Talk:Female genital mutilation/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Recent edits

Templates and Rushwan

Middayexpress, could I ask you again not to add material based on tertiary websites? Also, per WP:CITE, references need to be internally consistent, and templates shouldn't be added over objections. I've left the templates in the section the students added, because that section can't remain in the article as it is, so there's no point in converting the references.

And it is not only according to the WHO that FGM is rooted in gender inequality. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:22, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Could you add a page number for this, and let us know what the source (Rushwan, Hamid. Female Circumcision in the Sudan. University of Khartoum Faculty of Medicine, 1983) says?

The practice in Africa and the Arabian Peninsula is believed to have its origins in ancient cultural ceremonies performed by Afro-Asiatic (Hamito-Semitic) communities inhabiting the Red Sea area. Cultural transmission and migrations from this core region subsequently introduced the custom to other populations, from where it again dispersed.

I can see a bit of it on snippet view, but it seems to attribute this to one named source only, at least in the bit of the text that I can see. If that's right, we should simply use the source Rushwan uses, and attribute it. To say "it is believed" makes it sound as though it's the consensus view. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:26, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Citation templates

Middayexpress, could I ask you to stop adding templates to the citations that are already properly formatted? The templates slow down load time, and the way the refs are being added here (half manual, half templates) is leading to inconsistent formatting; in addition the template parameters are being filled in inconsistently, so that, for example, they sometimes say first name, last name, and sometimes last name, first name. See WP:CT: "Because templates can be contentious, editors should not add citation templates, or change an article with a consistent citation format to another, without gaining consensus."

I would like to bring the article to GAN or FAC at some point, so it has to use the same format throughout. If it's easier for you to add refs with templates, that's fine, but please allow me to make them consistent once you've made the edit.

Also, there's no need to add caps to female genital cutting and female genital circumcision in the first sentence. [1] [2] See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters. The only reason female genital mutilation starts with a capital is that it's the beginning of the sentence.

Some of your other edits are problematic too (e.g. adding "according to the WHO" to the sentence that says FGM is rooted in gender inequality, when there are multiple sources saying this). Are you willing to discuss them, rather than continuing to restore? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:03, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

The citations were already properly formatted per the "cite" template at the top of the screen, but were changed for some odd reason into some idiosyncratic format not consistent with the template or the manual of style. The cite template is there to be used for that purpose. Kindly also stop removing FGM/FGC/FC's reputed place of origin from the lede. Moreover, please bear in mind that reasons for the practice obviously vary from community to community (c.f. the AWOIV [3], an NGO). Per WP:YESPOV, the WHO's debatable assertion that "the practice is rooted in gender inequality and ideas about the need to control women and their sexuality" therefore cannot be cited in Wikipedia's voice as though this were true for every community when it's only the situation in some communities; neither can the organization's claim that the procedure "is practiced mainly in 28 countries in western, eastern, and north-eastern Africa, and in parts of Asia and the Middle East". In reality, the custom is heavily concentrated in Northeast Africa, where it originated and from where it spread to other parts of the continent and elsewhere, either directly or indirectly through intermediaries. Middayexpress (talk) 18:10, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

(ec) Another wholesale revert. Please explain what you're trying to do. It is not only "according to the WHO," that it's in 28 countries in Africa; there are two sources in the footnote and several more not cited. It is not only "according to the WHO" that it's rooted in gender inequality; see the footnote. This isn't a million miles from "according to the WHO, Paris is the capital of France." When someone objects to edits and starts a discussion about them, the usual practice is to discuss, not to ignore them and continue reverting. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:23, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

The article is referenced without citation templates; per WP:CITEVAR these should not be added to manual references, so please allow me to fix them.

As for the rest, are you reading the sources? For example, as well as the WHO, Anika Rahman and Nahid Toubia in Female Genital Mutilation: A Guide to Laws and Policies Worldwide, Zed Books, 2000, p. 7, also say it is practised in 28 countries in Africa. They are experts in this area. Are you saying they are wrong about the figure (and if so, do you have an equally good source), or is it just that you want the sub-Saharan and Northeastern regions to be stressed (if the latter, could you not just add that to the sentence)? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:32, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

You've done infinitely more reverts than me, so let's not get picky here. WHO's claim that the practice is "rooted in gender inequality and ideas about the need to control women and their sexuality" is obviously contentious, especially since practitioners of female circumcision do not see it that way. Per WP:NOTADVOCATE, it is not our place to choose sides here (which includes the WHO's, btw), but instead to present the issue as neutrally as possible. WP:YESPOV is likewise clear that users should "avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts[...] if different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements." That applies here as well. Middayexpress (talk) 18:34, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

As I wrote, the practice's distribution in Africa is heavily concentrated in Northeast Africa, not in Sub-Saharan Africa as a whole. In Sub-Saharan Africa, it is mainly practiced by communities who have adopted it either directly from the Afro-Asiatic communities in Northeast Africa, or, more typically, indirectly via intermediary groups, who themselves acquired it from said Northeast African communities. For example, while the Kikuyu Bantus practice female circumcision, they borrowed the practice from neighboring Nilotic populations, who in turn had already adopted the practice from neighbouring Afro-Asiatic groups (typically along with other customs, such as the use of age sets). Other Bantus, though, adopted the custom directly from Afro-Asiatic populations. Bantu, Nilotic and West African groups who have not experienced that direct or indirect Afro-Asiatic contact typically do not practice the custom. Regarding the citation formatting, the template at the top of the editing screen is there for the purpose. It should therefore be used whenever absent rather than relying on idiosyncratic manual formatting. Middayexpress (talk) 18:46, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

We don't write this article from the point of view of FGM practitioners, but from the point of view of reliable sources. There's nothing contentious from the point of view of the sources about saying this is rooted in gender inequality and attempts to control sexuality. They all say that in one form or another. You might consider reading our neutrality policy, particularly the section, WP:UNDUE. That explains what we mean by neutrality on Wikipedia, namely that our articles reflect the views of reliable sources, in rough proportion to the way those views are reflected in the source material.

And I haven't been reverting you wholesale. I've done my best with each of your edits to keep what could be kept, and to ask you here on talk about the rest.

As for templates, we have a very well-established and accepted practice of not adding templates over objections. As I said, if it's easier for you to add references using the toolbar, that's fine – I don't mind how you initially write them – but please allow other editors to fix them so that they are consistent. Even on your own terms you are sometimes adding first name/last name, and at other times last name/first name, then you revert when it's fixed. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:15, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, per the npov policy, "neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." That includes the views of actual FGM practioners (which are virtually absent from this page), not just opponents of the practice like the WHO. WP:NOTADVOCATE is likewise clear that "content hosted in Wikipedia is not for[...] advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind". Editors are obviously allowed to have personal opinions on the issue; they just can't let those opinions get in the way of presenting the issue as neutrally as possible. Regarding the formatting, there was no consistency to the adjustments in the first place, which is part of the problem. Per WP:CITE, Wikipedia does not have a "house style" anyway; all that is required is consistency in formatting. That said, I propose use of the standard citation template for a cleaner, consistent, complete, and more easily reproduceable citation format. Middayexpress (talk) 19:44, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Words 'Female genital mutilation' presents a bias

'Mutilation' not only presents a moral judgement on the practice which is not true to the nature of Wikipedia, it places judgement on women who have had their genitalia reduced as children insinuating that their condition is not up to standard, surely it is within the power of such a person, and they alone, to judge whether or not they have been mutilated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.125.27.82 (talk) 22:29, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Your comments are reflected in many prior discussions here. Just as an example, Talk:Female_genital_mutilation/Archive_8 has extensive discussion of the issues you raise. You might find those discussions interesting, and there are more like that among the archives linked above, which are easily searched. -- Scray (talk) 00:57, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Citations

Just noting here that, if no one objects, I'd like at some point to go through the citations and present them as "first name, last name." Given that we have no alphabetical references section, there's no need to present last name first. So the style would be: Susan Smith, Name of Book, Name of Publisher, 2013, p. 1, on first reference, and thereafter Smith 2013, p. 1. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:01, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Is this for in text citations or the list at the end?DStrassmann (talk) 21:55, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

This is for in-text citations (the footnotes), which are generated automatically in order of use, rather than in alphabetical order. We don't have a separate alphabetical section at the moment, which we would have to update manually. I was thinking of sticking with the footnotes section alone to reduce the workload. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:13, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Seems like a reasonable plan to me. DStrassmann (talk) 22:28, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I disagree - this just makes it harder to recognize references. First names are unimportant, but would obscure the (important) last names. The example you cite is emblematic - the first instance would begin with "Susan" but the later instances would begin with "Smith". I'm not aware of a top-tier biomedical journal that lists first name before last name. I'm so perplexed by this proposal that I wonder if I have misunderstood it; if so, I apologize. -- Scray (talk) 03:21, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Scray, it's Chicago style (e.g. see here) – first name, last name in footnotes, and last name, first name in an alphabetical references/bibliography section – but as you object I won't do it. Not to worry. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:14, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Clearly it's a standard style, but seems more commonly used for books than for articles. I deeply appreciate your deference, but won't pretend that I deserve it. If consensus develops counter to my opinion, so be it. -- Scray (talk) 03:55, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Source problems

One of the problems with this article is the way the sources are used; we use medical sources for history, historians for legal issues, and tertiary sources instead of the sources they cite. This has been a problem for some time, and it isn't improving, so we should try to move it in the direction of the best and most appropriate source for each issue. I'm making a note of this here in case people see me removing or replacing sources and wonder why. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:12, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Does anyone here have access to Carl Gösta Widstrand, "Female Infibulation," Studia Ethnographica Upsaliensia, 20 (varia I), 95–122 (1964)? He is one of the sources for the material about the ancient Greeks. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:26, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Disputed edits

Typically carried out

Middayexpress, you've again reverted my efforts to tidy the article after the recent spate of edits. I'm therefore going to post the issues here one by one. Hopefully we can deal with one, then move onto the next. You removed this sentence and source from the lead:

FGM is typically carried out on girls between four years old and puberty, although it is also conducted on younger infants and on adults.

You replaced it with this, without a source:

The procedure is typically carried out on girls from a few days old to puberty.

Can you say why you prefer the second? In all the source material I've read, I haven't seen anyone say it is typically carried out on babies a few days old. It is typically carried out on older girls, but sometimes on babies, which is why I prefer the first. And also because it's supported by an expert medical source. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:17, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with SlimVirgin. The changes should be reverted back. The New England Journal of Medicine is a solid reference and there is no justifcation provided the change from Middayexpress. DStrassmann (talk) 16:57, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I've gone ahead and made that change. [4] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:01, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Reverted by Middayexpress. [5] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:04, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

According to the WHO

Another change was to add "according to the WHO" to two sentences in the lead. [6] I'd like to remove these because it gives the impression that only the WHO makes these claims, though both sentences are supported by more than one source:

---

According to the WHO, it is practiced mainly in 28 countries in western, eastern, and north-eastern Africa, and in parts of Asia and the Middle East.

and

According to the WHO, the practice is rooted in gender inequality and ideas about the need to control women and their sexuality ..."

---

We start the lead by offering the definition of FGM according to the WHO, and we say that the WHO estimates that 140 million women and girls have been affected. We also offer the WHO's four classifications. If we also say "according to the WHO" for the number of countries, and for the obvious point that the practice is rooted in gender inequality, we give the impression that almost the whole lead is based on one source. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:01, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you on this, SlimVirgin. Your argument is spot on. DStrassmann (talk) 19:43, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

This was already explained in the preceding section. Per WP:YESPOV's stipulation to "avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts", the WHO's debatable assertion that "the practice is rooted in gender inequality and ideas about the need to control women and their sexuality" cannot be cited in Wikipedia's voice as though this were true for every community when it's only the situation in some communities. Neither can the organization's claim that the procedure "is practiced mainly in 28 countries in western, eastern, and north-eastern Africa, and in parts of Asia and the Middle East". In reality, the custom is heavily concentrated in Northeast Africa, where it originated and from where it spread to other parts of the continent and elsewhere, either directly or indirectly through intermediaries. Middayexpress (talk) 17:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

We could rephrase it with: "it is practiced mainly in western, eastern, and north-eastern Africa, with a concentration in the north-eastern and sub-Saharan regions, and in parts of Asia and the Middle East." The concentration language follows Rahman and Toubia 2000, p. 7. They actually say 28 countries in the north-eastern and sub-Saharan regions, but as there seems to be disagreement we can simply leave the number out of the lead, and leave the details for the body of the article. Would that work for you?

As for "rooted in gender inequality and ideas about the need to control women's sexuality," if you're arguing that this is contested, I think you would need to supply a source that contests it. See, for example, Rahman and Toubia 2000 again, p. 5: "A fundamental reason advanced for female circumcision is the need to control women's sexuality." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:47, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Practitioners of FGM obviously do not feel that what they are doing is "rooted in gender inequality and ideas about the need to control women's sexuality." The latter is the opinion of certain opponents of the practice. Bottom line is, we cannot take sides on the issue by citing contentious matters in Wikipedia's voice. That includes the WHO's claims and those of other opponents of the custom. Regarding the prevalence of FGM, I think it would be better to give the specific number of countries in Africa where the practice is commonplace (i.e. "practiced in 28 African countries and parts of Asia and the Middle East" [7]). Middayexpress (talk) 14:40, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm fine with referring in the lead to 28 African countries without saying where.

Regarding "rooted in gender inequality and ideas about the need to control women's sexuality," neutrality on Wikipedia doesn't mean that we represent every possible view. If we were to do that, we would have to concede in the article Earth that the world might be flat. The NPOV policy says that we must represent the views of reliable, published sources, both the majority view and significant-minority views, roughly in accordance with their representation in the literature. Tiny-minority views are either not represented at all, or there are separate pages devoted to them. See WP:UNDUE.

The reliable, published sources that discuss FGM in detail (particularly the scholarly sources) all say or imply that it is rooted in gender inequality and a desire to control women's sexuality. If you have an appropriate source that says otherwise, we can consider including it.

We can certainly say in the article what the practitioners' position is, according to the published sources that convey their position. But that's not the same as allowing their views to determine the article's language and direction. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:21, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

As I was going by the infobox, I didn't notice that the intro text already stated that FGM/FGC was practised in 28 countries in Africa. I've therefore restored the earlier regional specifications and adjusted the infobox's areas practiced parameter accordingly. I also re-bolded the other common acronyms for the practice (viz. FGC and FC), including that of the page's former title (Female genital cutting). That said, it is parties that are against the practice who argue that it is "rooted in gender inequality and ideas about the need to control women's sexuality", obviously not its practitioners. The undue weight policy also applies to the space accorded to minority views, not to whether or not to attribute contentious statements. The latter falls under WP:YESPOV, quoted above. WP:NOTADVOCATE also applies here. Middayexpress (talk) 13:36, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

By the way, it's been almost a month and still no attempt has been made to redress the complete removal of information on the prevalence of female circumcision outside of Africa, including its other areas of concentration. Middayexpress (talk) 13:36, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

You've reverted almost all the changes again, [8] including the sentence about the age it's usually performed (which was agreed above), removal of sources, reverting the fixing of the reference formatting. You've restored that the Ethiopians circumcised "their women in the Egyptian tradition," which is a phrase lifted directly from the source without attribution, and the phrase "their women" isn't appropriate. We've also agreed not to use the term "circumcised" unless we're quoting. You've restored that "according to the WHO," it's practiced in 28 countries in Africa, when it's not only the WHO that says this.

Please say which specific changes you object to, rather than reverting everything. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:32, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, didn't mean to remove the other formatting changes. I made the edit rather quickly and didn't notice them. I've fixed that now. That said, I see your point about the WHO and the 28 countries. Please see below with respect to the "Egyptian tradition" phrase. Middayexpress (talk) 16:20, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Their women

Another disputed sentence is:

The Greek historian Agatharchides encountered people in Ethiopia in the second century BCE who practised it ..."

This is being changed to:

After having visited Ethiopia in the second century BCE, during the reign of the Kingdom of Aksum, the Greek historian Agatharchides likewise asserted that the kindred people he encountered there already circumcised their women in the Egyptian tradition.

I'm not sure what the function of "kindred people" is. My main concern is "already circumcised their women ...," which places the language of women qua property in Wikipedia's voice. I'd therefore like to restore the earlier formulation, though I don't mind retaining "during the reign of the Kingdom of Aksum," or words to that effect. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:12, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

"Kindred people" comes from the fact that the folks Agatharchides encountered in Ethiopia were related to those in Egypt (viz. Afro-Asiatic peoples). Hence, why they practiced female circumcision at such an early date. This also why Herodotus asserted in reference to male circumcision that "the Colchians and Egyptians and Ethiopians are the only nations that have from the first practised circumcision." Middayexpress (talk) 17:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Would you mind posting here what Suggs and Miracle say about it (about Agatharchides)? Google Books has only a snippet view. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:50, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

"The earliest evidence for clitoridectomy dates from ancient Egypt, where both clitoral excision and labial fusions were practiced, as can be seen from female mummies. The Greek historian and geographer Agatharchides, who visited Ethiopia in the second century b.c., noted that the people there excised their women in the Egyptian tradition." Middayexpress (talk) 14:40, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. We should leave out the kindred spirits, and reword it to remove "their women," so I suggest returning to the simpler formulation. I found these sentences in Sarah Blaffer Hrdy, The Woman That Never Evolved, Harvard University Press, 1999 [1981], p. 183. It seems that the Suggs and Miracle reference is actually a paper by Hardy called "A Disputed Legacy" (apparently reproduced from The Woman That Never Evolved), so we ought to fix that citation.

Hrdy writes in the footnote that Agatharchides' observations are cited by Diodorus and Strabo, and summarized in Carl Gösta Widstrand, "Female Infibulation," Studia Ethnographica Upsaliensia, 20 (varia I), 95–122 (1964). If we want to be more precise about this period it would make sense to read that, and perhaps also the primary sources. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:23, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

The sentence now reads:

Agatharchides encountered people in Ethiopia in the second century BCE who practised it, and Strabo (c. 64 BCE – c. 23 CE) reported it after visiting Egypt in 25 BCE.

SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:53, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the text was changed to "Agatharchides encountered people in Ethiopia in the second century BCE who practised it", with the fact that said people practiced female circumcision in the Egyptian tradition omitted altogether [9]. I've restored that, and contextualized the statement so that readers understand that he visited Ethiopia during the Axumite period. The Agatharchides and Strabo phrases also should not be joined because they lived during different time periods and thus visited Northeast Africa independently. Middayexpress (talk) 13:36, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Reverted by Middayexpress. [10] We are back to "circumcised their women in the Egyptian tradition," which (from "their women" on) is copied from Hrdy without in-text attribution, and "their women" is inappropriate language to use in WP's voice – but if we were to quote her, I think it would look like scare quotes, so it's better that we simply rephrase. Also, we have agreed in this article not to use the term "circumcised". And there's no indication from the source we're using that Strabo "witnessed" it. The source (Kouba and Muasher 1985) simply says that he reported that it was a custom.

Again, the versions are:

SV Agatharchides encountered people in Ethiopia in the second century BCE who practised it, and Strabo (c. 64 BCE – c. 23 CE) reported it after visiting Egypt in 25 BCE.

Middayexpress After having visited Ethiopia in the second century B.C., during the reign of the Kingdom of Aksum, the Greek historian Agatharchides likewise asserted that the people he encountered there already circumcised their women in the Egyptian tradition. Another Greek geographer, Strabo (c. 64 BCE – c. 23 CE), later reported having also witnessed the practice when he traveled to Egypt in 25 BCE.

SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:04, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Neither Agatharchides nor Strabo described the practise as female genital mutilation, but rather as female circumcision; so that's what's indicated. That said, I've rephrased the passage to "practised female circumcision in the same traditional manner as in Egypt", and changed Strabo "having also witnessed the practice" to Strabo reporting it. Middayexpress (talk) 16:20, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Agatharchides and Strabo weren't writing in English, so they didn't use the term female circumcision. If you know what term they used, that would be very helpful. There is consensus that Wikipedia use the term female genital mutilation, following the WHO and most of the medical literature. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:44, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and the translation of their work describes it as female circumcision, not as female genital mutilation. It's from the original Latin term circumcidere, meaning "to cut around". Hence, that is what is indicated. Similarly, the modern term "infibulation" is derived from a related ancient custom practiced by the Romans (see below). Middayexpress (talk) 18:11, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Which translation are you referring to? If you have access to the original text(s), and a good translation, it would be helpful if you could post some details. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:20, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Just noting that I've asked for help here to find out what Agatharchides and Strabo wrote. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:49, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Source for origins

Regarding this sentence:

Female genital mutilation is believed to have originated in the Pharaonic period amongst Afro-Asiatic (Hamito-Semitic) communities inhabiting the Red Sea area, from where it later spread to other regions.

Middayexpress, would you mind posting here what the source says about this? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:48, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Not at all:

"Seligman suggests that FC in the African and Arabian areas derives from ceremonies enacted by the Hamito Semitic inhabitants of the Red Sea Coast".

Note that Strabo also reported the practice among the Colobi, an Axumite group [11]. According to the journal Sudanow published by the Ministry of Culture and Information of Sudan (Volumes 1-2, 1976, p.45), there is also evidence that female circumcision was practiced by the pre-Islamic Arabs:

"Female circumcision was first discovered in Ancient Egyptian mummies in 200 B.C. Strabo, the Roman historian and geographer born about 63 B.C., recorded infibulation among the Colobi of Abyssinia in 25 B.C. The Romans themselves enforced chastity on their women by fastening a 'fibula' or clasp through the labia majora, and the word has survived in the modern name. There is evidence of pre-Islamic Arabs also practising the custom, and the Hamitic nations of the Red Sea coast." Middayexpress (talk) 18:11, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I can see only snippet view, but that's to lift what Rushwan says out of context. The part I can see says:

There is little that can be said with certainty about the origin of different types of FC. It seems most unlikely the practice spread initially from any single location. The possibility which Seligman suggests that FC in the African and Arabian areas derives from ceremonies enacted by the Hamito-Semitic inhabitants of the Red Sea Coast cannot, however, be dismissed out of hand (cited in Sanderson 1981:26). As for infibulation, its distribution throughout the Sudan-Ethiopia-Somalia region might indicate a relation with the Cushites. In the absence of historical and archaeological records, there is no clear evidence to settle the matter of origin satisfactorily. There can be no doubt, however, that FC in Egypt, the Sudan and Ethiopia dates from long before Islam or Christianity. In Sudan infibulation is commonly designated "pharaonic circumcision" which invited speculation that it was known during the pharaonic era. Supporting evidence is faint. Archaeological conclusions drawn from Egyptian mummies remain controversial but Herodotus alludes to FC in Egypt as early as 500 BC. He mentions it among the Phoenicians, Hittites and 'Ethiopians' as well ..."

SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:02, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Kindly stop removing the origins of female circumcision from the lede. Rushwan suggests above that the origin of different types of female circumcision is uncertain, not the practice as a whole. There's actually plenty of evidence to support Seligman's and the Sudanese Ministry of Culture and Information's assertion that the practice originated amongst the Afro-Asiatic (Hamito-Semitic) communities in the Red Sea area, both textual and forensic. Seligman's arguments regarding the diffusion of the practice from Northeast Africa were confirmed by Hicks (1986), an actual study ("Although Seligman is here referring to all forms of female circumcision, this study generally bears out his conclusions" [12]). As an example of forensic evidence in support of this, A.A. Shandal in his study "Circumcision and Infibulation of Females" (Sudan Medical Journal, 5, 1967, pp. 153-78) likewise observed that many Egyptian female mummies were circumcised. Undue weight should therefore not be placed on speculation to the contrary, which by contrast is backed by neither textual nor forensic evidence. I've thus re-attributed Agatharchides testimonials back to him directly rather than to Diodorus and Strabo, and placed his assertion that the Ethiopians practiced female circumcision in the Egyptian tradition back into the body. Additionally, I've restored Strabo's assertion that the Colobi Axumites practiced it, as well as the fact that the practice spread from Afro-Asiatic groups to Nilotic/Bantu populations, that the custom in Northeast Africa is encouraged by women in the community and is primarily intended to deter promiscuity and to offer protection from assault, and the Sudanese Ministry's assertion that there is evidence that female circumcision was practised by the pre-Islamic Arabs. Middayexpress (talk) 18:25, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

No one knows where it originated. If you're going to use classical sources, you have to know what they said and use expert secondary sources. For example, we only know of Agatharchides through other writers, and what they said about FGM remains unclear. You seem to be trying to push a personal view and looking for sources that support it, rather than using the most appropriate sources (e.g. ancient historians for ancient history), and sticking closely to what they say. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:09, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, Agatharchides' description comes from his own On the Erythraean Sea (Peri tes Erythras thalasses). Middayexpress (talk) 23:18, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Twenty per cent of which survives via other writers, including Strabo. Please see this footnote. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:59, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm also not sure why the material on the religious views regarding the practice were moved from the historical section to an area on its prevalence in West Africa. The links weren't originally about West Africa specifically. The part that begins "FGM predates the infiltration of Islam and Christianity into West African cultures" is also not exactly true, nor is it or the ensuing material on syncretism supported by the link that they were both originally attributed to [13]. I've therefore removed this original research, and moved the religious material back to the historical section. Middayexpress (talk) 18:25, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Concern about the use of sources

I have a concern about the way you're using sources. You added several times to the lead (e.g. on 8 April):

• Female genital mutilation is believed to have originated in the Pharaonic period amongst Afro-Asiatic (Hamito-Semitic) communities inhabiting the Red Sea area, from where it later spread to other regions."

and elsewhere in the article:

• Female genital mutilation in Africa and the Arabian Peninsula is believed to have its origins in ancient cultural ceremonies performed by Afro-Asiatic (Hamito-Semitic) communities inhabiting the Red Sea area. Cultural transmission and migrations from this core region subsequently introduced the custom to other populations, from where it again dispersed.

When I asked what the source (Hamid Rushwan, Female Circumcision in the Sudan: Prevalence, Complications, Attitudes, and Change) said, you at first ignored the question, then on 7 May wrote:

• "Seligman suggests that FC in the African and Arabian areas derives from ceremonies enacted by the Hamito Semitic inhabitants of the Red Sea Coast".

But Rushwan said almost the opposite (I'm bolding the part you lifted out of context):

• "There is little that can be said with certainty about the origin of different types of FC. It seems most unlikely the practice spread initially from any single location. The possibility which Seligman suggests that FC in the African and Arabian areas derives from ceremonies enacted by the Hamito-Semitic inhabitants of the Red Sea Coast cannot, however, be dismissed out of hand (cited in Sanderson 1981:26). ... In the absence of historical and archaeological records, there is no clear evidence to settle the matter of origin satisfactorily."

In other examples, you've used source material word for word without in-text attribution (e.g. "excised their women in the Egyptian tradition"), and you revert when it's fixed, including restoring sources that aren't appropriate. The article has to use the most appropriate sources available, then summarize them carefully, not so closely that it's plagiarism, but not so loosely that the summary reaches a conclusion the source did not reach.

I'm trying to get the article to GA status (and thereafter perhaps FA status), which means everything in it has to be policy-compliant and accurate. The reverting means the article can't be developed. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:03, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that entire post above is completely off-base since I did not source either passage to Rushwan. I quite clearly sourced them to Hicks [14]. In other words, you reverted all of my corrections (enumerated above) on a false premise. Besides the foregoing issues, I don't see how this page could possibly reach Good Article status when virtually all of the information on the practice outside of Africa has been systematically removed. I was assured that this would be redressed, but it's been over a month and nothing has been done. Middayexpress (talk) 23:08, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

You sourced it to Rushwan in several edits, going back weeks. You've now changed it to Hicks, but only today after the above was pointed out, and it's not clear what Hicks says either. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:22, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, ignoring is what has been going on here with respect to the practice of FGM outside of Africa. What I sourced to the Rushwan book was the statement that female genital mutilation is believed to have originated in the Pharaonic period amongst Afro-Asiatic (Hamito-Semitic) communities inhabiting the Red Sea area, from where it later spread to other regions. It states as much too: "Seligman suggests that FC in the African and Arabian areas derives from ceremonies enacted by the Hamito Semitic inhabitants of the Red Sea Coast" (see above). I obviously changed it to Hicks today because you complained about the Rushwan link, though I was not wholly convinced by the argument. In truth, I could've sourced that to any number of other authorities since it's the most popular and evidence-based theory on the origins of FGM. Middayexpress (talk) 00:00, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

But Rushwan disagrees, and you lifted (and are still lifting) just part of his sentence, when the rest of the sentence sheds a different light on things. All he says is that Seligman can't be dismissed out of hand. We have to be true to the sources and summarize what they actually say, not what we want them to have said. That is, we can't form an opinion, then look around for sources to support it. We first work with the sources, and summarize them whether we agree with them or not.

The material is in the article sourced and attributed in the text to Seligman himself. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:48, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I never attributed the statement to Rushwan himself or shared my personal opinion, so that's beside the point. As I wrote, there is no shortage of publications on this issue, as it's the most popular and evidence-based theory on the origins of FGM. Middayexpress (talk) 00:55, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Another source request about origins

Middayexpress, can you post what Esther Hicks wrote about the origins? Hicks, Esther Kremhilde. Infibulation: Status Through Mutilation, Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam, 1986, p. 38. You use it to support:

"Female genital mutilation is believed to have originated in the Pharaonic period amongst Afro-Asiatic (Hamito-Semitic) communities inhabiting the Red Sea area, from where it later spread to other regions."

and

"According to various authorities, including the ethnologist Charles Gabriel Seligman, female genital mutilation in Africa and the Arabian Peninsula is believed to have its origins in ancient cultural ceremonies performed by Afro-Asiatic (Hamito-Semitic) communities inhabiting the Red Sea area."

and

"Seligman's theory of diffusion was later confirmed by Hicks (1986)."

(Note: the article already contains Seligman's point of view, sourced directly to him.) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:20, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Part of what Hicks writes is reproduced here. That includes her assertion that "although Seligman is here referring to all forms of female circumcision, this study generally bears out his conclusions." Middayexpress (talk) 00:00, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Which study is she referring to, and where does she refer to various authorities (and who are they)? Also, you removed Seligman to add Hicks who is relying on Seligman. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:30, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

That passage is a word-for-word quote of parts of Hicks' study. That's the paper she is referring to i.e. her own. I sourced the passage to Hicks rather than Seligman per WP:PSTS. Middayexpress (talk) 00:43, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

That's a misunderstanding of PSTS. Where does Hicks refer to various authorities, or words to that effect (or authorities by name)? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:50, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Seligman is generally regarded as an authority on the Red Sea theory of origins of FGM. Hence, why he is described here as such. Middayexpress (talk) 01:11, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Seligman is already is the article. We're discussing here your use of Hicks. You wrote that she said: "According to various authorities, including the ethnologist Charles Gabriel Seligman ..." So my question is: who are the various authorities that she refers to (not counting Seligman), and where in the text does she refer to them? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:50, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

See WP:FILIBUSTER. Middayexpress (talk) 11:51, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Source request (Frayser and Whitby)

Can you post here what Frayser and Whitby say to support this? Frayser, Suzanne G. and Whitby, J. Studies in Human Sexuality: A Selected Guide. Libraries Unlimited, 1995, p. 257.

"In Northeast Africa FGM is encouraged by women in the community, and is primarily intended to deter promiscuity and to offer protection from assault."

The only thing I can see on p. 257 (though I may be looking at a different edition) is Frayser summarizing Hanny Lightfoot-Klein (1989), who lists a number of reasons for the practice (which are already in the article), but doesn't highlight these reasons, or Northeast Africa.

SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:43, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Certainly [15].

"[...]in Sudan pharaonic circumcision continues unabated. The custom is deeply imbedded in society. Encouraged by mothers and grandmothers, proponents advance numerous rationalizations for the practice. Circumcision is done in the interests of cleanliness and health; it increases male pleasure during coitus; it protects women from male aggressors; it precludes promiscuity and guarantees virginity; it assures women of getting married; and so forth."

Middayexpress (talk) 00:15, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

That's just a summary of Hanny Lightfoot-Klein (1989), who doesn't highlight what you highlighted. Also, where does it focus on Northeast Africa? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:33, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh? Look again. Middayexpress (talk) 00:43, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

With respect, you've misunderstood how sources ought to be used. (a) This is not Frayser and Whitby, and (b) you can't highlight some of the things source A lists when summarizing source B, but leave out other parts, as though source B has highlighted the issues you are highlighting. This is what we call original research, splicing sources together to support an editor's personal opinion. Also see WP:SYN. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:55, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

It plainly states on the left hand panel of the link above that this is the same Frayser and Whitby source. As for the "other parts" of that quote, I obviously did not add them because they were (and are) already represented in the wiki article. Goodbye :) Middayexpress (talk) 01:11, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

You wrote that Frayser and Whitby wrote that "[i]n Northeast Africa FGM is ... primarily intended to deter promiscuity and to offer protection from assault." Frasyer and Whitby didn't say that; they listed a number of reasons for the practice as summarized by Hanny Lightfoot-Klein (1989), so the latter is the source; Frayser and Whitby is just a tertiary source. More importantly, neither source said that FGM is "primarily intended to deter promiscuity and to offer protection from assault." That's what I mean by original research. Also see Wikipedia:Cherry picking. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:48, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Had I attributed the quote to Frayser and Whitby in the text, then you'd perhaps have a point. But since I did not, nothing doing here either. What I did was source the material to a book, which supports exactly what is stated. You can complain all you like, but these are the facts. It's also pointless to keep harping on about this or any other obviously well-supported reference I added because all I have to do to vindicate them is pay a visit to the reliable sources noticeboard where they are certain to agree with me. Middayexpress (talk) 11:51, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Agatharchides

So far as I can see this is where Agatharchides was first added. Looking around at the sources, I can't see anything to support it apart from Hrdy (who misquotes Strabo and cites Widstrand, which I can't find a copy of). When Strabo refers to FGM, there's no indication that he's referring to Agatharchides, so I'm going to remove this for now. It can be restored if we find a high-quality source (primary source or a classicist). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:23, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Proposal

The article in its current format is completely skewed, poorly formatted and written. It now focuses almost exclusively on the practice of FGM in present-day Africa, with nary a mention of its other areas of concentration outside the continent. This was after a systematic process of removal of non-African content. No efforts have since been made to replace that material despite assurances that there would be. Equally disappointing is the history section, which omits key information on the practice's origins.

To redress this gross imbalance, the page must at the very least include the following key material:

1. The prevalence and practice of FGM in its other areas of concentration outside of Africa.
2. In the lede and the history section, the fact that the primary theory of FGM's origins is that the practice originated amongst the Afro-Asiatic (Hamito-Semitic) communities in the Red Sea area. At present, a diluted version of the theory is briefly mentioned in the history section and attributed to an author from 1913, when it's still very much the dominant theory on the practice's origins.
3. Herodotus' assertion that besides the Egyptians, the Phoenicians, Hittites and Ethiopians also practiced female circumcision.
4. The testimony of the Greek historian Agatharchides, who visited Ethiopia in the second century B.C., during the reign of the Kingdom of Aksum, that female circumcision was practiced in the Egyptian tradition by peoples there.
5. Strabo's description of the practice among the Colobi, an Aksumite group.
6. The fact that the practice is known to have spread from the Afro-Asiatic peoples in Africa to Bantu/Nilotic groups.
7. The Sudanese Ministry's assertion that there is evidence that female circumcision was practised by the pre-Islamic Arabs.
8. A.A. Shandal's forensic study "Circumcision and Infibulation of Females" (Sudan Medical Journal, 5, 1967, pp. 153-78) examining a number of female mummies in Egypt, which found that many were circumcised.

I sincerely hope a compromise can be found. If not, I will seek formal mediation. Middayexpress (talk) 11:51, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

For those of us who have not followed recent developments here, please supply a brief example of what is believed to be a problem. For example, present the most readily understood example of "removal of non-African content". It is best to focus on one example at a time in order to work out what issue is involved. I have not looked at this talk page for some time, but I notice there is a #Source problems section above—is a disagreement over the suitability of sources the problem? Johnuniq (talk) 12:23, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

The main problem is what is described above, point-by-point. Regarding the non-African content in particular, it was removed in April by SlimVirgin, ostensibly for plagiarism-related reasons (c.f. [16]). I personally have not looked into the validity of this claim; I just took his/her word for it. My gripe is that this mass removal was never redressed, though promises to that effect were made. So what we're left with now is a page that gives the misimpression that female circumcision is and has always been an exclusively Pan-African custom. This matter was also briefly touched on in a seperate discussion that same month. Interestingly, this other discussion, titled "Recent edits", is apparently nowhere to be found in the Archive 8 that SlimVirgin manually moved posts to on April 25th. It is still nonetheless stored in this page's talk history (c.f. [17]). Middayexpress (talk) 13:19, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Johnuniq, see the links at the end of this post for the discussions about sources, going back to the beginning of April. The sources were either inappropriate, or did not say what Middayexpress said they said, and in some cases both.

Middayexpress, I hope you don't mind that I've numbered your points to make them easier to respond to. First, no one gave an assurance that plagiarized material would be returned. This article was edited by two students as part of an off-wiki assignment. Both added material that was repetitive and wordy (their aim, in part, may have been to produce a certain number of words), and not well-sourced. One added material that was entirely plagiarized and had to be removed.

As for your individual points:

Re: 1: We have an article about the prevalence of FGM at Prevalence of female genital mutilation by country. This article only summarizes that one, summary-style. This section summarizes the prevalence in practising countries; this section summarizes the situation in non-practising countries. You're welcome to expand the Prevalence article, and anything new can be summarized here.

Re: 2: The Hamito-Semitic origin isn't accepted by everyone (I've seen just two sources for it; most say the origin can't be pinned down). Do you have a scholarly source that says it's the dominant theory?

Re: 3: Do you have an appropriate source for Herodotus (a primary source or classicist/ancient historian)?

Re: 4: We need a primary source or classicist for Agatharchides too. I'm trying to track down Widstrand (your sources's source), so far with no luck. Carl Gösta Widstrand, "Female Infibulation," Studia Ethnographica Upsaliensia, 20 (varia I), 95–122 (1964). Do you have access to this? Discussion here on WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome about whether Agatharchides (via others) wrote about FGM. See in particular Andrew Dalby's point here. It would help if you'd join the discussion.

Re: 5: Strabo is quoted in the article and in this footnote. Is something missing, and do you have a source for it?

Re: 6: Again we need a scholarly source.

Re: 7: The Ministry of Culture and Information of Sudan [18] isn't an appropriate source for ancient history, but if they cite their sources we can perhaps use those sources. Or you could find alternative sources for the same material. But the article already says there is evidence that it was practised by the pre-Islamic Arabs. Does the Ministry of Culture say anything different?

Re: 8: I would like to add the study about mummies if I can find it (Shandal, A.A. "Circumcision and Infibulation of Females," Sudan Medical Journal, 1967 (5), pp. 153–178). The reason I removed it is because of the problems with the way other sources have been used, and because specialist sources say the mummies evidence is poor. So I would like to read all the sources before working out how best to word it.

I would appreciate it if you would remove the POV tag. It isn't reasonable to tag an article because unsourced or poorly sourced material has been removed. The template says: "The editor who adds the tag should first discuss concerns on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, and should add this tag only as a last resort."

For anyone else reading, here are the sections since 8 April about the problems with the way sources were being used. It has been time-consuming to deal with, without any apparent headway:

Templates and Rushwan, 8 April

Typically carried out, 1 May

According to the WHO, 1 May

Their women, 1 May

Source for origins, 7 May

Concern about the use of sources, 8 May

Another source request about origins, 8 May

Source request (Frayser and Whitby), 8 May

Agatharchides, 9 May

I tried yesterday here to reach an understanding with Middayexpress. He moved the discussion from his to my talk page, and brought an end to it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:17, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

As shown in each of the preceding sections, there were few if any serious "problems" with the sourcing. It's the assertions themselves that appear to be the real issue. The post you made on my user page was also just a repetition of what was simultaneously being discussed on this talk page, which is why I directed you back here.

At any rate:

1. The prevalence and practice of FGM in its other core areas of concentration outside of Africa are notable. Claims were made in the archives that the removal of this material would be redressed, but that never happened. Still, it's good to know that there's at least no resistance to this.

2. I didn't say that the Hamito-Semitic origin of FGM is accepted by everyone. I said that it's the dominant theory, which can certainly be substantiated. Note that the Gerry Mackie paper you cited itself asserts as much ("The origins of FGM are obscure[...] The geographic distribution of FGM suggests that it originated on the western coast of the Red Sea, where infibulation is most intense, diminishing to clitoridectomy in westward and southward radiation" [19]).

3. A primary source or classicist/ancient historian for Herodotus' assertion that, besides the Egyptians, the Phoenicians, Hittites and Ethiopians also practiced female circumcision, is ok. However, an academic source on FGM indicating that Herodotus reported this also works. João dos Santos' medieval testiomy, for example, is cited via Mackie.

4. Ditto.

5. Strabo's description of the practice among the Colobi Aksumites of Abyssinia is not mentioned in the footnotes. Only the fact that it was practised among the Creophagi, a seperate group, is mentioned there. In the body (where it was originally and should be mentioned), all it states is that Strabo reported it after visiting Egypt around 25 BCE.

6. A scholarly source(s) can certainly be provided establishing the fact that the practice in Africa is known to have spread from Afro-Asiatic groups to Bantu/Nilotic populations.

7. Not sure what you're referring to. There's no mention in the wiki article that FGM was practiced among the pre-Islamic Arabs. There's only a footnoted assertion by Strabo that "Artemidorus says that the promontory on the Arabian side opposite to Deirê is called Acila; and that the males in the neighbourhood of Deirê have their sexual glands mutilated". That said, the Ministry of Culture and Information of Sudan doesn't specify what is the exact nature of the evidence that female circumcision was practised by the pre-Islamic Arabs. It just asserts that there is evidence to that effect. Note that Shandal does as well (see below).

8. A.A. Shandal's study is important, as it provides forensic support for the ancient testimony on the practice's ubiquity in Northeast Africa. According to the Hosken Report (1994), it's not the only such medical publication either but rather one of several:

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

Middayexpress (talk) 16:44, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

@Middayexpress: There would need to be a clear proposal for any kind of mediation to be started. Even if the eight points in the OP could all be verified as correct, there would be nothing for mediation to consider. Any attempt to "fix" the article would involve adding, changing, or removing some text—it is that proposed change that needs to be clarified. I see no reason for an NPOV tag on the current article—if there is a reason please start a new section on this talk page with an explanation pointing to specific actionable issues. Johnuniq (talk) 00:51, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

A clear point-by-point proposal has been made, and a discussion process is under way. The pov tag was added to draw attention to the unresolved issues mentioned therein and in preceding discussions, archived and otherwise. If this issue can be resolved satisfactorily, then formal dispute resolution will not be necessary. In the meantime, the pov tag must remain in place until the matter is settled (c.f. "please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved"). Middayexpress (talk) 16:44, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Which ones are still unaddressed? 1) is as are most of the rest. These tags also are like all other parts of Wikipedia. They are based on consensus. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:57, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

The template says until the issue is resolved. It hasn't yet been. The discussion is still ongoing with respect to numbers 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8. Middayexpress (talk) 17:02, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

The POV tag is for cases where people are being prevented from adding policy-compliant material for no good reason. That's not the case here. If you can find appropriate sources there won't be a problem. The issue we're running into is that the sources have to straddle several areas that aren't within their expertise – because discussing FGM involves talking about ancient history, medicine, law, anthropology – so they make mistakes. Herodotus, for example, doesn't write about female circumcision (it appears so far; see the discussion here), yet you can find claims that he did in quite a few of the non-specialist sources (i.e. sources who are specialists in their field but not in ancient history). That's why I'm going through the article and making sure for each source that they're the most appropriate for the claim, and there are still quite a few that ought to be replaced. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:08, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Understood. But that pertains to the ancient sources, not to modern ones like Shandal's forensic study and the other medical publications. I also note that a user in that Classics link states that although Strabo refers extensively to Agatharchides, he doesn't appear to be relying on Agatharchides when he discusses circumcision and/or genital mutilation specifically. Middayexpress (talk) 17:20, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm still trying to get hold of Shandall. I've asked at the Resource Exchange; if you have a copy you can email me, that would speed things up. The reason I'm concerned about it is that Egyptologists give no credence to the mummies claims (the ones I've read so far), so I'd like to see who Shandall's sources are. If you have the article, can you say who he is relying on? Yes, agree about Strabo; he's quoted in the article, but we leave open whether it's first hand. But Strabo is the earliest extant literary source on female circumcision, according to Mary Knight. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:28, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Section headings and order

I have rearranged a few section to better match WP:MEDMOS and other similar topics. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:22, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, looks good. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:59, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Health benefits

Added a relevant quote from the WHO in the 'health effects' section (although SlimVirgin removed it as "original research", which I do not exactly comprehend the reasoning for, I used references) where it can be seen that they repeatedly insist that there are no health benefits. One thing that seems obvious from this is that the reason they see a need to state this is that they are responding in reaction to some beliefs that the procedure has health benefits.

While the internet predominantly expresses the health problems associated with this procedure, that is probably because those societies advocating that it has health benefits may be less represented on the internet, since they are probably more rural and less technologically advanced communities.

I did find this IslamQA article though. It states the following:

Circumcision is prescribed for both males and females. The correct view is that circumcision is obligatory for males and that it is one of the symbols of Islam, and that circumcision of women is mustahabb but not obligatory. .. Female circumcision has not been prescribed for no reason, rather there is wisdom behind it and it brings many benefits.

An article called Khitaan al-Banaat Ru’yah Sihhiyyah (Female circumcision from a health point of view): attributed to a "femasle gynecologist" named Sitt al-Banaat Khaalid is also referenced as saying:

female circumcision is, above all else, obedience to Islam, which means acting in accordance with the fitrah and following the Sunnah which encourages it. We all know the dimensions of Islam, and that everything in it must be good in all aspects, including health aspects. If the benefits are not apparent now, they will become known in the future, as has happened with regard to male circumcision

Associated claims are also made:

1. It takes away excessive libido from women
2. It prevents unpleasant odours which result from foul secretions beneath the prepuce.
3. It reduces the incidence of urinary tract infections
4. It reduces the incidence of infections of the reproductive system.

It also references "the book on Traditions that affect the health of women and children, which was published by the World Health Organization in 1979" as addressing FGM:

With regard to the type of female circumcision which involves removal of the prepuce of the clitoris, which is similar to male circumcision, no harmful health effects have been noted.

While these viewpoints should be no means be presented or truth or the established viewpoint, I think it may be worthwhile to note these rationalizations that exist, so that people can better understand the controversy behind the procedure, why it persists, and why the WHO needs to go out of its way to remind people of the harm it does and the lack of benefits.

In particular I am also interested in this claim regarding a 1979 document. If this can be confirmed, I think it would be worthwhile to note how the WHO may have initially taken a neutral stance on a certain form of FGM, and recognize at which point in time the WHO changed its stance to universal condemnation of it. Ranze (talk) 21:10, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• The World Health Organization terms the procedure as Female Gentital Mutilation, not Circumcision. Please use terms appropriate to the article so we can be clearer on discussions. The article you cite is not peer reviewed, nor published in a reputable scientific journal and should not be used as a source. Jim1138 (talk) 01:57, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe I said we should use this as a source, that's why I listed it here on the talk page, not there. What is clear though is that WHO is making this statement to contradict some kind of held viewpoints, and references probably exist about them. Circumcision is part of many forms of cutting classified as mutilation by the WHO. Ranze (talk) 21:01, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Nathan Johnson (talk) 17:34, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

---

Female genital mutilation → Female genital modification and mutilation – A precident is set to talk about the concepts of modification and mutilation collectively with the "genital modification and mutilation" article which links this as a main article. It appears that the terms modification and mutilation are often used to describe to identical procedures depending on whether or not a person consented to or is happy with the procedure. To be impartial, and keep a common format between our articles, the "M&M" wording should be used consistently. To be NPOV, we should neither assert a specific procedure as modifying or mutilating in nature, as that is something people can make their minds up about based on contrast claims by disagreeing parties who speak on the issue. Ranze (talk) 22:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. Female genital mutilation is the phrase used by a very reliable source: WHO. Please read the archives. Moving has been discussed repeated.y. Jim1138 (talk) 22:56, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. Common name. Apteva (talk) 00:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. Female genital mutilation is the dominant term. I'm not aware of any source calling it modification. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose The WHO uses FGM. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:39, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose FGM is the term commonly used by reliable sources. -- Scray (talk) 06:05, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose This article is about FGM as described in reliable sources. Johnuniq (talk) 07:10, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose: the common term used internationally of this human rights violation is "mutilation". Brocach (talk) 19:19, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose, per preponderance of usage in reliable secondary and academic scholarly sources. — Cirt (talk) 22:45, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Let's not dignify these procedures, condemned and illegal around the world, with some legitimacy in the name of impartiality. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:50, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

July 2011 move

Was reading FGC page history and noticed that content here at FGM was moved from that link at that date. This is visible in the FGM page history. What I'm wondering is what happened prior to the ‎GTBacchus move late that July 28th. Did the article used to be called FGC until then? Did it get moved back and forth a lot? Ranze (talk) 05:20, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

in short, yes. I added a template up top which summarizes all of the formal move requests, as well as provides links to the move logs of relevant pages. If you see other pages or other move discussions please add them to the template following the format above. It looks like this article has been moved about 10 times.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:02, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Infobox

Several editors have reverted the presence of terms that have been present in the info-box since at least mid-april. These are the terms:

• Female genital cutting (Momoh)
• female circumcision (Momoh)
• genital surgeries (not needed)
• genital alteration (Momoh)
• genital excision (Momoh)
• genital modification (Gallo, Pia Grassivaro; Tita Eleanora; and Viviani, Franco) (could have "ethnic" added)

(added in June)

• Pharaonic circumcision (Momoh)
• Sunna circumcision (Momoh)

After the latest edits, the list now stands as follows:

• Female genital cutting
• female circumcision
• ethnic female genital modification

One of the references cited, Momo, provides almost *all* of the terms listed above, except genital surgeries, which I agree is a bit too vague and could be removed. However, *all* of the other terms are properly sourced and cited in the reference works provided, and could be sourced if necessary by many more. So, why were these reverted? They are all sourced with the reference works currently attached to that particular line, so I'm quite baffled at the reverts that claimed "not sourced". --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:56, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I must say, Obi, I agree with the current list. Genital surgeries, genital alteration, genital excision and genital modification are too broad, and each would include other practices. Pharaonic circumcision on the other hand is too narrow and excludes some of the practices described here. Andreas JN466 18:13, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• all* of the words on the list are interpreted in different ways by different sources. Female circumcision for example, describes a very broad range of practices. In fact, Pharaonic circumcision is probably the closest to "genital mutilation" that people typically think of, since it usually involves infibulation. Excision and alteration are also both used in various literature, so I don't think we're doing the reader a disservice by lettering them know these terms are used, but are not perfect synonyms. I am not arguing for inclusion of genital surgeries OTOH - but am arguing for the others. (genital modification is already in there, as you can see). Finally, all of these terms are used and noted as such in the article and FULLY sourced, so I'm quite baffled that people revert to keep this out of the infobox claiming it's not sourced. It is, to Momoh, and many others if needed.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:42, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Interchangeability of mutilate versus cutting versus circumcision

I don't believe we should necessarily present these three terms as interchangeable, as we do in the title. I attempted to expound on this in the "terminology" section, but this kind of distinction is important enough to even elaborate on in the get go.

We know what these terms mean, we have articles about them. We know that cutting is a form of mutilation, and circumcision is a form of cutting. They are not interchangeable terms. To simply summarize what these terms mean is not original research IMO, especially since we leave it up to those articles themselves to elaborate on them. Their etymologies are clearly available on wiktionary.

It is worth mentioning in this article that the term 'circumcision' is sometimes inaccurately used to describe forms of female genital cutting which are actually amputations rather than circumcisions. A clitorectomy is by no means a circumcision, and we should not present it as one, we should only identify that some have inaccurately called it that, perhaps in an attempt to minimize it.

Similarly, cutting/circumcision are FORMS of mutilation, and should not be presented as predominant terms that represent FGM as a whole. WHO's Female_genital_mutilation#Type_IV for example mentions other practises:

stretching the clitoris or labia, burning or scarring the genitals, or introducing harmful substances into the vagina to tighten it.

Stretching, burning and tightening are not 'cutting', so the 'cutting' aspect of FGM should be presented as a subsection, not the main title of the article. Based on this broader scope, and due to the majority of this article being about cutting-type mutilation, I wonder if we should actually split it off into a separate female genital cutting article (which redirects here) so that the main FGM article could be used to give attention to less known forms of non-cutting mutilations. They only get a passing mention here. Ranze (talk) 22:11, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia follows the usage of reliable sources. We don't do original research or present original arguments. If you think the sources are misusing the term 'female circumcision' (or other terms), you'll have to take that up with them. It isn't our place to correct such usage or argue for different usage. As for splitting off a separate article for female genital cutting, I think that would actually make things more confusing, not less, as you would have significant duplication and overlap between the articles. Kaldari (talk) 22:43, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Overlap can be minimized, we have some overlap between genital modification and here already. There would not be duplication if we simply moved cutting-related content from here to that article and made a brief mention of cutting-related things here, while focusing on the less known non-cutting forms of mutilation in the broader wording.

I'm not clear on why it's "original research" to identify that to use a term meaning "cut around" (used to describe prepuce removal in men) for amputation of non-prepuce anatomy in females is inappropriate. It says from the outset in the circumcision article that it means 'around'. While it's not our place to correct usage, we should present corrective arguments if they exist. Firstly, do we even HAVE references that establish these terms as utterly interchangeable, rather than simply related? The intro here reads like "fruits, also known as apples and Brinas". In reading the reference that is used in the introductory statement, the 2 forms of FGM aren't even mentioned, so I'm taking the first step in disassociating them, by moving them to a follow-up sentence. They shouldn't be bunched together like that if references aren't supporting it, which they don't. Ranze (talk) 20:56, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ranze, would you mind gaining consensus first for your edits? Some of your edits are original research, and others are straying from the standard format, so it would be better to discuss things in advance. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:05, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

This was not original research, it was an analysis of the reference, which did not support our wording. However sad it might make us to stray from 'standard format', we ought to do so when it misleads the reader, which is the case here. The WHO may very well have used FGM interchangably with FGC and FC, but if they did, it is not supported by this reference which is cited. If we are going to present them interchangeably, a better reference should be found. The introductory statement that FGM is "also known as" these other 2 terms is not supported by a reliable reference cited in proximity to the statement. Ranze (talk) 21:10, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

WHO uses the term FGM. Ranze, could you please gain consensus first for any edits you want to make? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:28, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Your comment doesn't make any sense SV. I did not remove the term FGM in my edit. What I separated from the WHO-referenced sentence was FGC and FC. Rather than reverting anything I add, seeing as how I got to the trouble of stating in the edit summary why I am making the change, when you revert a specific change it would be useful if you could state why you object to the change, why the old format is superior to the new format. But if consensus is what you want, I will write up a series of requests in a following section. Ranze (talk) 00:25, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

It would be helpful if someone proposing a change which involves a complex and hard-to-follow diff would explain what it is that needs fixing, and what the change accomplishes. A "series of requests" sounds excessive. How about focusing on one issue? Johnuniq (talk) 00:31, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I believe I did explain in the summary what the change accomplished in terms of fixing what is needed. I focus on one issue at a time but will not lay aside other concerns if there are multiple issues where we need to improve things, which is the case here. Ranze (talk) 04:19, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Request for consensus from SlimVirgin

In a series of changes in the past couple of days, I have made edits, and some (all but 1 as far as I can tell) get reverted (twice in a fell swoop) by SV. I have made an effort of explaining why the changes are being made in the summary, and the reverts contain minimal conversation in regard to why they are bad edits. I am going to, in a series of sections below, explain each of the edits, to give SV (and others) an opportunity to explain why they disagree with the changes, in one or more of the below sections, as you deign. Ranze (talk) 00:54, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Revert 1

Regarding May24 rev

WHO health quote

Here I added a quote from the WHO, a statement which included references that supported a statement where WHO declares it has no health benefits and that it causes harm. This was reverted as 'original research'. Ranze (talk) 00:54, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Why the ref to the huffington post? Why place this is quotes? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:32, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

The Huffington post quote is because it is a news article that in 2012 commented on WHO's policy, which has since been changed. Seeing as how WHO stances on these issues seem to change from year to year, it may be worthwhile to document this. I am unsure on the ideal place to do so. WHO's article (is FGM a big enough issue to discuss in depth there?) or this article (WHO is cited a lot, so I'd think they'd be important enough to explore more) or maybe some new article? Like "WHO stance on genital mutilation" ? If it has article potential I still think it'd grow more initially as a section. Ranze (talk) 05:26, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Although it was certainly made in good faith, I disagree with this content addition as proposed. The information in the quote pulled from the WHO was that FGM has no health benefits, and has harms. The information about the harms is already integrated into the section the WHO quote was added to, and it is not necessary to repeat it with a big quote, which draws unnecessarily undue attention to that one quote.

The other piece of information in the WHO quote - that FGM has no health benefits - could very reasonably be integrated into the existing section, citing the document the quote was pulled from. I support such an addition to the article content. Zad68 02:46, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

To be objective, we should present things like "no health benefits" in a quote format, to clarify it as the opinion that it is. Proving negatives is very difficult and not something we should establish as fact simply because a group claims it is so. Especially if the WHO has had an inconsistent stance on the issue from decade to decade. Ranze (talk) 05:26, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Note - I don't mean to speak for SV, but the OR she was talking about was certainly the second edit you made, the unsourced addition of the paragraph starting "Out of the three nouns...". That was indeed pure original research and needed to be removed. Zad68 02:48, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Original research is making unique claims about reality. It's not original research to link to our own pages about these 3 words and let those articles themselves explain what the differences are. Nor is it original research to summarize what those pages say, and what people know about the words. Furthermore, if a good edit and a bad edit are done in sequence, the whole thing shouldn't be reverted. Ranze (talk) 05:26, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Term links

Here I made a note in the terminology section linking to our articles on circumcision and cutting and mutilation. This was done to show that (as reflected by our having different articles about these words) that they are terms with different meanings. This was reverted as 'original research'. I'm unclear on how this is original research. This article clearly specifes that FGM includes things like burning and chemical treatment and pulling. Neither of these 3 things are "cutting". Ranze (talk) 00:54, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

There was not a single reference. References are required especially since SV is trying to bring this article to GA. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:37, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this is inappropriate unsourced original research. Zad68 02:49, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think either of you are using terms like OR and unsourced appropriately here. All that's being done here is recognizing that one word is part of a greater term. Common sense stuff like that doesn't need references. Do you really need a source to say "female genital mutilation is a form of mutilation" or "female genital cutting is a form of cutting" or "female circumcision is a form of circumcision" ? This is English, folks. Ranze (talk) 05:29, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Revert 2

Regarding first May25 rev

Labia stretching link

Not reverted, surprisingly. What confuses me is that #Link to hood reduction article was reverted, and both edits seem to be of a similar nature (linking to relevant articles on Wikipedia about a mentioned process) so I am unclear on why one was okay but the other wasn't. Ranze (talk) 00:54, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I thought this was a perfectly fine WL. I don't know what you're talking about regarding "#Link to hood reduction article". Zad68 02:50, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

To explain what I mean: if the edit of linking "stretching the labia" phrase to "labia stretching" article is fine, why was the edit linking "removal of hood" to the hoodectomy article reverted? Both linked the phrases to their surgical articles. I see them as equivalent, so why did the other get reverted? Ranze (talk) 04:02, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

WHO term quote

Here things were arranged so that the "WHO defines this as" statement was in a context only pertaining to FGM. The reference used only describes the phrase 'female genital mutilation'. The definition attributed to WHO from the reference provided does not use the phrases "female genital cutting" or "female circumcision". While the words 'cut' and 'circumcise' do appear, they are only used to describe some aspects of FGM, and are not presented as interchangeable titles.

Currently our introductory statement is misleading regarding the implication that the WHO reference supports also calling FGM as FGC or FC. I fixed that and it was reverted without ANY explanation in teh edit summary. Ranze (talk) 00:54, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I understand what you're doing - you're saying that the way the article currently has it:

Female genital mutilation (FGM), also known as female genital cutting (FGC) and female circumcision (FC), is defined by the World Health Organization (WHO) as...

it appears that the WHO recognizes FGC and FC as terms in addition to FGM, and you're saying that the source cited doesn't support that. While I understand what you're getting at, I don't think what you're concerned about is really a problem. The way I read it, "FGM" is what is what the WHO talks about, and the other terms FGC and FC are in an appositive phrase. Per WP:LEADSENTENCE and WP:BOLDTITLE the way the article currently does it is correct. The sources for the use of the other terms are found in the body of the article. What we can do to address your concern is instead of restructuring the lead sentences, we can simply cite the appropriate sources for each term in the lead sentence, although that would make it a bit uglier. Zad68 02:59, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I am not clear why you think BOLD/LEAD support the way the article currently does it. Appositives are not referenced at all in either policy page. I think we should only be listing interchangeable terms. What we currently have is like opening an article "quadrilaterals, also known as squares". What I'm concerned about IS a serious problem here. The article implies a falsehood through interchangeable presentation, that all forms of mutilation are also called "cutting" or "circumcision". In reality, those terms refer to specific kinds of mutilation. Other kinds (in Type IV, such as chemical tightening, skin-stretching and burning) would not logically be called cutting/circumcizing, nor have I encountered any references used here that support that kind of description. The "sources for the use of the other terms" you claim are found in the article's body are lacking in that regard.

While we do know that any forms of FGM involving cutting are called cutting, and that many (or all) of these might also be called 'circumcision', that doesn't at all support the idea that they are interchangeable, because this FGM article (and the WHO's definition, as per type IV mutilations) expanded beyond cutting-based mutilations to include non-cutting forms of mutilation as well. Based on that, FGC/FC should be presented as sub-types of FGM and not interchangeible terms for FGM. FGC is simply the most widely-discussed (and probably first-discussed) form of FGM, but it is no longer interchangeible ever since expansion of the concept to include non-cutting mutilation recognition. Ranze (talk) 04:09, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Revert 3

Regarding second May25 rev

Numbered list for WHO types

Here was a simple change in formatting. Rather than a blocky paragraph that does not make for easy reading, the numbered list format was introduced to separate the 4 types of WHO-described mutilation. Since it uses roman numerals, this format is helpful for people. The other other change here was that, a mention about frequency of types 1-3 was moved after that. Basically the presentation was changed so that all 4 types were defined first THEN statistics given, rather than having the mention of statistics interrupt the flow of defining the four types.

I would like to seek consensus for this change. It seems pretty basic and wp:bold to me, since it doesn't change content at all, just aesthetic layout. I invite SV to explain the objection to this change, remembering that consensus is not just a vote, that it is valuable to have a conversation about content and changes to it. Ranze (talk) 00:54, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

You've correctly identified this as just a style and not a content issue, but actually Wikipedia's preferred style is to use prose where possible instead of lists. Zad68 03:09, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I believe the policy on prose is more in regard to not inventing lists, but if WHO has already published a numbered list, we should present it as such and not... prosify their work to confuse it. Ranze (talk) 04:11, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Link to hood reduction article

Here I added a link in parenthesis to the phrase "removal of the .. clitoral hood" to a phrase used to support this surgery. "Hoodectomy" redirects to our clitoral hood reduction article and is a link I think is helpful. I'm unclear how it differs from #Labia stretching link which you did not revert, could you explain? I seek consensus to add this link since it is relevant (just like we link to clitorectomy next to mention of clitoris removal) to link to the procedure of removing the hood next to the mention of hood removal. Ranze (talk) 00:54, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this one. I see that you, in the past day or so, changed the redirect at hoodectomy and then you also added a source mentioning the term at clitoral hood reduction before linking it here. However I just did a quick PubMed search and "hoodectomy" shows no results, it wasn't mentioned as a term in this nice recent review article PMID 21492397, and a Google Scholar search for me came back with 19 results for "hoodectomy" as opposed to a few thousand for "clitoral hood reduction", so I'm not convinced hoodectomy is a common enough term to use here. I do support putting the link in to clitoral hood reduction in this article in an appropriate spot. Zad68 03:22, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

References were supplied supporting hoodectomy. It isn't prominent enough to be the primary title of the article, but was prominent enough to link as a cognate term. References were supplied supporting its use:

1. Gynecological cosmetic surgery: Expert Rev. Obstet. Gynecol. 4(2), 101-104 (2009): "The procedures described under female esthetic genital suergery are reduction labiaplasty, vaginaplasty, liposuction to mons pubis, fat injections to labia majora or mons, clitoral hoodectomy, hymenorrhaphy, 'G-spot amplication', and the use of a surgical laser in 'vaginal rejuvenation'."
2. Clitorolabial Reconstruction in Circumcised Females with Clitoral Inclusion Cyst: "It is very clear from the Prophet’s instruction to perform partial hoodectomy."
3. Obiajulu Nnamuchi (2012). "Circumcision or Mutilation-Voluntary or Forced Excision-Extricating the Ethical and Legal Issues in Female Genital Ritual". JL & Health (25): 85. The appropriate medical nomenclature for FC is "clitoridotomy" or hoodectomy
4. New Approach to Clitoral Phimosis: Hoodplasty Giovanni Alei, Cristiano Monarca, Maria I. Rizzo, Piero Letizia, Lavinia Alei, and Nicolò Scuderi. Journal of Gynecologic Surgery. March 2011, 27(1): 25-28. doi:10.1089/gyn.2009.0093. Published in Volume: 27 Issue 1: March 18, 2011: "Clitoral phimosis is seldom reported. It is treated by hoodectomy or dorsal slit."

The reason I used it here was more due to conciseness. A single term is a lot more memorable and catchy than 'x y reduction'. Ranze (talk) 04:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

See also

I've twice removed clitoral hood reduction from See also, because I feel we should not include unrelated, or barely related, elective practices, as though this article is a one-stop shop for everything a woman might have done to her genitals. This article is about mutilation, and clitoral hood reduction (elective or otherwise) isn't part of it. I'm just leaving this note here to explain why I've removed it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:50, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I tried to add this as a see also, but it was reverted twice by SlimVirgin: [20]. The issue is, hood reduction is sometimes performed as an elective procedure, but sometimes it is performed as part of FGM, so they are clearly related. The hood reduction article needs to be improved to discuss that it may fall under WHO Type 1a - but in any case this article should be linked. Such removal of the hood is often called female circumcision, which redirects here, so we should probably also link with a hatnote to both Clitoridotomy and Clitoridectomy as there are several redirects that are ambiguous. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:52, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Further, per SlimVirgin's note above - I agree, we shouldn't link to all elective surgery. However, this particular one, as well as Clitoridectomy, are both performed as part of what is terms FGM, and indeed Clitoridotomy is often referenced in the FGM literature as well as as an elective practice. We need to update the Clitoral hood reduction article to include further details about its practice within the FGM arena, but saying they aren't related is just not true - they are closely related, they are in some cases almost the same procedure, but done with differing purposes. We're doing our readers a disservice by not exposing them to this linkage, which is made by lots of literature.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:59, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

As the article says there are apparently no medical reports of Type I without removal of the clitoris. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:06, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

right, but these sources disagree. synonym of circumcision, Obiajulu Nnamuchi (2012). "Circumcision or Mutilation-Voluntary or Forced Excision-Extricating the Ethical and Legal Issues in Female Genital Ritual.". JL & Health (25): 85. "The appropriate medical nomenclature for FC is "clitoridotomy" or hoodectomy". The issue is, female circumcision is taken to mean all sorts of things, from the full removal, to just a hoodectomy, and practices vary widely. As such, I don't think having the link can hurt, and in fact, I think it will help the user, as it is clearly related, including in various literature. Try a scholar search for "hoodectomy" and "FGM" you will see lots of links, and this is debated right now in the literature since some women are electing some procedures which also fall under the rubric of FGM. Since this particular one is also called "female circumcision", which redirects here, we need to provide an outward link to the reader.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:12, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Further, the WHO calls this procedure type 1a [21] "Type I — Partial or total removal of the clitoris and/or the prepuce (clitoridectomy). When it is important to distinguish between the major variations of Type I mutilation, the following subdivisions are proposed: Type Ia, removal of the clitoral hood or prepuce only; Type Ib, removal of the clitoris with the prepuce." Obviously, there's a huge difference between removing the hood, and removing the clitoris itself - and it's not surprising that in some cases, people elect to have 1a but very few elect to have 1b performed - but WHO does have a classification for both types. Instead of see also, we could integrate this into the article under the discussion of type 1.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:18, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

These are usually performed on children, so they are not electing to have anything done, and linking to a minor elective procedure in a discussion of Type I – which is almost always much more extensive – risks misleading the reader. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:27, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Further: Practical medical dictionary: definition: clitoridotomy: circumcision in the female. SV, I realize you're trying to make a point, but you're not helping the readers if you try to hide that there is an elective procedure that is the same as WHO type 1a (and even type 1b). The WHO source in the article itself states "Some practices, such as genital cosmetic surgery and hymen repair, which are legally accepted in many countries and not generally considered to constitute female genital mutilation, actually fall under the definition used here." Regardless of your feelings on the issue, we are amiss to not provide readers with relevant linkages - either in see also or in the text. I've provided copious references, demonstrating that "female circumcision" (which is a redirect here) is often used to mean "hoodectomy", and you haven't provided much at all to show they are not linked.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:32, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

• WHO 2013: "Clitoridectomy [Type 1]: partial or total removal of the clitoris (a small, sensitive and erectile part of the female genitals) and, in very rare cases, only the prepuce (the fold of skin surrounding the clitoris)."
• WHO 2008, p. 24: "The reference to the clitoral prepuce is moved to the end of the sentence. The reason for this change is the common tendency to describe Type I as removal of the prepuce, whereas this has not been documented as a traditional form of female genital mutilation. However, in some countries, medicalized female genital mutilation can include removal of the prepuce only (Type Ia) (Thabet and Thabet, 2003), but this form appears to be relatively rare (Satti et al., 2006). Almost all known forms of female genital mutilation that remove tissue from the clitoris also cut all or part of the clitoral glans itself."
• WHO 1998, Izett and Toubia (who may have written the above too): "Type I. In the commonest form of this procedure the clitoris is held between the thumb and index finger, pulled out and amputated with one stroke of a sharp object. Bleeding is usually stopped by packing the wound with gauzes or other substances and applying a pressure bandage. Modern trained practitioners may insert one or two stitches around the clitoral artery to stop the bleeding."

SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:44, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Another source showing a linkage: "The Healthcare Professional's Guide to Clinical Cultural Competence" "Female circumcision: Refers to a number of procedures performed for cultural, rather than medical reasons on the female genitalia. Also known as female genital cutting or female genital mutilation, the procedures involve tissue removal ranging from clitoridectomy or clitoridotomy (the removal or splitting of the clitoral hood) to inficbulation (in which the labi majora is sutured)" I'm open to any wording you propose, but not linking to that article has no basis as far as I can tell from the sources. That's what SEE ALSO is for, in the first place.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:47, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Even the sources you provide clearly demonstrate a linkage between these practices. The question is, how do we describe this in a way that benefits the reader. Saying "it's not the same thing, therefore no link allowed" is plain silly at this point. For example, in Circumcision: A History of the World's Most Controversial Surgery, the author notes: "Alternatively, however, some Muslim scholars have argued that removing the hood of the clitoris would make a women more sensitive during sexual intercourse, thus more likely to please her husband." I'm not saying I agree with any of this stuff, I'd like to think we're born as we should be, but there are several, in this case, two specific medical procedures: Clitoridectomy and Clitoridotomy, which are performed as part of FGM, with various reasons given, and also performed for medical or therapeutic reasons in the industrialized world. I just don't get why you are arguing we can't provide the reader with a single hyperlink? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:55, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

re:Hatnote - The following article makes my point better than I can: [22] - written by a Nigerian "victim" of FGM, she then looks at the similar procedures being carried out by Western women. Again, I'm not condoning any of these procedures, but reading the literature in this space, especially the sociology literature, I don't think we can draw a clear black line between horrible FGM and elective hood reduction - there's lots of fuzzy areas in between, so starting with easy-to-find links between the key articles is in the interests of the reader - especially when the term "female circumcision" is so contested and used to mean so many different things at so many different points in time by different people - which is why I added the hatnote.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:57, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Can we instead satisfy the need by undoing the redirect from Female circumcision to here and making these terms disambig links there? Not sure if that's supported by sources but just a suggestion to consider. Zad68 03:59, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

My concern about these links was that we would be inadvertently blurring the distinction between elective practices and FGM, but judging by his last post it seems that Obiwankenobi is deliberately blurring it. This is something we should avoid; FGM is a set of distinctive practices described in detail by the sources. Politically and legally it has nothing to do with elective procedures, and medically there is almost always a world of difference.

Zad, female circumcision is what FGM used to be known as. It isn't a separate procedure. Opening the page up for editing as a dab page risks implying that it is a separate thing. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:07, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

You are ignoring LOTS of sources through this interpretation, and through this drawing of a black/white line SV. There are whole papers written on the hypocricy of attacking the barbarous "FGM" while simultaneously "beautifying" with western surgical techniques. I understand why the FGM name was chosen, but it's still quite controversial, and in the real world it is not black and white like you'd like it to be...we should do a better job at capturing the nuance here. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:15, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

The specialist sources are quite clear on this issue. There's no consensus to call FGM "female circumcision" by moving the page or blurring the distinction. The set of non-elective practices that used to be known as female circumcision are now known predominantly as female genital mutilation. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:21, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

By who? You are perpetuating a single world-view here SV, that is western, normative, and certainly not world-wide. I'm not suggesting moving the article, nor renaming it, I'm just suggesting that a hatnote is proper here given the many contested definitions of Female circumcision, including instances of elective Female circumcision by adult women read this for example. Given that we have a redirect, if we just apply the guidance, we end up with a hatnote as the best option. Remember, we're not trying to convince the reader of anything, this is not an advocacy website. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:33, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

By all the specialist sources, Western and otherwise. Nahid Toubia, for example, is one of the key sources for this, and for the WHO. Google searches can't be a substitute for focusing on specialist sources. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:42, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

But your "specialist" sources have been selected to promote a particular POV. It is a dominant one, I will grant you that, but it is a POV nonetheless - if it wasn't a POV, why would the African feminists be writing paper after paper critiquing it? In any case, this whole discussion is a lot of ink over a single hyperlink. You've added thousands of characters to this article without discussion - why can't I add a few useful ones? I've demonstrated in spades that female circumcision, which redirects here, is taken by major sources to mean many things, including clitoridotomy or clitoridectomy, as well as more extreme forms, so providing a prominent link out to those pages, which are both in need of further development, would be a good thing, not a bad thing - and none of your "specialist" sources contradict in any way what I'm suggesting, in fact they also support it.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:01, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Can you say what led you to become interested in this page today? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:05, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

twas on my to-do list for a while to setup the old-moves template, as I knew this article had a complex move history, so I finally created it today after doing the Sarah Brown one.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:08, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

In response to something SV said to OWK:

these links was that we would be inadvertently blurring the distinction between elective practices and FGM

Could you explain how your fears about blurred distinctions could not simply be alleviated by a statement like "sometimes people consent to prepuce removal and sometimes they do not" ? For fear of things being blurred in one direction by an absence of explanation, you are blurring them in the other direction instead. A better solution would be to show all uses of the term and explanation the difference usage. Nothing about the term "circumcise" implies a procedure that is consented to or forced, it can be both. 'Mutilate' on the other hand does imply something forced. If circumcise is used to describe non-forced as well as forced surgeries, we should not exclusively be presenting the forced ones as the only usage.

judging by his last post it seems that Obiwankenobi is deliberately blurring it

This one also bothers me. Could you specify what portion of OWK's post you are referring to when you accuse him of deliberately blurring elective practices and mutilating (implied non-elective) practices? Another problem we face is that the term 'mutilate' can be used regardless of elective or non-elective. A protective parent lambasting their teen "how dare you get your ear pierced, you mutilated your body!" for example. Neutrally speaking, the term 'mutilate' does not inherently imply non-consensual procedures even if the article as a whole for the most part describes procedures which for the most part are not consented to. We should be unbiased in making at least a footnote of those who have consented to such procedures. Ranze (talk) 03:14, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

(ec)Female circumcision could become a DAB page, but I'm not sure if the sources support that - it seems clear that there is a primary topic for female circumcision, and that is FGM. The standard solution in this case is to use hatnotes to explain the ambiguity. The problem is, FC is also defined to mean both removal of the clitoris, and trimming/incision/etc of the clitoral hood (see the medical dictionary references I provided above that define Clitoridotomy as "female circumcision"). There are also Islamic sources that suggest removal of the hood is the goal this debates that reading, not removal of the clitoris itself, and that describe it as circumcision. This is similar to circumcision of boys, it's biologically a similar piece of tissue (hood vs. foreskin). So, I actually think a hatnote is the best, according-to-guidance way of capturing this confusion and directing the reader to the right place if they come in via "female circumcision". We also need to improve the Clitoral hood reduction article to talk about it in the context of Islam and FGM - as of now the article paints it as a fully elective procedure, when in fact it is sometimes performed as part of what we call FGM here.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:12, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

On an aside, I can't help wonder if there is an appropriate term (irony? no I think something else...) for "hat" notes being the solution to the prepuce confusion issue. Ranze (talk) 03:14, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion

I tagged both FGC and FC terms with R with possibilities, this was reverted without explanation by SV so I brought it up on talk page. The explanation was that these would be POV forks if created as separate articles. That is a completely unsourced objection. As OWK brought up, it is simply about content split.

If we can have articles for murder and axe murder, we can (if not not) eventually have articles for mutilation and cutting. Even if we universally label all cutting as mutilation, not all mutilation is cutting, as evidenced by other forms of mutilation described in this article.

Due to the size of the article, there is potential to branch out and describe the cutting-form of mutilation in its own article some day. This justifies an R with Possibilities tag. It has nothing to do with POV-forking at accused, and I am restoring the possibilities tag due to that. Please save the POV-fork concern for discussion pertaining to when someone may try to expand it, as opposed to simply acknowledging the growth potential.

When FGC initially moved to FGM, cutting may have been the only form of mutilation discussed or focused on. That is no longer the case, and due to that, there is reason to identify that FGC identifies something more specific than FGM, and FC something even more specific than that.

This is called POV-forking without any backing for the accusation. As if simply recognize the difference in meaning between verbs (mutilate, cut, circumcize) is lacking in neutrality, when we know very well that the verbs are not synonyms, any more than square and quadrilateral are. Ranze (talk) 02:45, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's worth getting excited over a tag, but the above shows a clear lack of understanding about standard procedures. Wikipedia follows reliable sources; it does not lead. There is nothing "lacking in neutrality", but if there were, the problem would not be solved by moving bits and pieces to another page. Johnuniq (talk) 03:11, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Noting 'possibilities' is not leading. There is always SOMETHING lacking in neutrality (Wikipedia is never perfect) and we should never think our job is finished in improving articles. Furthermore, the possibility of split is not about solving neutrality problems, but rather in solving terminology issues. Specifically: not all mutilation is cutting, but cutting-based procedures overwhelm the 'mutilation' article, and more clarity can be gained in understanding the broader issue of mutilation (including non-cutting forms) if we were to export the bulk of cutting-based discussion to the previous FGC page. 'Cutting' is clearly viewed as an acceptable term to use since it's boldly thrown up at the top and redirecting here. Ranze (talk) 03:17, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Tostan

What do people fell about a blog support this text? [23] How notable is this NGO? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:10, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Zero Google News hits for Gannon Gillespie, the author of that Tostan blog post, and next to zero significant independent news coverage of Tostan. Does not seem like a notable voice. Article already covers the position that some groups call it FGC, the view Tostan takes, with content sourced to Elizabeth Heger Boyle, a Stanford PhD and chair of a university sociology department. Also the article has mentions of UNFPA and USAID, much more notable groups. So the Tostan mention would be undue, using the blog post like that would be an inappropriate use of a primary source. Zad68 17:45, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

you guys really need to learn how to use google - ny times article from October 2011 discusses tostan in detail, their programs and even the fact that they eschew use of term FGM.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:19, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

That kind of edit is often seen in articles that present a clear mainstream view, where someone wants to provide a contrarian position. Such edits are not compliant with WP:DUE. Obviously many people would prefer to describe the procedure as "FGC", just as there are many who want the procedures performed—that is not a reason to inject an undue opinion to weight the article against the authoritative sources. If the editorial commentary in the edit was removed, it might be reasonable to mention the preferred term of the NGO if it can be established as having some significance for a world-wide overview. Regardless of that issue, the flowery text (which experience suggests is copied from the organization's promotional documentation) is not suitable for any article—it's great that a group "encourages dialogue without judgement and empowers communities", but Wikipedia is not a place for marketspeak or promotion. I see that cleanup may be needed at Tostan. Johnuniq (talk) 01:14, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Per "The approach of the Senegalese Government endorses the model of international NGO Tostan, established in Senegal in 1991 and working in six West African and two East African countries, and the implementation of their Community Empowerment Program, http://tostan.org/community-empowerment-program" But the ref does not mention Senegal? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:54, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you read up a bit about Tostan. They are widely cited as an organization that has been successful in getting communities to renounce FGM, but an important part of their process is not going in with an attitude of "you must stop this mutilation" - thus, given the coverage of Tostan, and their views on this term, I disagree completely that it is undue to mention them in this section. I also find your comment that 'obviously many people would prefer to describe the procedure as "FGC"' as incredibly insensitive and dismissive of valid points of view - I'm not even sure what you mean by the word "obviously" but it seems to associate someone who wants to call it "FGC" with someone who wants to do the procedure - and that is massively unfair and a cheap shot, esp to a group like Tostan.

Even UNICEF calls it FGM/C (a sort of compromise) - and UNICEF recently completed a study of Tostan's methodology (see :http://www.tostan.org/news/unicef-case-study-outlines-success-tostan-approach-accelerating-abandonment-female-genital).

I agree we should not have flowery text, and I haven't looked at Tostan which could perhaps be cleaned up, but sanitizing it completely here just because a few editors haven't heard of Tostan and don't know how to use google would be ridiculous and a massive misinterpretation of UNDUE. I was able to find the following NY times articles which cover Tostan with 20 seconds of searching:

• [24]
• [25]
• [26]
• [27]
• [28] "In the last decade, many countries in Africa have seen a marked drop in the practice of cutting. This is thanks to organizations working all over the continent. One of the groups best known in Western nations is Tostan, which works with local organizations in eight African countries." --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:58, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

The issue was that I do not see that the ref provided supports the statement in question. Do you feel it does? We still mention the group and have just cut down on some of the text. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:13, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Missing Relevant Anatomical Features and Gender Bias

This article mentions the word scar 6 instances more than the article on circumcision; Wikipedia should not be biased. Also; estrogen receptors are not mentioned despite being an anatomic feature of the clitoris that would be affected, and it should be mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CensoredScribe (talk • contribs) 13:56, 12 August 2013‎

Why does the number of times 'scar' is mentioned indicate bias? I would think there are many other word count differences between the articles as well. It seems that scarring is often more of an issue with FGM than circumcision. Why are estrogen receptors in the citoris relevent here? If there is information supporting the article regarding receptors and you have a source, please include it in the article, or discuss it here. Jim1138 (talk) 11:06, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't know why that guy thinks scar is a show of bias... however, "female circumcision" forwards you to a page titled "female genital mutilation" and "male circumcision" forwards you to a page called "circumcision". The content of those two articles also shows tremendous levels of bias, as if genital mutilation is perfectly fine when the victim is male but bad if the victim is female. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.164.226.240 (talk) 22:18, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

"Female genital mutilation" is the term used by WHO and other reliable sources. That is why FGM as opposed to FC is used. Weather MC should be termed MGM would be again defined by WHO and such. Jim1138 (talk) 01:04, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Descriptions of people

This is unrelated, but I noticed that you recently removed the statement that there are no health benefits to FGM from the article. I think that needs to be mentioned somewhere, preferably under "Health effects". --1ST7 (talk) 00:59, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I removed that because it was sourced to Human Rights Watch. For a medical claim, we need a medical secondary source. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:43, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Also, why are other details such as the titles/occupations of the people whose opinions appear in the article (such as their being an academic or the president of a health institution) being removed? --1ST7 (talk) 01:04, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

When the articles are linked, there's usually no need to describe, and some of the descriptions weren't entirely accurate, e.g. describing people as activists when they are physicians. They are activists too, but that's not all. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:23, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Not all of them are linked, though (ex. Ellen Gruenbaum, who is a professor of anthropology). --1ST7 (talk) 01:33, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that. Ideally we'd have an article on her. The difficulty lies in saying Smith says X, Jones says Y, and Professor Gruenbaum says Z. So the usual thing on WP is not to include titles, or to include them for everyone, but the latter can end up looking long-winded and promotional. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:37, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Also, I meant to add, if we do include descriptions, it's usually not Professor X, but "X, professor of sociology at the University of Y," or just sociologist X. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:41, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

American spelling

The article keeps changing between American and other spelling (e.g. anesthetic/anaesthetic, labor/labour, practice (vb)/practise). I don't mind which we choose, though I have a slight preference for the non-American only because I find it easier to write. The first version used anaesthetic.

We can choose either, but it should be consistent throughout. Do others have a preference? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:10, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I personally think it would be best to go with the American spelling since it's already used for the majority of the article. --1ST7 (talk) 23:12, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

That may be because you recently changed a few of the spellings to American. I think it was mostly non-American before that, though I could be wrong. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:21, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I think it was about half and half before, so I started altering it for consistency. I think it would be easier now to just convert the rest to American, but I'm not opposed to using the other form of spelling. --1ST7 (talk) 00:16, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

The WHO seems to use non-American, in case that's a consideration, e.g. anaesthetic and practised (vb), [29] although Americans do sometimes differentiate between practise and practice. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:21, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

It's a consideration. UNICEF and UNFPA use American, though they don't provide as much information as the WHO in the article. Do you know which version is used more worldwide? --1ST7 (talk) 00:55, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

UNICEF uses both American and non-American, sometimes in the same document. When you asked which version is used more, do you mean is American or non-American English more prevalent? I'd say the latter. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:31, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I meant, and if that's the case, then I'd say non-American would be the one to use. --1ST7 (talk) 01:37, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and start converting the text. --1ST7 (talk) 04:40, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Question: is the spelling "practise" used for both the noun and the verb? --1ST7 (talk) 04:43, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for converting the spelling. Practice is the noun and practise the verb. I was thinking of putting one of the non-American English tags on the talk page for future reference, perhaps Canadian English or Oxford English, so that the article doesn't keep going back and forth. Would that be okay with you? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:34, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. I think the tag would be a good idea; the article needs to be consistent. --1ST7 (talk) 20:57, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I've added the Canadian one. It's consistent with the WHO's English (labour, not labor; anaesthetic, not anesthetic; organization, not organisation). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:23, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Close paraphrasing

Some of the recent edits have added close paraphrasing or removed in-text attribution. For example, Tamale is cited in the lead because it closely paraphrases what she says; if the attribution is moved or removed, we risk placing the author's words in WP's voice.

Another example (without attribution): "Stitches made from thorns or catgut are commonly used to stem bleeding from raw tissues and the clitoral artery." Source: "Crude stitches of catgut or thorns may be used to control bleeding from the clitoral artery and raw tissue surfaces."

Sometimes it's difficult to paraphrase, esp when dealing with medical issues where there are limited ways of saying the same thing and retaining precision, but it's worth watching out for in case it's done too much. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:32, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Mythological Origins

What are some of the origins for FGM for the religions in which it is practiced? CensoredScribe (talk) 20:30, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi CS, the origins are discussed in the history section, insofar as anything is known about them. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:47, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Note about revert

Hi IST7, I reverted your changes for various reasons: the law in Scotland is already mentioned, I don't know whether Momoh only has Nigerian citizenship (she may also be British and her name is linked anyway), and we don't need "according to the WHO" for no health benefits, just a good source. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:30, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

FR section

Doc James and Lesion said the FR section was too long, so I've removed the films and reduced the rest. It seems to be an okay length now, and some of the books and articles will move into the References section when I add them as sources. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:25, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Intro statement still inaccurate

Female genital mutilation, also known as female genital cutting and female circumcision

I'm not clear on why this remains up, as I brought up a couple months or so back, it really should be rephrased to be accurate. It would be fine to say "genital cutting is called genital mutilation" but not to say "genital mutilation is called genital cutting".

This is due to how things are groups. It's like saying "squares are called rectangles" being better than "rectangles are called squares".

I'm sorry to get caught up with technicalities and stuff, but does anyone understand what I mean by this? Yes, rectangles are called squares, usually when they ARE squares (or are at least thought to be). But there is not a widespread existence of non-square rectangles being called squares, is there?

Basically the point here is since there are forms of mutilation that don't involve cutting (the article mentions stretching, burning, introducing harmful substances to tighten) the introductory sentence gives the impression that these non-cutting forms of FGM would be called cutting or circumcision, by their phrasing.

This does not appear to be the case, and I have not read any articles cited as references here which support that interpretation. People call instances of FGC (perhaps all of them) instances of FGM, but they do not name all instances of FGM as FGC, because it would sound absurd. I don't think there are any references out there saying "They burned her with an iron in an instance of genital cutting".

If anyone agrees about there being a problem with the implications of how it is phrased, does anyone have any suggestions on how it can be rephrased more accurately?

If anyone can provide a reference supporting the idea that all instances of FGM are called FGC (rather than, more specifically, FGM that involves cutting) could you please add them? If we don't have any references to support the introductory statement, I am going to tag the "also known as" part, because we should not leave up unverified original research like this.

Right now this opening reads to me like "murder, also known as axe murder" and sounds absurd. Ranze (talk) 20:21, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I think you are kind of right and kind of not. Genital cutting is a way of referring to the practice that seeks to avoid either condoning or condemning it it seems more prevalent in anthropological literature. Genital mutilation might of course apply to forms of mutilation not using cutting instruments, and it could refer to other forms of gential mutilation than those practiced culturally in Africa, but in practice it refers to those. In the same way "genital cutting" in practice refers to the same traditions that "female genital mutilation" refers to, and not instances of cutting in female genitals in general (e.g. it does not refer to vaginoplasty). On the other hand I do think the more neutral phrase (FGC) should be first, and FGM should be the AKA.20:37, 16 September 2013 (UTC)User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·

This is a POV argument of exactly the same nature as discussing the correct name of a geographical region—one side favors a name they like, and the other side favors a different name. By contrast, for mathematics, a "square" is whatever the definition says. For article names, we have procedures that have been fully explored in many previous discussions on this topic, and which should be examined in the archives. The lead follows from the common name. Johnuniq (talk) 23:05, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

See the 'terminology' section of this article. What is considered FGM has been referred to in some literature using the term Female Cutting. However, this doesn't imply the term Female Cutting specifically refers to FGM; just that some people have described FGM using this term. For example, a Ferrari may be referred to as a fast car, but not all fast cars are Ferraris. Some people may describe a Ferrari as a fast car, but this doesn't mean that every time a fast car is mentioned in conversation it is a Ferrari. LT90001 (talk) 00:15, 21 September 2013 (UTC)