. Johnuniq (talk) 23:14, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia sources its information from a vast diversity of sources, I've cited mine and you've ignored them. Claiming that UNICEF is the only authority on FGM is absurd. Why the insistence on censoring this information? PolenCelestial (talk) 23:20, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

UNICEF is the authority on prevalence figures for FGM, which is why this article relies on UNICEF for that material. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 02:25, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

RfC

Closed per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive271#RfC vs. DRN
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
NOTE TO RFC PARTICIPANTS: The topic of this active RFC is also the topic of this active DRN discussion: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Female_genital_mutilation. Zad68 17:28, 6 May 2015 (UTC) The information I'm trying to include is being continually reverted by users who claim that UNICEF is the only reliable source for FGM statistics, despite other sources being cited in prevalence of female genital mutilation by country. Discussion: [26] PolenCelestial (talk) 04:46, 27 April 2015 (UTC) The prevalence figures come from UNICEF. UNICEF figures are based on Demographic and Health Surveys and Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys, which are carried out in several countries in Africa, Asia, Latin America and elsewhere every five years. These surveys provide the most detailed figures available for FGM. The information is analysed by UNICEF's Division of Data, Research and Policy, which compiles regular updates. These updates are the sources we use. Sarah (SV) (talk) 05:53, 27 April 2015 (UTC) If you can find reliable secondary sources who cite these other statistics over UNICEF, then you will have a case. Unfortunately, Wikipedia only concerns itself with "majority and significant minority views" WP:RELIABLE. If it's significant, then you will be able to demonstrate it with a preponderance of sources. If you cannot demonstrate it, then it's best let it go. OnlyInYourMind(talk) 07:00, 28 April 2015 (UTC) It is not possible to determine things like FGM prevalence with any accuracy, and what information is available changes on a regular basis as new surveys become available. Accordingly, it is best to rely on one authority (UNICEF) and not try to correct or update their conclusions—we should wait until a new worldwide report is available. The proposed edit boils down to quite minor adjustments to UNICEF's published reports—the edit adds Indonesia and Malaysia to the "most common" list, and changes the total of 133 million to "Unknown, at least 133 million...". Those differences do not warrant the tension evident on this talk page. Johnuniq (talk) 08:05, 28 April 2015 (UTC) My source for Indonesia is USAID and my sources for Malaysia are The Guardian and Al Jazeera. Sources confirming that FGM is prevalent in the 29 African countries I listed and every Middle Eastern country except Israel and Lebanon are cited in prevalence of female genital mutilation by country. That article also cites sources for FGM around the world, both by native and immigrant populations, hence "worldwide" in my edit. The 133 million figure from UNICEF only claims to account for Africa, Yemen and Iraqi Kurdistan, so [edit: "unknown"] is warranted. Johnuniq, SlimVirgin: you have no argument. OnlyInYourMind: please comment. PolenCelestial (talk) 21:37, 28 April 2015 (UTC) I'm not seeing any policy-based reason to reject PolenCelestial's edits. Just "these are the sources we use" and "it is best to rely on one authority" (which sound opposite WP policy). Wikipedia has a bias toward content and change, "as a means of maximizing quality by maximizing participation" Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary. Rejection of reliable sources because it's easier or you just don't like it are "not arguments to use in talk page discussions." OnlyInYourMind(talk) 23:45, 28 April 2015 (UTC) Links to irrelevant stuff are not helpful—it would be better to engage with the points raised. How would adding "at least" benefit the article? What substantive difference is there between "133 million" and "at least 133 million"? Obviously the 133 value is a gross estimate, and the actual value is unknown. What reliable source verifies the current total is over 133 million? (Bear in mind that other data shows that rates are dropping sharply in some areas.) Why did the UNICEF report fail to mention Indonesia and Malaysia in the "most common" countries? Did UNICEF make a mistake? How do editors know that some other source did not make a similar mistake? Per WP:SYNTH, editors should not expand the conclusions of a reliable source. Johnuniq (talk) 01:27, 29 April 2015 (UTC) I actually confused different parts of my edit when posting the above response. One ("unknown") is because the worldwide total is obviously much higher than 133 million, given the fact that the UNICEF study doesn't account for all the countries in which FGM is prevalent. Another ("at least") is because it doesn't account for all FGM in Africa. To address the incredulity that the UN could report inaccurate information, it must be noted that it is a worldwide political organization in which many conflicting agendas are present. It shouldn't be relied on as an authority. The studies reporting high prevalence rates in other countries are infinitely more reliable than a conclusion based on UNICEF's omission of these countries. PolenCelestial (talk) 02:18, 29 April 2015 (UTC) The following numbers can be calculated from the prevalence rates included in prevalence of female genital mutilation by country and population figures for FGM countries, all of which is confirmed by reliable sources: the number of FGM victims in the countries included in the UNICEF report is over 186 million, over 53 million (40%) more than UNICEF claims, and the total number of victims in the countries in which FGM is prevalent and statistics are available is over 309 million. The actual number worldwide is even larger, since statistics are unavailable for many places. These figures should be included in the article because every number I used in the calculations is verifiable. PolenCelestial (talk) 04:02, 29 April 2015 (UTC) The figure is "over 130 million" or "133 million in those countries" (i.e. the 29 countries in which FGM is known to be concentrated). We know that that figure has some basis, because we know that FGM figures are collected in those countries in a systematic way to some degree. That's all anyone can say because obviously any global figure is going to be a fiction. PolenCelestial, you kept removing that FGM was concentrated in 27 countries in Africa, and replacing it with 29. Which additional two African countries do you have in mind? Also, I can't see that you have any sources, so I'm not sure what OnlyInYourMind is referring to. We can't use the Guardian as a source for prevalence, but in any event the Guardian article PC linked to doesn't say what PC was adding (that I can see), so I'm not even sure what is being discussed here. The point is that this is a featured article, and it has to rely on the most authoritative source for assertions about global prevalence. That source is UNICEF, for Wikipedia and for any other organization that you might want to use as a source. Had there been a more authoritative source for global prevalence, we would have used it. Sarah (SV) (talk) 04:05, 29 April 2015 (UTC) As I've said 5 times already in this discussion and you've ignored every time, all of the sources are cited in prevalence of female genital mutilation by country. The Guardian article quotes a study which reports that the prevalence rate for females born to Muslim families in Malaysia is 93%, which multiplied by the 61.3% Islam figure in the Malaysia article is 57% of the female population. The 29 African countries are the ones for which FGM statistics are available and I listed them all on this page. PolenCelestial (talk) 04:15, 29 April 2015 (UTC) The UN can't be trusted.[27] PolenCelestial (talk) 04:28, 29 April 2015 (UTC) If you're working the figure out for yourself, based on a percentage about something found in the Guardian, that's OR and not something we can use. Re: 29 countries, figures are collected (in a way UNICEF regards as reliable) for 27 countries in Africa. As for your point that "the UN can't be trusted," again, that's not a view on which we can base anything. UNICEF and other UN bodies are doing excellent work to reduce FGM, based on decades of experience. Sarah (SV) (talk) 05:02, 29 April 2015 (UTC) I'm not working the figures out for myself. For the 7th time, all my sources are cited in the prevalence article. The current text of this article assumes not only that the UNICEF report includes all of the countries in which FGM is prevalent but also that it accounts for all victims worldwide. In order to make these assumptions you have to assume that all other reports are made up out of whole cloth. You have to assume for example that USAID (a US government organization) was talking complete bullshit when they reported a 97.5% FGM rate for Muslims in Indonesia (which using undisputed figures for population and religion translates to over 107 million victims). So far the wikipedia community is largely ignoring my RfC, more people need to read this discussion and observe your ludicrous attempt at an argument. What is your motivation for suppressing this information? PolenCelestial (talk) 05:34, 29 April 2015 (UTC) @PolenCelestial: I'll list my concerns with pros an cons, cons first. Con: The proposed edit would delete the source in the infobox and replace it with a link to the Wikipedia article, but WP can never be a WP:RS. And yes, sources have to be copied to every article they are used. Also, you can't multiply the population number from one expert with an estimated prevalence from another expert, those two experts don't know each other so multiplying those numbers is a synthesis. Pro: The prevalence of FGM is worldwide as a an article in Swedish medical journal Läkartidningen says: english summary and the article in Swedish. WHO say it's worldwide. AadaamS (talk) 06:03, 29 April 2015 (UTC) Hi AdaamS, the article makes clear that it's worldwide, e.g. (from the lead): "... FGM is concentrated in 27 African countries, Yemen and Iraqi Kurdistan, and found elsewhere in Asia, the Middle East, and among diaspora communities around the world." The issue here is not where it is found, but where it is known to be concentrated. There are reports of it from many other countries, but those reports are not systematic and reliable. There seems to be an OR effort here to push Indonesia and Malaysia to the forefront for some reason. UNICEF says: "The practice is also found in countries including Colombia, Islamic Republic of Iran, Jordan, Oman, Saudi Arabia, parts of Indonesia and Malaysia and pockets of Europe and North America, but reliable data on the magnitude of the phenomenon in these other contexts are largely unavailable." Sarah (SV) (talk) 06:29, 29 April 2015 (UTC) RFC comment (repeating what I stated above but doing so here so it won't get missed as part of the RFC): Diagree with changing it from the count of the countries where it is most prevalent to "worldwide" which isn't supported even by the sourcing at prevalence of female genital mutilation by country, and in this overview article it's more encyclopedic to focus on where it's most prevalent. Zad68 13:25, 29 April 2015 (UTC) My edit doesn't say it is most prevalent worldwide. The field in the infobox simply says "Areas", not "areas where most prevalent". PolenCelestial (talk) 13:57, 29 April 2015 (UTC) Your edit said FGM is "most common in 29 African countries, the Middle East, Indonesia and Malaysia". Now, to start with, please post a reliable source here (not another Wikipedia article) that says it is most common (note: not common, but most common) in Indonesia and Malaysia. Sarah (SV) (talk) 14:17, 29 April 2015 (UTC) I can paste all the ref tags from that article instead of linking it if that is required by policy (they are all necessary in order to cite the full extent of the information I'm adding). This should have simply been done, rather than reverting, if it were the issue you people have with my edit. PolenCelestial (talk) 14:23, 29 April 2015 (UTC) This is a response to User:AadaamS, as was evident by its placement in the thread, which was misleadingly moved here by SlimVirgin. PolenCelestial (talk) 14:41, 29 April 2015 (UTC) Please post one reliable source here in this thread that says FGM is most common (not common, but most common) in Indonesia and Malaysia. Sarah (SV) (talk) 14:33, 29 April 2015 (UTC) Obviously you could look at the prevalence article to find the sources, which I've said 8 times are cited in that article and I posted them in this discussion already as well, but that would detract from your smoke screen. Here they are again (if I don't post them again you'll be able to say "I don't see them" and it would look credible to any apathetic editors who read this):. How many more times are you going to ignore them? Indefinitely I suppose. PolenCelestial (talk) 14:41, 29 April 2015 (UTC) None of those sources say it is most common there, and I don't think you will find a source that says that. Sarah (SV) (talk) 14:54, 29 April 2015 (UTC) They report a 97.5% prevalence rate for Muslims in Indonesia and 93% for Muslims in Malaysia. Given undisputed figures for the percentages of the total populations of these countries that are Muslim, the FGM rates are at least 85% in Indonesia and 57% in Malaysia. I've said this many times before as well (and it is completely obvious), but you're simply ignoring everything that doesn't support your personal denial of the facts. PolenCelestial (talk) 14:59, 29 April 2015 (UTC) I don't know what the newspapers base their figures on; they're not RS for this point. The first link is a survey conducted by the Population Council Jakarta 12 years ago involving a relatively small number of people. It's not something we can use as a source on a par with UNICEF, which bases its figures on the Demographic and Health Surveys. And we can't combine them ourselves into one set of figures, especially not by taking the percentage in that small survey and trying to extend it to the whole population. That would be a violation of WP:NOR and particularly WP:SYN. Working out which figures are reliable and how to use them is very complex, which is why we rely on UNICEF to do it. Sarah (SV) (talk) 15:19, 29 April 2015 (UTC) RfC Refocusing: Featured Article - This should not be relevant. All WP articles follow the same policy whether they are featured or not. WP:SYN Violation - This is policy. No exceptions here. We are here to characterize topics, not draw conclusions. Rather than revert these edits which can be offensive, it might be a better to modify them and hopefully avoid these disagreements. Edits that don't benefit the article - "Don't revert an edit because it is unnecessary — because it does not improve the article. For a reversion to be appropriate, the reverted edit must actually make the article worse." WP:ROWN UNICEF as the only source (the topic of this RfC) - If it can be demonstrated that the data from other sources is unreliable, then we can quickly end this discussion. Until then, I think we need to include all significant reliable sources or risk being in violation of WP:UNDUE. (-: OnlyInYourMind(talk) 08:01, 30 April 2015 (UTC) Thanks, but how do you think it looks when a two-day-old account gives a lecture on behavioral matters? Just make your point (once please) about article content and assume we are familiar with the standard links. Johnuniq (talk) 08:16, 30 April 2015 (UTC) Stick with UNICEF figures. UNICEF figures are the appropriate highest level review article as per WP:MEDRS. The rate of change of FGM seems unlikely to be low enough over the period that having the latest figures are not hugely urgent (fast epidemics like ebola that might not be the case). The newer figures don't appear to be uniquely insightful. In short, there is no reason to prefer the latest figures over the most reliable figures. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:59, 5 May 2015 (UTC) Stuart, PC hasn't suggested new figures, but old ones. One set is from a local survey conducted 12 years ago, and another set is from a 2011 survey referred to by two newspapers but not identified (one said it was unpublished). Sarah (SV) (talk) 17:30, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

There is a case at the DRN regarding this page.

This message is to inform interested editors of a discussion at the dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a current dipsute. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. Any editors are welcome to add themselves as a party, and you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Female genital mutilation".The discussion is about the topic Female genital mutilation.Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Mark Miller (talk) 00:19, 7 May 2015 (UTC) (DRN Volunteer).

Is this really Neutral wording?

"The practice is rooted in gender inequality, attempts to control women's sexuality, and ideas about purity, modesty and aesthetics. It is usually initiated and carried out by women, who see it as a source of honour, and who fear that failing to have their daughters and granddaughters cut will expose the girls to social exclusion." -Random Unregistered User, 11 May 2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.17.154.148 (talk) 07:02, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

If that is based on reliable sources then yes it is neutral.Charles (talk) 07:45, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

The term "infibulated" - not known for lay people - making it easier

And are we able to use additional wording in a few places where we have "infibulated" to ensure that lay person can easily grasp it without scratching their head at "infibulated"? Perhaps at least a hyperlink to the page on "infibulation" but better in brackets a short explanation - could it be "severely cut", is that how one would say it to a lay person? Same with "defibulated", I think I have seen the word "restored" used?EvM-Susana (talk) 06:33, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually, although in common usage infibulation is frequently used synonymously with the entire process of a Type III practice (including any involved removal of external genitalia), technically the term references the actual closure of the vulva via suturing. Correspondingly, defibulation is the invasive opening/widening of this hole to again expose the vaginal passage, even though it is rarely accompanied by any degree of reconstructive surgery to reverse the other effects upon the external genitalia frequently found in Type III. I'd say "restored" is a bit of a stretch, and I expect most all of the sourcing available by way of medical literature uses that term in a very niche/precise manner. Given there is a lot of implicit physiological aspects of any discussion of this topic, I expect that readers of this article are generally desirous of (and capable of parsing) a certain degree of clinical nomenclature, so I don't see using both terms throughout the article as problematic, but you're probably right that we could be more explicit about the meaning when we first mention these terms. The problem is that the first mention of infibulation in this article pipes to the type III section (which it really shouldn't do), rather than the separate article we have for infibulation. But then even the infibulation article utilizes the term (as regards women; there is a separate and non-medical use of the term for men) as straight synonym for Type III FGM. The best solution I can think of would to A) link the first mention in the lead to the article infibulation, B) add a parenthetical after that first mention in the lead here, which clarifies that it references the closure of the vulva, and is typically accompanied by the other practices of Type III FGM, C) clarify the content of infibulation some, so that both the precise medical and broad/common uses are covered, and D) keep the link to infibulation in the lower section as well, and discuss both broad and clinical definitions there. I'll look for references which specifically cover the different usages, so these distinctions are explicitly verified by our sourcing. Snow ^{let's rap} 23:10, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Complications - daily, practical level: urinals and menstrual hygiene management

I had added this information but it was removed by SlimVirgin: "On a practical daily level women who have undergone FGM may take a lot longer to empty their bladder than women who have not been cut. It may also be difficult for cut women to hygienically manage their menstruation, and some menstrual hygiene products, like tampons and menstrual cups may not be usable for them." I understand that for an article of this high quality, the tag "citation needed" is not good. However, I strongly feel that this article is not paying sufficient attention to the daily struggles of cut women. The things listed under "complications" may or may not occur. But what I described about the longer urination time occurs pretty much always (for severely cut women from the Massai in Kenya for example). I was hoping that someone who is more into the topic of FGM could easily bring up a good reference to cite? I know this information only from talking to female Kenyan friends, but I am sure it is also documented in some reports somewhere. Can someone help me find it? Perhaps "complications" is not even the right heading for it, but rather "consequences" or "unwanted side effects"? EvM-Susana (talk) 10:15, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

The proposed text raises an awkward issue because on the one hand it's rather obvious that such struggles would be encountered, yet, particularly with an article like this, highly reliable sources are required. The issue is already addressed (using sources) with "difficult and painful urination" and "obstruction to the menstrual flow", and more than that may not be needed. However, if sources are found, the matter should be reconsidered. Johnuniq (talk) 10:59, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I will try my best to find a source to cite. However, as this is not a "medical" issue as such, I don't think doctors would be describing this in the medical literature, probably more likely NGO activists might know about hits. "Difficult and painful urination" is not the same as "it takes a long time to empty the bladder". I was told up to 20 minutes! This is not painful and not as such difficult, just very impractical. Same with "obstruction to menstrual flow" - this is not the same as not being able to use practical menstrual hygiene products like tampons and menstrual cups. I see these as practical problems that these women face, not "medical" problems. EvM-Susana (talk) 12:26, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

These are unquestionably medical consequences and high-quality sourcing is needed. But, as mentioned, the article already does cover urination and menstruation. If you have an excellent-quality source that covers voiding time that might be useful. Zad68 12:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi EvM, as John and Zad said, the issue is sourcing. We do refer to difficult urination: "An infibulated girl may be left with an opening as small as 2–3 mm, which can cause difficult and painful urination." I believe an earlier version had a bit more detail, but as I recall (though this is a vague memory) it was removed because the source wasn't a medical one, and we need sources in that section that comply with our medical sourcing guideline, WPMEDRS.

But you're right that this is a well-known issue. It would be a good idea to open a section about the daily experience of living with FGM. In the meantime, I'll try to find time to look for sources about slow urination/menstrual issues, or you can do the same and we can pool our resources on talk. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 14:40, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for taking my concerns seriously. This is such a high quality article and I congratulate all the editors who have worked on it and kept the quality so high! About citing, may I point out though that this sentence in the article also has no citation and nobody has a problem with it? "An infibulated* girl may be left with an opening as small as 2–3 mm, which can cause difficult and painful urination. Urine may collect underneath the scar and cause small stones to form." - I think we should remind ourselves that FGM and its consequences are not purely a medical issue, but also a societal, gender, power, psychological etc. one. Therefore, only looking in the medical literature for sources that talk about the problems of cut women would be taking a view that is too narrow, woulnd't it? I actually come from the angle of sanitation (menstrual hygiene management) but there are so many different angles to look at this. You cannot just rely on top quality medical articles, there might also be a need for "lesser quality" literature if it relates not to medical problems but to other issues. Just in case someone is interested, I put here the link to a discussion forum where I was involved in a discussion (and also here). Sorry, not trying to advertise this discussion forum but just giving you some context where my deliberations are coming from. * Come to think of it, a layperson won't know what "an infibulated girl" is (the term infibulation is explained and hyperlinked at the start but the term "infibulated" should in my opinion be explained not just once, as readers may not read the article from front to end). Are we sure that only those women that are most severely cut experience such problems with urination? This is what the sentence implies as it stands now. To summarize, I think we need to better present the issues of urination (and menstrual hygiene management) for affected women. Hopefully we can track down some more information on that. EvM-Susana (talk) 19:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

EvM-Susana, thanks for your feedback about the article. The source for that sentence is the current footnote 8. We don't repeat sources after every sentence, so always look for the next one along, and that should be it.

I agree that we don't need peer-reviewed medical sources to talk about women's experiences, because the medical issue is already established. But I think there are doctors, midwives and nurses who have discussed this less formally, and there are plenty of articles written by cut women, so we can try to track some down. As for the cutting, the issue seems to be caused by the cutting and sewing, so it's the variants of type III that cause this problem. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 20:10, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

This source certainly passes RS standards and addresses these issues in broad terms, as does this one with regard to both points. Neither puts the issue in the exact terms of increased time spent in the act of voiding, but they do speak to "poor urinary flow", "slow and painful menstruation and urination", that "micturition is also difficult as reported by the women" and that "urinary problems were most common as late complications". I share the sentiment that there must be sources out there which speak as to the issue of slow micturition, and much as I'm a stalwart defender of the need for explicit sourcing in general, I'm somewhat inclined to call it overkill to keep this content out pending discovery of that source, since all of the involved editors who have commented so far agree that it is not really a controversial statement but indeed a rather obvious consequence of the procedure for rather obvious reasons. That being said, if there remain concerns along those lines, there remains the possibility of at least referencing "urinary retention", as we have many hundreds (if not thousands) of high-quality sources in which that wording is employed, with detailed discussion of the physiology involved, and discussing both the medical implications and practical complications with regard to urination and menstruation. Snow ^{let's rap} 05:55, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually, check that. I should have waited to read through one more source before commenting. Here we go: "Urination and menstruation are excruciating ordeals: it can take up to 30 minutes to empty the bladder" It's an older source and not exactly detachedly clinical in tone, but it certainly meets RS standards for the sake of confirming the increased time spent in the act of voiding. Snow ^{let's rap} 06:02, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

• Here we have NHS Maternity guidelines concerning the care of women who have been affected by FGM, which specifically notes that defibulated women will start passing urine again at a closer-to-normal rate, and that they may at first mistakenly believe they have become incontinent as a result.
• Page 17 references "prolongued bladder emptying or altered direction of flow".
• Another reference to voiding time here.
• The Royal Australian College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists also confirms increased voiding time, though it notes 15 minutes as the general figure.
• Also perhaps worth noting (though the following source is a bit bellow the usability threshold) that defibulated women sometimes have to deal with overactive bladders for a time.

Snow ^{let's rap} 06:24, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Awesome! Thank Snow Rise. Now we just need someone to put it into the page in the appropriate wording. I would like to suggest that we modify the section heading that says "Short and long term" (complications) and split it up in two "Short term complications" and "Daily consequences" or something like that - I would like to stress that these issues are with these women every day (for urination) and every month (for menstruation). And are we sure that it "only" applies to the Type III FGM, or is there any evidence that it could already happen at Type II? EvM-Susana (talk) 06:33, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure an organizational change is really in order, since these statements can be summarized in a sentence or two. I'm wary of putting undue emphasis on the fact that these are daily/monthly issues, since said emphasis is not reflected in the sources. Probably best to just leave that unsaid, since most readers will conclude this as the obvious state of affairs anyway. Besides, some victims will have increased or decreased rates of urination (that is, the number of times they void in a given period as opposed to how long it takes them to void in an individual case) as a result of other aspects of the procedure. As to differences in voiding time with regard to different forms of FGM, the sources largely do not address that, so best to keep out own language correspondingly general and to closely approximate their wording. Regarding the thanks, you're certainly welcome, but thanks go to you first for raising the issue, which is well worth at least some discussion here. Snow ^{let's rap} 06:51, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

That sentence now reads: "An infibulated girl may be left with an opening as small as 2–3 mm, which can cause prolonged and painful drop-by-drop urination, and a feeling of needing to urinate all the time." Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 15:24, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

That's good, it's supported by the Swiss Medical Weekly review article, which meets the standard required. Some of the other sources mentioned above wouldn't be satisfactory in a FA. Zad68 15:46, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I know there are good sources that discuss how long it can take women to urinate, and especially young girls, but I can't remember how to find them. If I ever do, I may add another sentence about that. It's one of the issues teachers in Europe look out for. The girls themselves don't realize how unusual it is, and they don't talk about it, so they tend to suffer in silence for a long time. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 16:23, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Most all of the above sources speak to the time needed to void (though their figures vary, which is problematic), which is the specific claim I was looking to source, per your request. I certainly understand Zad's concern about utilizing only the highest-quality sources in this context, but even applying our strictest metrics, several of those pass both RS and MEDRS by miles (in truth, I think all but one pass our reliable source standards, regardless of the article, but we have enough of them that we can afford to choose only the best).

But also on the subject of verification, I'm not so sure about the wording of the recently added statement, specifically the "painful, drop-by-drop" wording. That's not supported by any of the new sources. If it is supported by the Swiss Medical Weekly source, then I certainly support the phrasing thoroughly. But it does seem to conflict with the distinction you were trying to make at the outset, of speaking about complications of daily life that are separate from those of acute medical complications. That is, there is no indication in the present sources of pain during voiding associated only with the increased voiding time. Obviously there could be pain associated with UTI, obstruction, and any of a massive number of conditions that can result from the mutilation, but I see nothing in the literature that suggests that slowing of the process of passing urine is universally painful in itself. You could mention that the small opening often causes retention of urine and vaginal discharge, leading to frequent infection. That's arguably an even more salient point, since it can lead to complication up to and including renal failure and death. Snow ^{let's rap} 22:06, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

The sources for that point are Abdulcadir et al., Swiss Medical Weekly, 2011, and Rushwan, African Journal of Urology, 2013. Please feel free to suggest other ways to summarize.

Urination can also be discussed in the Type III section. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 15:45, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, see that's more or less what I expected to find. There is mention of pain in urination associated with infection, obstruction, oedema, ect., but the pain is not in itself caused by the increased voiding time. Sometimes the increased voiding time might be the result of just the degree of constriction of the external-most opening or it might be caused by more internal tissue damage and/or obstruction, in which case it is much more likely to be accompanied by pain. Personally, I think the wording should as closely match that of the section on difficulty in micturition found in the African Journal of Urology as we can get without copyvio, since the wording therein keeps the two issues separate without dismissing or downplaying the pain involved:

"Obstruction of the urinary opening or damage to the urinary canal may in time cause several complications: passing water may be extremely painful, and possible only a few drops at a time; the need to urinate may be practically non-stop, with minimal relief each time. Urinary tract infection can lead to a similar state."

Actually, the quote is small enough that we could easily use it directly in the article, but I'm not sure its warranted in this case, since we have a lot of clinical descriptions to make here and it wouldn't be terribly encyclopedic to do them all via quotation, nor consistent or clean style-wise to do just handful in that manner. But regardless of how we cover that information on acute conditions, we could then possibly mention that even in those without pain, voiding time may be still be increased. Snow ^{let's rap} 23:53, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

The pain and slowness are now separate: "An infibulated girl may be left with an opening as small as 2–3 mm, which can cause prolonged, drop-by-drop urination, pain while urinating, and a feeling of needing to urinate all the time." Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 17:12, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Looks ideal to me! Snow ^{let's rap} 23:37, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Information about initiatives to restore women?

I remember seeing a newspaper article about a clinic in Berlin that "reconstructs" the vaginas of cut women. I searched through the article but couldn't find any reference to the otions of reconstruction - perhaps a different term is used (once the term defibulation is used, but only once in passing), but I also couldn't find it by looking at the headings. Could this be useful to add, even if it is just a hyperlink to another page, if it's dealt with on another page? EvM-Susana (talk) 06:33, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

As to the technical meanings, "defibulation" generally references the specific act of opening/widening the sutured hole to again expose the vagina and is used whether the procedure is performed during intercourse, by a sexual partner with implements prior to intercourse, for the purposes of exposing the birthing canal, or by a surgeon for the purpose of the preference of the woman involved. Contrasting it with the use of infibulation discussed above (in which "infibulation" is often used as common terminology for the composite Type III process), "defibulation" is typically used to describe just the stretching/tearing of the opening, and it is substantially rare that this procedure is accompanied to any degree by substantial reconstruction of the external genitalia. The terms you want to be searching for here are labiaplasty, clitoroplasty, and vaginoplasty. But yes, I would say that some discussion of reconstruction options (both in clinical terms and in terms of their availability), would be well-warranted here. Snow ^{let's rap} 00:25, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Expand the history section?

I got this information from the afore-mentioned discussion forum and it made me wonder if the history section could be expanded with this type of information which is not there yet (pending finding something to cite of course): Re FGM in Egypt: In the mid 1970s when I was in Cairo during grad school, "safe" FGM surgical procedures were still part of the curriculum at Al-Azhar University medical school. EvM-Susana (talk) 06:33, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Well this is not altogether surprising, given the prevalence of the practice in Egypt continuing up to present day. But the article already covers these rates and the particulars of the practice in the Egyptian context at some length. Indeed, specific reference to the procedure still being studied and utilized by medical practitioners in Egypt is already made:

"In a study in Egypt in 2008–2010 (FGM was banned there by decree in 2007 and criminalized in 2008), 4,158 women and girls aged 5–25, who presented to three departments at Sohag and Qena University Hospitals, replied to a questionnaire about FGM. According to the researchers, the most common form of FGM in Egypt is Type I. The study found that, between 2000 and 2009, 3,711 of the subjects had undergone FGM, giving a prevalence rate of 89.2 percent. The incidence rate was 9.6 percent in 2000. It began to fall in 2006 and by 2009 had declined to 7.7 percent. After 2007 most of the procedures were conducted by general practitioners. The researchers suggested that the criminalization of FGM had deterred gynaecologists, so general practitioners were performing it instead."

So I'm not sure what additional value there would be in pointing out that it was still taught in the 70's. Snow ^{let's rap} 00:33, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Nigeria bans FGM

Nigeria has banned FGM. [28] [29]2A02:2F0A:506F:FFFF:0:0:BC19:AA30 (talk) 21:44, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know! Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 21:46, 1 June 2015 (UTC)