Talk:Hulda Stumpf

Lead

Amandajm has posted on the DYK page that the lead should emphasize Stumpf's opposition to FGM more:

State "Hulda Stumf (dates) was a missionary (with whatever details) who ran a school in (details) and was an active opponent of Feminine Genital Mutilation." Then the details of her murder, given as a statement, not as the main reason for fame. If sensation was attached to the murder, through the press, you need another sentence to indicate that.

What you are looking at here is a heroic person. Her heroism in confronting brutality and discrimination is far more notable in the 21st century than the fact that she was ultimately murdered. While the murder is sensational, it isn't the point of her life. The point of her life is that she probably succeeded in improving the lives of the girls in her care.

Write about her as encyclopaedically as possible.

I'm continuing the discussion here because it's not about the DYK nomination. The reason I wrote it as I did is that I don't have sufficient information about her activities in opposition to FGM. Maybe she was a very active opponent. Or maybe she just refused to let a couple of girls leave for FGM ceremonies and angered the wrong parents. If the article develops and we're able to obtain more biographical details, we can rewrite the lead to emphasize any new information.

But for now, the sources I have say she became notable for the manner of her death and don't say much about her FGM opposition, though clearly they do connect the two. By writing it to emphasize that opposition, I'd feel I was going beyond what the sources say. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:35, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Your current wording helps out a bit, by showing the reader that the sources themselves are not clear. I think it is an improvement, and I don't think you need to say more, if the sources give you no more information. I think it's all you can write. --(AfadsBad (talk) 05:51, 9 October 2013 (UTC))

Response

I went looking.

• There doesn't seem to be any doubt about the strength of her opposition to FGM.
• Her attitudes and input to religious/race relationships seem to have been influential, and at times challenging of AIM in Kenya
• While newspapers mention her murder (murder is sensational) no writing indicates that this was the reason that she is notable. What some writing indicates is that her death affected attitudes and relationships. If, for example, we were talking about an old prostitute murdered by Jack the Ripper, then it would be reasonable to write "Her notability lies in the fact that she was the fourth victim of the serial killer known as Jack the Ripper". This isn't the case. We are dealing with a woman whose positive action provoked enough "controversy" that she was murdered.
• The word "controversial" in relation to her death, isn't used in any of the documents. That is your editorial comment, not a statement of the facts of her death.

You can safely say that she strongly opposed FGM. State that she was murdered, without the editorial comment that this is her claim to "notability". State the mode of death without the editorial comment that it was "controversial".

• [1] ".....She had taken one of the firmest stands against female circumcision in the Kijabe Girls' School"
• Billy Graham and others refer to her as a "Christian martyr" [2], [3]
• This Blog: [4] contains useful information. (It's only a blog, however)
• Quote:[5]
• link to a story [6]
• I think that the information here [7] which discusses the attitudes of the missionaries and the means of discouraging FGM, including a statement that Stumpf opposed excommunication and sought gentler means of discouragement, is more pertinent to this article than a detailed description of the types of circumcision.
• the articles all make it clear that girls were fleeing to the homes for protection, that Stumf worked with the girls.
• Another of these articles mentions that she had recommended a policy of not interfering with those tribal practices that did not contravene Biblical teaching.
• [8] There is an important line about the effect of her death

Amandajm (talk) 06:06, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

BTW: the reason that I am going to this trouble is that I think that the article is important in itself, beyond the scope of DYK. Amandajm (talk) 06:09, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it would be good to develop the article. But for now we're limited to the sources found so far, and none of them go into detail about her activities against FGM. The source you found that says "She had taken one of the firmest stands against female circumcision in the Kijabe Girls' School" doesn't elaborate or cite his source. There's a lot of misinformation out there about this, including lots of sources who don't even get her name right, so I'd like to make sure this article is accurate, as in "who said what and when." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:27, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• Once again, you need to write out the editorial comment like "notability" and "controversial".
• State the facts as closely as you can get to them.
• Make a pertinent quote. This is quotable: ".....She had taken one of the firmest stands against female circumcision in the Kijabe Girls' School". You do not need to know the author's sources in order to quote it. It is a book about women on the mission fields, not a blog. The book mentions Stumpf a number of times in the context of the role of women, and quotes her letters. I cannot see that you have any reason to doubt the statement made in this quote, or why you would hesitate to use it.

Try something like this:

Hulda Jane Stumpf (10 January 1867 – 3 January 1930) was an American Christian missionary, secretary of the Africa Inland Mission (AIM) in Kenya and worker at the Kijabe Girls' Home. During her time as a missionary, Stumf played a part in the opposition by the AIM to the practice of Female Genital Mutilation among the Kikuyu, the country's main ethnic group. In January 1930 Stumf was murdered in her home near the mission, and it was found that she had been ritually circumcised by her attackers. It is believed that she was killed and mutilated because she had taken action to prevent the practice on girls in her care.

Amandajm (talk) 06:46, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I've removed from the lead "known primarily because" and "death was controversial because ..." And I've added elsewhere that Stumpf took "one of the firmest stands against female circumcision at the Kijabe Girls' School," quoting Robert.

Just noting here that I'm seeing on snippet view that a man named Mutua Nzomo may have been tried and acquitted of the murder. But I can see so little of the text that I can't be confident of any of it, so I haven't added anything about it yet to the article. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:46, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

References

Images, significance

The lead is much better.

• I want to point out here that the book that is specifically about women in mission mentions Stumpf half a dozen times. The majority of the mentions of her are about her attitudes and letters that she wrote which give her a significance beyond the fact that she was murdered. I think you are underestimating her significance as a missionary. She was unable, as a woman in the church, to have a "leadership role" in an official way, but she seems to have made an impact on the AIM just the same. If this was a male missionary who wasn't murdered, then the story would be told quite differently.
• Secondly, it really isn't appropriate to use an image from 2004 in a story from 1930. You are not writing an article on Female Genital Mutilation. You are writing specifically on Hulda Stumpf. A photo taken sixty years later is irrelevant.

Amandajm (talk) 16:07, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

It's the only female circumcision ceremony that we have a free image of. Free images of Kikuyu women at the time are very limited. This is probably the best one. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:04, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

(talk), you are not writing an article of Female Genital Mutilation. You are writing the biography of a woman who died 60 years before those girls were born. A picture of girls who are going to be circumcised is not necessary to this article.

Comments

• On one hand you are very hesitant to state either that Hulda Stumpf was seriously involved in preventing genital mutilation. You are hesitant to even make a direct quote to that effect, although the quote is available.
• Your lead hesitates to state directly that Stumpf was genitally mutilated, even though that is certain. Her injuries suggested that, before or after smothering her, her killer(s) had ritually mutilated her. She was either mutilated or she wasn't! Is there the tiniest shadow of doubt, that is causing you to use the term "suggested that"?
• ...and with this uncertainty, you want a whole section on the practice of FGM, illustrated with a picture that bears no direct relationship to the biography of Stumpf, the subject of the article.

The picture does not belong in the article, because it is not from the period of Stumpf and is superfluous. Put it in the article on FGM. (if it isn't there already)

Amandajm (talk) 05:36, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Addressing your three points:

• I don't yet know what her personal involvement amounted to.
• Yes, there is doubt as to whether she was circumcised, as the article explains, which is why I've written it the way I have.
• As for the 2004 image ceremony, I see no problem using it in the section about FGM. That section is there summary-style, and the image was in that section. Also, there is almost certainly little difference between such a ceremony in 1930 and 2004; that is, indeed, part of the problem.

SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:01, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to take so long to get back.

• If Blakely denied that she had been mutilated, while others suggested otherwise, then your intro is right.
• Re the picture, it doesn't matter how general that section may be, it is in an article about an event that took place many years ago. The pic of the girls has relevance in the general article, but not here, not unless the subject of the article is FGM, rather than Hulda Sumpf. The girls are not relevant to Hulda Stumpf.

Amandajm (talk) 05:29, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree about the picture (it was inside a summary-style section, the point of which is to act as an aside to tell the reader what FGM is), but I won't restore it given your objection. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:50, 25 October 2013 (UTC)