Talk:Female genital mutilation/Archive 11

FGM and religion
I have an issue with the line in the 'although its origins are pre-Islamic, it became associated with Islam because of that religion's focus on female modesty and chastity, and is found only within or near Muslim communities.[102]'

This is inaccurate and misleading. First of all, Islam is no more focused on female modesty and chastity than the other major Abrahamic religion - there are extremely conservative sects in Christianity/Catholicism and Judaism who insist on virginity before marriage, covering up, covering or shaving off hair etc. It is associated with Islam in the media and thus the public consciousness in the West due to confused and/or lazy reporting and resorting to easy stereotypes. There is indeed confusion amongst some Muslim communities about the religious requirements around FGM (as explained in the next paragraph), but I don't believe in my experience this has much to do with why the two are always linked in common discourse in the West. The next bit: 'is only found within or near Muslim communities' is vague and inaccurate, which is compounded by the fact the final paragraph in the section says "Outside Islam, FGM has been practised by the Christian Copts in Egypt and Sudan" - this seems to be deliberately misleading, as it is practised by far more Christian groups than this, for example the Kalenjin and Abagusii/Kisii peoples of Kenya, who (in the case of the Kisii) have a 96% prevalance rate and are 80% Christian. (Stats come from the DHS but are neatly summarised here: http://28toomany.org/media/uploads/final_kenya_country_profile_may_2013.pdf ) That's just what I remember off the top of my head.

I feel the qualifier 'or near Muslim communities' is misleading in the context in the article as in Africa you are often near Muslim communities. Overall I found the article very good but I feel this section is very misleading, and if you didn't know better and were just a casual/layman reading you would go away with an understanding of FGM being far more inextricably linked with Islam than it actually is. I work on FGM prevention in the UK and this is one of the most persistent and damaging myths, both in causing people from the Muslim community to grow defensive and withdraw and causing girls who are at risk of or who have undergone FGM who are not Muslim to be overlooked.

I propose it be reworded or removed. This is not a Muslim issue.

NessyStarShip (talk) 16:12, 29 July 2014 (UTC) Ness


 * Hi Ness, thanks for your comment. I will change "near" Muslim groups to "adjacent to," which is what the source says and is more precise. I'll look for an academic source for Christians in Kenya. The aim is to keep this section to an absolute minimum, and to develop the religious material in Religious views on female genital mutilation. Otherwise this article will be overwhelmed by it. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:09, 29 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Good points, User:NessyStarShip. Another problematic, blanket claim is the assertion from the WHO (an anti-FGM organization) that "FGM has no known health benefits". This too is easily disprovable (e.g. ). Middayexpress (talk) 14:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Medical claims have to be sourced to MEDRS-compliant sources. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:02, 30 July 2014 (UTC)


 * If it's the gynecological surgeon Harry Gordon's assertion regarding variability in FGM surgeries that you are referring to, it is already sourced to Austveg et al. (1998), among others . Middayexpress (talk) 16:47, 31 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Neither of those links leads to a MEDRS-compliant source. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:14, 31 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Certainly neither of those sources could be used, per WP:MEDRS, to make plain statements of fact about the biomedical effects of FGM in Wikipedia's narrative voice, like can be done with the WHO, which is considered reliable and authoritative. Is there a specific content change proposal here, and if so what is it exactly?    20:58, 31 July 2014 (UTC)


 * WP:MEDRS indicates that "ideal sources for such content includes literature reviews or systematic reviews published in reputable medical journals, academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant field and from a respected publisher, and medical guidelines or position statements from nationally or internationally recognised expert bodies." That indeed would include, among others, Austveg et al. (1998), which was published by the Norwegian medical journal Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen and listed in PubMed. However, it may not necessarily include the political scientist Mackie's paper. Middayexpress (talk) 21:19, 31 July 2014 (UTC)


 * But neither of the links you posted led to a review or systematic review, or medical guideline or position statement. So according to the MEDRS guidance you've just quoted, those sources are not MEDRS-compliant. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:37, 31 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Sure it is a literature review . Middayexpress (talk) 21:51, 31 July 2014 (UTC)


 * That source is in Norwegian, so I assume you haven't read it. If you read current medical sources on the point you tried to make, you'll see that they present it differently, and it's anyway not an issue that this article can get into. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:32, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Question
Should the main origin theories surrounding FGM be summarized in this general article, or should the existing origins section be kept as is? Middayexpress (talk) 16:47, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * What is the point of this? The question is phrased so the only possible answer is an enthusiastic "yes", but the actual issue is whether there is anything DUE and suitably sourced that should be added to this article. It is likely that FGM originated more than 4000 years ago, and certainly more than 2000 years ago, so comments regarding origins are inherently speculative, and it is likely that expanding this long and complex article with opinions would be unhelpful. In the above, some wildly diverse opinions are listed: population control, "complex of symbols", odorless and safe from prey, virginity and chastity, prevent evil spirits, protect shepherd girls—that alone shows that an expanded origins section would be UNDUE in this article. Johnuniq (talk) 03:57, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The purpose of the question was to gauge the wider wiki community's sentiment as to whether or not the origins section on this FGM general page should summarize the main origin theories (not exhaustively list all of them) or remain as is. It seemed as though Gerry Mackie's 1996 paternity confidence/imperial slavery hypothesis was being given more weight, although it doesn't appear to be any more popular than the other main theories that you mention. Some of the theories, particularly the ancient superstition and shepherd girl-protection hypotheses, actually predate the 20th century. At any rate, I have withdrawn the question, as I am satisfied with SlimVirgin's reasonable suggestion that the bulleted infibulation origin theories are appropriate for the infibulation page. Middayexpress (talk) 17:00, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Patriarchy sentence
Hi John, I tweaked the sentence back again, as the edit changed the meaning. It's a reductio ad absurdum, and it's ask of the patients, not ask the patients themselves:

"Essén and Johnsdotter argue that it seems the law distinguishes between Western and African genitals, and deems only African women unfit to make their own decisions. Where even FGM with consent is banned, physicians may have to ask of prospective patients whether they appear to be victims of African patriarchy."

SlimVirgin (talk) 04:52, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I also meant to say thanks for fixing the mistakes and typos! SlimVirgin (talk) 05:18, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I guess it boils down to whether "may have to ask of prospective patients" means that the patient is asked. The source (Johnsdotter and Essén 2010, p. 33) says (for context, the source is considering the dilemmas associated with genital cosmetic surgery in a country where FGM is banned):
 * "In countries where FGM is prohibited irrespective of age, some very peculiar legal considerations may arise among physicians as regards race, ethnic background, culture and age. Is a particular patient to be regarded as a victim of African patriarchy (thus, FGM) or as an adult woman, entitled to free choices concerning her own body? Should such ideological considerations pertain to the realm of medical practitioners? We think not."


 * The wording I had for the last sentence sums that up IMHO:
 * "Where even FGM with consent is banned, a physician may need to consider whether a prospective patient appears to be the victim of African patriarchy."


 * I'm not sure that your wording or mine properly nails it. Let's leave it for now, and perhaps think about it another time. Johnuniq (talk) 06:39, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Tone
A recent edit by Ewawer changed the last paragraph in the lead. It used to start:
 * FGM has been outlawed or restricted in most of the countries in which it occurs

The edit changed that to:
 * FGM is regarded as sexual abuse and as violence against women and has been outlawed or restricted in most of the countries in which it occurs

This article is likely to get more attention as it moves towards peer review, so it may be worth discussing the above. I think the change is unhelpful—laying it on with a trowel is not needed with this topic. Obviously FGM practitioners do not regard the practice as abuse or violence, so the meaning of the above is that enlightened people have those views (or a particular source has given the opinion, which would require attribution). This article is not the place for such advocacy. It is far better to stick to the facts—describe procedures and statistics and responses. We have to trust that readers can figure it out for themselves. Another point is that information in the WP:LEAD is a summary of what is in the article, and new assertions should not be added to the lead. Johnuniq (talk) 01:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The reason for the insertion of the words "is regarded as sexual abuse and as violence against women and" is because when I came into the article, and this paragraph in particular, my first thought was that "on what basis was the practice outlawed or restricted". There should be some basis indicated. That is the justification for the practice being outlawed etc.Enthusiast (talk) 06:27, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Fine, but if that's the case a source is needed, and a brief explanation along the lines of your reply. Johnuniq (talk) 07:09, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The allusion to "sexual abuse" in particular is indeed not neutral or encyclopedic. That term has a serious stigma attached to it associated with pedophilia, which is an entirely separate topic. UNICEF also does not characterize the procedure as such. Middayexpress (talk) 16:36, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Misleading statement in the lead
The lead claims, "FGM is practised by ethnic groups in 27 countries in sub-Saharan and north-east Africa, and to a lesser extent in Asia, the Middle East and within immigrant communities elsewhere.[8]"

This is misleading. In the UNICEF reference [8], the 27 countries include Iraq and Yemen. These are not sub-Saharan and north-east African countries. They are in the Middle East. Please revise the lead appropriately, such as:

"FGM is practised by ethnic groups in 27 countries in sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East, and to a lesser extent in Asia and within immigrant communities elsewhere.[8]"

"FGM is practised by ethnic groups in 25 countries in sub-Saharan and north-east Africa, Yemen, Iraq, and to a lesser extent in Asia, the Middle East and within immigrant communities elsewhere.[8]"

"FGM is practised by ethnic groups in 24 countries in sub-Saharan Africa, Egypt, Yemen, Iraq, and to a lesser extent in Asia, the Middle East and within immigrant communities elsewhere.[8]"

Xalwo (talk) 15:29, 2 August 2014 (UTC)


 * , how are those statements misleading? On a different note: The first sentence of the lead used to state that female genital mutilation "is defined by the World Health Organization (WHO) as 'all procedures that involve partial or total removal of the external female genitalia or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons.'" It now states that female genital mutilation "is the ritual removal of the external female genitalia." I don't agree with this new definition using "ritual"; yes, the vast majority of female genital mutilation practices are for religious or other cultural reasons, as opposed to a medical reason, but not all of the practices are a ritual matter. For example, there are WP:Reliable sources stating that female genital mutilation is occasionally performed in the United States; then again, some of those sources state that it's due to immigration that it's performed in the United States. And, of course, it's an illegal practice in the United States. One more thing: Regarding the effects of female genital mutilation, I think that the lead should mention that there are no known health benefits to it. Flyer22 (talk) 05:01, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Flyer, it's a ritual by definition. If it's done for medical reasons, or if it's elective surgery such as labiaplasty, it's not regarded as FGM. I'm preparing the article for peer review so I want to keep the lead tight, but I'll add no known health benefits. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:14, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * @Xalwo: That's not quite correct. Ref [8] (UNICEF 2013) names 29 countries where FGM is "concentrated" (I can't see a definition of that term), including Iraq and Yemen, and 27 countries in Africa. The report mentions other countries that justify the rest of the sentence that is in the lead. If it were felt there was a problem, it would probably be better to just give a sweeping overview in the lead, using phrases like "more than 25 countries" and "mainly in Africa". Johnuniq (talk) 05:20, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


 * SlimVirgin, I know that changes made to the female genitalia for intersex or transgender reasons are not normally defined as female genital mutilation, and that labiaplasty usually is not regarded as female genital mutilation. But "ritual" is not usually a part of the initial definition of female genital mutilation, as also shown by the WHO sources. I was going to sate that it sounds unnecessarily restrictive, and a tad bit misleading, to me to include "ritual" the way that you have, but I see that the Ritual Wikipedia article gives a broad presentation of what ritual can mean, as opposed to a restrictive way that a person may view the term. So perhaps link to that article? Also, the new first sentence is a bit too simplistic to me; I prefer the clarity that the WHO provides on the excision matter. And, given that the WHO is an authoritative medical source, I don't see why WP:Intext attribution was needed for that first line. Thanks for the "no known health benefits" aspect regarding the lead; I know that you'll add it soon. Flyer22 (talk) 05:35, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


 * One more thing regarding your "[i]f it's done for medical reasons" point: While health authorities are certain or otherwise relatively certain that there are no medical reasons for female genital mutilation, some cultures believe that there are; that it's a health benefit. So to them, the practice is a health matter in addition to a rite of passage or whatever else. That's what I meant by "the vast majority of female genital mutilation practices are for religious or other cultural reasons, as opposed to a medical reason." I was not limiting the term medical to health authorities' take on the matter. Flyer22 (talk) 06:07, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I had accepted "ritual" as being the obviously correct word—the practice is traditional and is performed in accordance with local customs in a pattern that repeats over generations. However, the definition will get a lot of attention during review, so perhaps something closer to a source would be better. A February 2014 WHO fact sheet says:
 * Female genital mutilation (FGM) comprises all procedures that involve partial or total removal of the external female genitalia, or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons.
 * Hmmm, I see that those words are used in the infobox (although the text quoted in the infobox is missing the comma), with the same reference. Another issue with the current definition is that "ritual removal of the external female genitalia" can be read as saying that partial removal is not FGM. I can't think of a better idea at the moment. Johnuniq (talk) 11:44, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello Johnuniq/Flyer22/etc - It is misleading because it emphasizes only Africa, hides the significant FGM prevalence in Yemen and Iraq. As Johnuniq notes above, the latest UNICEF report includes Iraq and Yemen among those countries where FGM is "concentrated". How about - "FGM is practised by ethnic groups in 29 countries in sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East, and to a lesser extent in other parts of Asia and within immigrant communities elsewhere.[8]" Xalwo (talk) 10:07, 5 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm all for the lead being more accurate. To your point, Xalwo, there are a variety of WP:Reliable sources indicating or stating that the vast majority of female genital mutilation is performed in Africa, but it is good to weigh what more up-to-date sources are stating. Something to keep in mind is Identifying reliable sources (medicine). Regarding Johnuniq's point, I agree that the lead should be clear that partial or total removal of the female genitalia is female genital mutilation, which is part of the reason why I stated above, "Also, the new first sentence is a bit too simplistic to me; I prefer the clarity that the WHO provides on the excision matter." The other reason is that "other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons" is also female genital mutilation. When sources state "clitoris," they usually mean the clitoral glans anyway; this is why "removal of the clitoris" wording is inaccurate (unless scraping the female genitals bare is involved), since clitoral nerves reach deep into the genitals, but there is nothing we can do about sources stating "clitoris" when they really mean "clitoral glans." Flyer22 (talk) 14:32, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

The lead moves from the general to the specific, so the details can be found lower in the lead and in the infobox. It would be misleading to say "FGM is practised by ethnic groups in 29 countries in sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East," as though the distribution were even. It's concentrated in just two areas in the Middle East: Yemen (23 percent), and Iraqi Kurdistan (8 percent for Iraq as a whole). They are classified by UNICEF as low and very low prevalence.

That's why the sentence is written as it is: "FGM is practised by ethnic groups in 27 countries in sub-Saharan and north-east Africa, and to a lesser extent in Asia, the Middle East and within immigrant communities elsewhere." SlimVirgin (talk) 01:48, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


 * That is indeed my concern. The distribution is not even among "Asia, Middle East and immigrant communities elsewhere," nor is the prevalence in a few of those "27 countries" in Africa as high as Yemen's 23% and Iraq's 8%. We need better wording because the current version is misleading. The current version in the lead hides the Middle East, while emphasizing sub-Saharan Africa in a way that the UNICEF source doesn't. I will be happy with any creative proposal different than my own.


 * What is misleading about, "FGM is practised by ethnic groups in 29 countries in sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East, and to a lesser extent in other parts of Asia and within immigrant communities elsewhere." Note that Egypt is widely considered as part of the Middle East. Also note that there are more than 26 countries in sub-Saharan Africa, just like the Middle East is more than Egypt, Yemen and Iraq.


 * Or is this better, "FGM is practised by ethnic groups in 26 countries in sub-Saharan Africa, 3 in the Middle East, and to a lesser extent in other parts of Asia and within immigrant communities elsewhere.[8]" Or just, "FGM is practised in 29 countries of Africa and Asia, as well as some immigrant communities elsewhere.[8]" Xalwo (talk) 17:41, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

May I add an appropriate tag before the lead? Xalwo (talk) 00:09, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by a tag? Your opening comment stated "the 27 countries include Iraq and Yemen" which, as I mentioned, is not correct—there really are 27 countries in sub-Saharan and north-east Africa listed in the source. In addition, to a lesser extent, Asia, the Middle East and immigrant communities are affected, according to the source. It is not easy to sum up the situation, but it looks to me as if the current wording in the lead is fine. What exactly is the problem? From your most recent comments, the concern appears to be that the Middle East should be boosted in prominence, but there appears little reason for that concern—the lead mentions that in a manner that is consistent with the source. There is no reason to remove "north-east Africa" in order to move Egypt from Africa to the Middle East in order to boost the latter's significance. Looking at the prevalence map in the source shows that "sub-Saharan and north-east Africa" is correct. Johnuniq (talk) 01:49, 13 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello Johnuniq - Let us focus on how to improve this article, not repeatedly criticizing my opening comment (I concede I miscounted). Let us focus on the last suggestion I made, which was: "FGM is practised by ethnic groups in 26 countries in sub-Saharan Africa, 3 in the Middle East, and to a lesser extent in other parts of Asia and within immigrant communities elsewhere.[8]" I would appreciate your comparison of this suggested wording versus what is currently in the lead.


 * You ask, "what exactly is the problem?" Problem 1 - The current disputed lead paragraph over-emphasizes parts of Africa compared to Yemen, and hides the prevalence of FGM in parts of the Middle East. The UNICEF 2013 source at pages 2 and 26 includes Yemen and Iraq, and does state that Yemen has higher FGM/C prevalence rate than Uganda, Tanzania, Ghana, Cameroon, Benin, Togo and Niger. Problem 2 - The current wording in the lead adds "sub-Saharan and north-east" clarification for Africa. If it is important for the reader who reads the lead to know that northern African countries such as Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia and Libya are not part of the list, why should the lead not make a similar effort to clarify that southern African countries are not part of the list (which, by the way, are part of sub-Saharan Africa)? Xalwo (talk) 03:03, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that "sub-Saharan" is unfortunate in that a dozen unaffected countries are included, but your proposed wording also includes that term as it is hard to think of a reasonable alternative. The prevalence section has this map which makes it clear that the Middle East can reasonably be characterized with "lesser extent". My guess is that "lesser extent" is accurate in terms of the total number of affected people, as well as the percentages and number of countries (although there is the complication that Egypt is part of the Middle East, while Egypt's location in Africa is the focus of the brief lead). The prevalence section also has a table listing each country—that's about the only way to convey the situation without ambiguity. Johnuniq (talk) 04:05, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello Johnuniq - How about: "FGM is concentrated among ethnic groups in 27 countries in Africa, 2 in Asia, and to a lesser extent in other parts of the world.[8]" This wording reduces the bias in favour of northern African states, bias against southern African states, includes 2 West Asian countries, and is much closer to the information in the UNICEF 2013 source (concentrated versus practised). Xalwo (talk) 14:16, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is any problem-free wording because precision requires too many words, and brevity will be misleading with regard to something. I'm going to put this on my think-about-later list and hope others comment. Johnuniq (talk) 04:00, 14 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I've changed this to "FGM is practised by ethnic groups in 27 countries in sub-Saharan and north-east Africa, in Yemen and Iraqi Kurdistan, and to a lesser extent elsewhere in Asia and within immigrant communities around the world." SlimVirgin (talk) 17:23, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Inclusion of Edna Adan Ismail

 * But you did remove mention of Ismail without discussion. Given the two reverts, wouldn't a discussion before any additional modification be courteous? Jim1138 (talk) 01:26, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I didn't remove her in that edit. She's mentioned further down in the link in the Somalia paragraph along with Hodan Ahmed, the main anti-FGM campaigner for Somalia as a whole. Middayexpress (talk) 02:05, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The contextualizing misses the point that you're linking two issues that ought not to be linked. Ismail ought to be included in the list of 70s activists regardless of anyone else who is included later. No linkage. As for using a Norwegian medical article from the 1990s (that you have not read) that's referenced in a non-medical book, and using it to make a contentious point, all I can do is repeat that it's not MEDRS-compliant and would fail at FAC.


 * An academic who specializes in FGM has agreed to review, and has suggested a second who might do the same. My plan (or hope) is to spend my wiki-time reading the sources this person sends, and changing the text in the ways they suggest, until I have a first draft ready to present. At that point I would welcome peer review. I'm going to request a formal peer review, so it will be tagged on this page, and anyone interested can join in. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:26, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Ismail was active in the 1970s, but she wasn't alone and her work even then was mainly focused in her Somaliland region. Today, it's Hodan Ahmed who is the primary anti-FGM campaigner for Somalia as a whole. It's her that actually lobbied for and secured the national anti-FGM law, and who represents Somalia on this issue on the world stage ("In 2012 Somalia adopted a new Constitution officially banning FGM thanks to political activist Hodan Ahmed, who, with other Somali women, lobbied long and hard for the law" ). Regarding the Norwegian study, it's more recent than Mackie's 1996 paper. The FGM specialists Bettina Shell-Duncan and Ylva Hernlund also reference it in their book, which is the work that was actually cited on the wikipage. That book is WP:MEDRS-compliant since it is "an academic and professional boo[k] written by experts in the relevant field and from a respected publisher". That said, I will let you prep the page for peer review, as promised. If you can try and get the academic FGM specialists to perhaps share what they know about the practice's origins in particular, that would be great. Middayexpress (talk) 02:05, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Re That book is WP:MEDRS-compliant -- No, the authors of that book chapter are anthropologist Bettina Shell-Duncan and Demography/Ecology research associate Ylva Hernlund, neither one of whom has any kind of training in medicine, as far as I can tell. The book is from 2000 anyway and so would be a problem per WP:MEDDATE.  The publisher Lynne Rienner Publishers is not a medical publisher but rather is in social studies, is not associated with any established university or other well-recognized organization, and also prides itself (per their website) as "taking chances on new ideas" which doesn't sound like it can be relied on for the established consensus.  So in no way does that book chapter sail through WP:MEDRS.  Since we now have up-to-date sources from explicitly medical authorities such as WHO 2008 and Cochrane 2013 there shouldn't be any argument at this point for trying to use Shell-Duncan 2000.   02:34, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Both women are FGM specialists in the same way that the political scientist Gerry Mackie apparently is; perhaps even more so . At any rate, the medical assertions in Shell-Duncan and Ylva Hernlund's work aren't coming directly from them. They're from an actual physician with a reconstructive surgery practice, Dr. Harry Gordon, the Founder of the Well Women's Clinic at Central Middlesex Hospital . Besides the Norwegian medical journal, Gordon's assertions are also sourced to the medical anthropologist and FGM specialist Ellen Gruenbaum's 1996 work on the subject . Middayexpress (talk) 17:00, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Re Hodan Ahmed, the source you're citing there is a blog post by a "Media and Advocacy Officer" of Oxfam, an advocacy group. This isn't strong enough to support the inclusion of Ahmed here, and certainly does not show Ahmed is in the same category as Ismail.  This is not to diminish Ahmed's work but the sourcing just doesn't support putting them on equal footing (weight) in this article.  There is certainly no reason to make edits along a line indicating that if Ismail is include Ahmed must be, and vice-versa.    02:49, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oxfam is an advocacy group, but then again so is the WHO (anti-FGM); both are also international organizations. Ismail's work is mainly restricted to her Somaliland region, where her hospital is actually located. It's Hodan Ahmed that is the actual primary anti-FGM campaigner for Somalia as a whole, including the Somaliland region. She's the campaigner who lobbied for and secured the national anti-FGM law and represents Somalia on this issue on the global stage, such as at this summer's London summit and the Madeleine K. Albright Luncheon (e.g. "Hodan Ahmed of Somalia, talked about her experiences working with Somali women parliamentarians to address issues such as HIV/AIDS and a successful campaign with parliament and civil society representatives to enact a law barring female genital mutilation (FGM)" ). Middayexpress (talk) 17:00, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Although each sentence in your reply is more or less true, it does not actually refute the core points I brought up so my original point still stands. The WHO is a medical organization, Oxfam is not.  The WHO is mentioned by name in WP:MEDRS as a preferred authority for reliable sourcing for medical content; Oxfam is not.  You've provided a YouTube video of Ahmed speaking; among other problems, such a thing is a primary source and so cannot be used to establish WP:WEIGHT.  Again the quality and the authority of the sourcing brought so far for Ahmed isn't in the same ballpark as what we have for Ismail.    20:34, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


 * It's the International Knowledge Network of Women in Politics (not YouTube) that states that "Hodan Ahmed of Somalia, talked about her experiences working with Somali women parliamentarians to address issues such as HIV/AIDS and a successful campaign with parliament and civil society representatives to enact a law barring female genital mutilation (FGM)". The video it links to is by the National Democratic Institute, and it is of Ahmed's remarks at the 2013 Madeleine K. Albright Luncheon . Middayexpress (talk) 17:00, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Break
We ought at some point to include Ismail in the 1970s section, and it can't be tied to anything else. She was one of the early campaigners, when it was arguably dangerous to speak out. She spoke about FGM to the African Regional Preparatory Conference in Zambia on 6 December 1979, and to the UN Mid-Decade Conference for Women in Copenhagen, July 1980. She is referenced in the Hosken Report.

We can't have a situation where, if a woman is mentioned as a campaigner from the 1970s, we must also add a paragraph about a 2014 campaigner from those same countries. So because we mention Benoîte Groult, we must add a paragraph about the current prominent campaigner in France. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:51, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes these seem like obvious points to me.   22:11, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

There are a lot of people and things in the Hosken Report that aren't mentioned, such as the practice of infibulation by ancient Arabs. Ismail is also not comparable to Benoîte Groult, Nawal El Saadawi and Fran Hosken. As you wrote SlimVirgin, these women are there because they worked against FGM before anyone else did, in the 1970s. However, Ismail was not the first to do so in Somalia, nor did she lead efforts during and after 1977. The Supreme Revolutionary Council, which seized power in 1969, encouraged an end to the practice, as it endeavoured to establish an Islamic Marxist state. It passed a law banning female circiumcision in 1972. To implement the law, the Somali Women's Democratic Organization (SWDO), the Somalian parliament's first women's caucus, was established in 1977 by 23 female MPs. The SWDO included Raqiya Haji Dualeh Abdalla (who is also mentioned in the Hosken Report), who later served as its Acting Chairperson. Abdalla led the Somalia delegation at the 1979 WHO Seminar and both wrote and presented there its attendant report; she also authored the nation's first anti-FGM book a few years later in 1982. The parliamentary consultant Hodan Ahmed is carrying on in the SWDO's tradition through the Somali Women Parliamentary Association, which she established in 2009. Middayexpress (talk) 17:00, 2 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Ismail is mentioned by RS – including by Raqiya Haji Dualeh Abdalla, mentioned in your post above as the acting chair of the Somali Women's Democratic Organization – as one of the first women to speak out publicly against FGM (bold added):


 * Raqiya Haji Dualeh Abdalla, president of the Somali Family Care Network and author of Sisters in Affliction: Circumcision and Infibulation of Women in Africa Women in the Third World, 1982, in "'My Grandmother Called it the Three Feminine Sorrows: The Struggle of Women Against Female Circumcision in Somalia," Rogaia Mustafa Abusharaf (ed.), Female Circumcision: Multicultural Perspectives, University of Pennsylvania Press, 2007, pp. 201–202:




 * Fran Hosken, The Hosken Report: Genital and Sexual Mutilation of Females, Women's International Network, 1994 [1979], p. 50:




 * Gloria Steinem, Outrageous Acts and Everyday Rebellions, Henry Holt & Co, 2012 [1984], p. 324:




 * Alexandra Topping, "Somaliland's leading lady for women's rights: 'It is time for men to step up'", The Guardian, 23 June 2011:




 * Ismail has authored several reports about FGM, which RS have used as sources. Here is a recent one. She is also cited by RS (for example, Rosemarie Skaine, Women political leaders in Africa, 2008, p. 54) as a founding member in 1984 and vice-president of the Inter-African Committee on Traditional Practices Affecting the Health of Women and Children, one of the key bodies that works to end FGM. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:37, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware that Ismail is one of various women in Somalia who has done anti-FGM work. The question is, did she "wor[k] against FGM before anyone else did, in the 1970s"? This is the actual reason that was provided for mentioning her there over Somalia's other anti-FGM campaigners, notably today's primary leader in that regard Hodan Ahmed. The answer is clearly no. Ismail was not the first to do so in Somalia, much less the world. She was still a trainer affiliated with the Ministry of Health when Raqiya Haji Dualeh Abdalla (who would later go on to serve as Assistant Minister of Health ) helped establish the Somali Women's Democratic Organization (SWDO) in 1977. It was only after the SWDO was formed that Ismail spoke out, and she did so not out of her own initiative but rather with explicit governmental permission ("In 1977, when Somali Women's Democratic Organization was formed, Edna Adal Ismail, an experienced health worker, spoke out with governmental permission about infibulation" ).

Abdalla's SWDO was the actual enforcing arm of the Somalian government's 1972 anti-FGM law. As the U.S. Department of State notes, the SWDO-led governmental campaign (including in Ismail's Somaliland region) had by 1989 significantly reduced the incidence of infibulation/pharaonic circumcision nationwide :

Besides the SWDO, an actual governmental commission was formed the same year (1977) to abolish the practice, with the SWDO providing facilitation :

This notion that Ismail was somehow a lone, independent, leading voice against FGM/C in Somalia at the time is thus completely inaccurate. It likewise credits her with work largely done by Abdalla and her SWDO and other government colleagues.

Also, although Egypt is presented as a pioneer against female circumcision, the first legislation banning FGM/C was actually passed in Sudan in 1946. That's over a decade before the Egyptian government passed its anti-FGM/C law in 1959. Middayexpress (talk) 17:18, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


 * We can't discriminate against Ismail because she's from Somalia. We don't include a current French, American or Egyptian activist just because we've mentioned 1970s activists from those countries. Ismail is notable by her absence from that paragraph.


 * As for Raqiya Haji Dualeh Abdalla, she is one of the sources for Ismail, and Abdalla herself is now mentioned two paragraphs later for her 1982 book. I'm going to go ahead and add Ismail's image and a few words about her. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:50, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


 * All Abdalla indicates with regard to Ismail is that she spoke at the SWDO's inaugural workshop. As demonstrated, when Ismail did this, it was with prior governmental permission. It was not out of her own initiative like Saadawi (who was fired for speaking out) and the other women. I also didn't suggest discriminating against Ismail because she is from Somalia. I indicated that Ismail should not be prioritized over the nation's other anti-FGM/C campaigners because she was neither the primary such activist for Somalia in the 1970s (that would be Raqiya Haji Dualeh Abdalla of the Somali Women's Democratic Organization) much less today (that would be Hodan Ahmed of the National Democratic Institute). As such, Ismail did not represent the Somali delegation at the 1979 WHO seminar, nor was she the first person from Somalia to write a book on FGM/C. That again would be Abdalla:
 * "At the Khartoum Seminar, the Somali Delegation announced that a Commission to abolish the operations had already been formed with the support of the President of the country. The Ministers of Education and Health are members of the commission, and the Somali Women's Democratic Organization are the activists who will implement the program. At the Seminar, the Somali Country Report was delivered by Raqiya Haji Dualeh on behalf of the SWDO"
 * "Raqiya Haji Dualeh Abdallah, the author of this book, is a Somalian woman who works for the Ministry of Culture[...] This book is the first one by a Somalian woman on infibulation, which has been practiced in Somalia long before Islamization".
 * If anyone should be shown on behalf of Somalia, it's therefore either Abdalla or Ahmed, the nation's actual representatives on this issue. The Ethiopian FGM/C activist Belkis Wolde Giorgis wrote her first book on the practice within months of Abdalla, so she is her actual counterpart in the Horn region. Middayexpress (talk) 15:11, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


 * No one is in the article as a representative of Somalia, Egypt, France, America or any other country. They're there because their work was notable, as pioneers, in the 1970s/1980s. Abdalla is there, and Ismail need to be there too. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:11, 5 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, that's not what you originally stated. You specifically mentioned pioneers in the 1970s, not the 1980s ("they are there because they worked against FGM before anyone else did, in the 1970s"). That was your original reason for leaving out Hodan Ahmed, Somalia's current primary anti-FGM campaigner ("it doesn't matter whether she's the primary campaigner[...] that paragraph is about the tiny number of women who spoke out in the 1970s"). Since Ismail's work against FGM was overwhelmingly focused in Somalia during the period at hand (as it still is; that's where her hospital is located), the extent of that work relative to that of the nation's other pioneering campaigners does matter. That said, I don't mind if Ismail is noted in the text as long as she is not a) mentioned before Abdalla (since that would suggest that she was working against FGM before Abdalla and her SWDO colleagues, when she was not); b) pictured in place of Abdalla or Ahmed (since that would suggest that she was Somalia's primary anti-FGM campaigner during the period, when she was not, much less now); or c) mentioned separately from Abdalla (since that would suggest that she was operating independently, when in reality she was an affiliate of Abdalla's SWDO and operated/spoke out with governmental permission).


 * I also think the pioneering Ethiopian FGM/C activist Belkis Wolde Giorgis' first book from 1981 should be noted alongside that of Asma El Dareer . Additionally, it should be pointed out in the prevalence area that the Somalian government first banned FGM in 1972, and that its 2012 prohibition was a provision in the newly adopted constitution that was secured by Hodan Ahmed. Sudan's 1946 anti-FGM law should also be noted someplace, as it preceded even that of Egypt . Middayexpress (talk) 15:01, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Ismail again
Middayexpress, re: [this edit, the sources don't support what you are saying. Please read Abdalla herself; she credits Ismail with persuading SDWO to take up the issue of FGM. You are promoting Abdalla over Ismail, but Abdalla is not supporting you (bold added):



See Raqiya Haji Dualeh Abdalla in Rogaia Mustafa Abusharaf (ed.), Female Circumcision: Multicultural Perspectives, University of Pennsylvania Press, 2007, pp. 201–202. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:19, 16 August 2014 (UTC)


 * And a revert. . And why would you add a photograph of Jill Tweedie? She did not make a big contribution to FGM opposition. Ismail did. Is the Tweedie image there so that we don't add one of Ismail? SlimVirgin (talk) 20:23, 16 August 2014 (UTC)


 * And removing my posts, I hope inadvertently. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:33, 16 August 2014 (UTC)


 * [moved here by Middayexpress from User talk:Middayexpress] I'm in the process of writing up the long-standing issue you have with Ismail for an RfC or AN/I (including challenging her photographs and the problems you had with her representative).


 * But I don't want to have to spend time doing this. Can you please just allow that sentence to stand? Whatever your issues are can't be allowed to have this editorial effect, and the sources don't support you. I wasn't intending to add her image btw (but the Tweedie image has to go; she is barely notable enough for a mention in relation to FGM, never mind a photograph). SlimVirgin (talk) 20:51, 16 August 2014 (UTC)


 * As I clearly indicated in my edit summary, I moved the discussion to the template's relevant talk page ("mvd to relevant timeline"), and responded there accordingly. At any rate, you never even mentioned anything about creating that template. Raqiya Haji Dualeh Abdalla and the SWDO are also the actual first anti-FGM campaigners in Somalia. They established the SWDO in 1977 (a governmental organization) to implement the government's 1972 law against FGM. As the U.S. Department of State notes :




 * Ismail only spoke out on FGM after Abdalla and her colleagues had already founded the SWDO, and she did so with governmental permission not on her own ("In 1977, when Somali Women's Democratic Organization was formed, Edna Adal Ismail, an experienced health worker, spoke out with governmental permission about infibulation" ). Ismail's proposals mentioned above likewise came after Abdalla (not Ismail) was elected as Somalia's representative on the 1979 WHO conference's five-member sub-commitee on FGM. Please see the linked page with references from the SWDO itself and the United States government, among others. That said, can you think of an acceptable compromise? I would be willing to let the sentence stand because Ismail was a pioneer. However, please understand that Abdalla was as well, and even more so since she was the government's and SWDO's actual representative on the issue. I don't have a problem with the Tweedie image going. Middayexpress (talk) 20:52, 16 August 2014 (UTC)


 * But none of the sources you produce are about who spoke first in Somalia about FGM (in 1977) and who persuaded SDWO to take it up. That is the issue for us, not who founded SDWO. It is Abdalla herself who says it was Ismail. Why won't you accept what she says? SlimVirgin (talk) 20:59, 16 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Give me a few minutes while I complete that quote above from the Minority Rights Group. It explains the 1977 chronology further. Middayexpress (talk) 21:04, 16 August 2014 (UTC)


 * How about this?


 * "March 1977: With the support of the government of Mohamed Siad Barre in Somalia, Edna Adan Ismail of the country's Ministry of Health spoke about FGM to the Congress of the Somali Democratic Women's Organization."


 * That makes clear that Ismail wasn't a lone voice. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:55, 16 August 2014 (UTC)


 * That's better, thanks. However, I think Abdalla and the ruling government body, the Supreme Revolutionary Council, should be mentioned by name. The link also specifically indicates that Ismail was given government permission rather than just support. So perhaps something like the following?: 1977 Raqiya Haji Dualeh Abdalla was among the founding members of the Somali Democratic Women's Organization, which was established to implement the Supreme Revolutionary Council's progressive gender program. Edna Adan Ismail, director of training at the Ministry of Health, with government permission spoke about FGM at the SWDO's inaugural meeting in March. Middayexpress (talk) 22:29, 16 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Again, that mixes up issues. This article isn't concerned with who founded SDWO. SDWO was not founded to campaign against FGM. It was Ismail who persuaded them to adopt FGM as an issue, during the March 1977 meeting (according to Abdalla, who is in a position to know). So that's what we focus on: that Ismail spoke about FGM to that meeting. She was the first to do so, according to Abdalla. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:26, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

So you see, while Ismail did speak at the SWDO's inaugural meeting, it was only after having first received government permission. As the U.S. Department of State notes above, anti-FGM was already a key policy of the Somali government since it had already outlawed the practice a few years earlier. The SWDO, of which Abdalla was a founding member, was later established in 1977 to implement that law and the government's gender program:
 * Ok, from the Minority Rights Group : "In 1977, when Somali Women's Democratic Organization was formed, Edna Adal Ismail, an experienced health worker, spoke out with governmental permission about infibulation. She was afraid that the great hall full of women 'might throw their shoes at me'. Instead they stood up and applauded. So many individuals then wanted to speak that the assembly broke into smaller meetings: at the end each group in turn called for abolition. Now the Somali Women's Democratic Organization are the implementing agents for the Commission concerned with the Abolishment of the Operations, appointed by the Government."
 * From the Somali Women Organization : "In Somalia circumcision was banned by law in 1972."
 * From the International Journal of Women's Studies : "At the Khartoum Seminar, the Somali Delegation announced that a Commission to abolish the operations had already been formed with the support of the President of the country. The Ministers of Education and Health are members of the commission, and the Somali Women's Democratic Organization are the activists who will implement the program. At the Seminar, the Somali Country Report was delivered by Raqiya Haji Dualeh on behalf of the SWDO".
 * From Women's International Network (1979) : "The Somali Women's Democratic Organization is a governmental and political national organization that reaches into every village through a representative system. The SWDO was reorganized in its present form two years ago under President Faduma Omar Hashi. The SWDO is committed to abolish infibulation (see statement made at Khartoum Seminar by their representative Raqiya Haji Dualeh)."
 * From Jan M. Haakonsen's 1984 work on the revolutionary government: : "Although Somali women have been spared the veil, so common in other Moslem countries, they have had to abide to the Islamic laws of marriage and inheritance. From this point of view, the Somali government took a major step towards improving the conditions of women on January 11th, 1975, when it announced that "as of this date the Somali men and women are equal. They have the same equality, the same rights and the same share of whatever is inherited from their parents" (Barre 1977:3). Following this law, the Somali Women's Democratic Organization was created, and when the SRSP came into being, many women became members; according to Slottved, as much as 60% of the SRSP membership is composed of women, though only one of them sits in the Central Committee (1979:19)." Middayexpress (talk) 22:12, 16 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Again, none of those sources support what you want to write. SDWO took up the cause of FGM when they were formed in 1977 because Ismail persuaded them to do so during their first meeting in March that year. The source for this is Abdalla. She is the best possible source for this. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:26, 16 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I understand your perspective. However, Abdalla writes that "Somali women first voiced their concerns about the practice on the occasion of the establishment of the Somali Women's Democratic Organization (SWDO) in 1977 in Mogadishu." She is speaking there in the plural about the SWDO women generally, not in the singular about Ismail alone. Another thing is that the SWDO apparently already existed as an entity prior to 1977; it appears that the latter date is when the organization came of age. From the UNDP/ILO: : "Of significance were the major institutional developments implemented by the government. A special body -- the Somali Women's Democratic Organisation (SWDO) -- was created in 1971. Initially, it was part of the President's Office, but later, in 1972, it became a separate body, still linked to the party. Among its aims are the safe-guarding of women's interests, the promotion of their equality and full political awareness as well as participation in social, political and economic life." Middayexpress (talk) 00:00, 17 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Can you please address this, where Abdalla makes it clear that this originated with Ismail? "Ismail presented this new theme to the workshop participants. Ismail insisted that issues pertaining to reproductive health should address the health consequences of FC ... The Central Committee of SWDO agreed to Ismail's proposal, although with caution that no one could foresee what the reaction of women delegates would be. This initiative was the first breakthrough ..." SlimVirgin (talk) 00:18, 17 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Abdalla's assertion that "Somali women first voiced their concerns about the practice on the occasion of the establishment of the Somali Women's Democratic Organization (SWDO) in 1977 in Mogadishu" is a general, plural allusion to the SWDO delegates. She also indicates that "a workshop was organized for women delegates from all the regions of the country[...] reproductive health was among the topics addressed", which in turn is an allusion to the SWDO's Central Committee. Only then does Abdalla state that Ismail "presented this new theme to the workshop participants"; note that she doesn't say that Ismail alone developed it. Similarly, when Abdalla writes that "this initiative was the first breakthrough for women to speak openly of this practice", she is referring to public discussion only. She is not talking about private discussion of FGM (which was already relatively common, particularly among local intellectuals), much less actual anti-FGM campaigning. The fact is, it's Abdalla herself who initiated the actual first anti-FGM campaign in Somalia. The Sudanese anthropologist and FGM specialist Rogaia Mustafa Abusharaf thus notes that "Abdalla initiated the first campaign to combat the practice of female genital mutilation in Somalia" . This is Raqiya Haji Dualeh Abdalla, by the way. Middayexpress (talk) 17:46, 17 August 2014 (UTC)


 * No, Abdalla makes clear that Ismail persuaded SWDO to adopt FGM as an issue, along with their other reproductive health concerns:


 * "Ismail insisted that issues pertaining to reproductive health should address the health consequences of FC, which was a persistent problem that affected almost all Somali women. Women delegates showed a keen interest in the practice as an issue of great concern to them. The Central Committee of SWDO agreed to Ismail's proposal, although with caution that no one could foresee what the reaction of women delegates would be."


 * Note: Ismail's proposal.


 * First you said we could mention Ismail only if we prioritize a current Somalia campaigner. Now you're saying that Abdalla was the first person to speak out against FGM, even though Abdalla herself gives credit to Ismail. The one constant is that you don't want us to highlight Ismail. You've removed her FGM work from her BLP too. It feels as though there's something political standing in the way of content. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:16, 17 August 2014 (UTC)


 * What I said was that it made more sense to prioritize Hodan Ahmed since she is Somalia's current primary anti-FGM campaigner. But you insisted that the section was reserved for early campaigners, during the 1970s. I obviously never said that Ahmed was a pioneer then (she is a young woman; she was probably not even born in 1977). I did, though, indicate that Raqiya Haji Dualeh Abdalla was the primary campaigner during that period, and that Ahmed is today following in her footsteps. I then demonstrated this with various quotes, including one from the Sudanese anthropologist and FGM specialist Rogaia Mustafa Abusharaf ("Abdalla initiated the first campaign to combat the practice of female genital mutilation in Somalia" ). Basically, I think it boils down to you and I reading the passage by Abdalla differently. Note that the Abusharaf quote above indicating that it was Abdalla herself who initiated the first anti-FGM campaign is from the same book. Middayexpress (talk) 20:27, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Prevalence image
SlimVirgin uploaded File:FGM in Africa with names (1).jpg which, like File:FGM in Africa.svg which it is based on, has a couple of incorrectly colored countries, and which shows Africa only. As an experiment, I created the svg version shown. As an svg file, it can be scaled without distortion, and is easier to edit. I couldn't decide whether to do what the UNICEF 2013 diagram does and show the name of every listed country. I uploaded what I've done for opinions—I can remove names, or position them with more care and, where needed, add a line from the name to the country. Is this wanted? What changes are needed? Johnuniq (talk) 11:37, 17 August 2014 (UTC)


 * That looks great, John, thank you! I tried to remove the three countries that had been coloured in wrongly but couldn't get it to work. Adding lines from the outlying names to point to the countries would be excellent. Maybe add Guinea and Côte D'Ivoire to the map itself? SlimVirgin (talk) 16:32, 17 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Looks pretty good. A few thin lines from Gambia, Guinea, etc. to their respective territories indeed might help disambiguate their geographical location. Middayexpress (talk) 17:47, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, I think it's done! If anyone wants changes, let me know because it's pretty easy (now that I've worked it out!). Johnuniq (talk) 07:40, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I just learned an amazing trick: Special:Filepath/Africa geography political map.jpg If the link to that map is still wanted in the article, that should be used to replace the external link (and it's probably more stable for long term use). Johnuniq (talk) 11:07, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks, John, your map looks good. The detailed map is there for people who don't know the geography (which is probably most readers of this article so I'd like to keep it). I've fixed the link; it's for readers who are viewing it through Mediaviewer. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:06, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Legislation - factual accuracy
In the section "Growth of opposition", it says: "Throughout the 1990s and 2000s African governments banned or restricted it; by 2013 laws had been passed in 22 of the 27 African countries in which it is concentrated.[148] At least 12 African countries had banned it outright as of 2012.[149]"

At reference 148; it says: "The African countries in which FGM is concentrated, and which have passed legislation against it as of 2013 (not including laws passed during colonial rule; an asterisk indicates a total ban, as of 2012) [...] "

that implies that the countries without asterisk do not completely outlaw it (only restrict it), but on what source is this based for each country? The source above says: "At least 12 African countries had banned it outright as of 2012".

Take only the example of Benin, it does not have an asterisk, but several sources state that there is a complete ban there; eg:
 * "Law passed in 3rd March 2003 banning all forms of FGM."
 * "Law passed in 3rd March 2003 banning all forms of FGM: Law no. 2003-03 on the Repression of the Practice of FGM in the Republic of Benin"
 * : Law on repression of the practice of Female Genital Mutilation (FGM), 2003
 * Article 1:

The purpose of this law is to outlaw female genital mutilation in the Republic of Benin.
 * Article 2:

All types of female genital mutilation performed by anyone, in whatever capacity, are prohibited.
 * Article 4:

Any person who performs female genital mutilation of any form whatsoever, shall be punished by imprisonment of six (06) months and three (03) years and a fine of one hundred thousand (100,000) to two million (2,000,000) francs.


 * Very much care should be taken when dealing with legal issues.2A02:2F0A:507F:FFFF:0:0:BC19:1A0E (talk) 10:18, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The situation is confusing, because the media, academics and some aid agencies use terms loosely. UNICEF 2013 (p. 9), for example, mixes up countries where it's banned with countries where it's only barely restricted (e.g. Mauritania). The meaning of "ban" is fluid too: in the United States and Canada, it's only banned from being performed on minors; in the UK it's banned from being performed on adults too. So I've had real difficulty finding out where in Africa it is completely banned. I've made clearer that the African countries listed as having banned it are according to the UNICEF–UNFPA 2012 annual report, p. 12.


 * Ideally a Wikipedian would read every single piece of legislation, create Female genital mutilation legislation and keep it updated. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:27, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I've looked at UNICEF–UNFPA 2012 annual report. It reads: "Table 2 below captures the progress made on legislation against FGM/C in a number of Joint Programme countries." In that table there are several (15) countries listed, all of which - with the exception of Gambia, Mauritania and Sudan - are listed as having bans. But other countries are not addressed in that table, so nothing can be assumed about them from that report.


 * Going through the laws of the 27 African countries where it's concentrated can be done - but requires time and patience. There are several sources that list current legislation on FGM - the sources should be compared with each other, and then the original laws should be searched on the Internet; usually they can be found quite easily. Here is also another source: . 2A02:2F0A:507F:FFFF:0:0:BC19:1A0E (talk) 16:45, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you, that's a helpful resource. As you say, it's a question of someone finding the time (there are lots of other things in this article that need to be checked), and it would make more sense for a dedicated daughter article, or for Prevalence of female genital mutilation by country‎. As things stand, I've removed the "at least 12 countries" language, and the footnote makes clear that the countries with an asterisk are those that have banned it according to the 2012 UNICEF-UNFPA report. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:37, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * On Mauritania - some sources list it as having no ban. This source says: "A government decree bans medicalization of FGM but it has not been adhered to".

But this is contradicted by:

Law, in French:

''MAURITANIA. Ordonnance n°2005-015 portant protection pénale de l’enfant''

''Article 12. - Le fait de porter atteinte ou de tenter de porter atteinte à l'organe génital d'un enfant de sexe féminin, par infibulation, insensibilisation ou par tout autre moyen est puni d'un à trois ans d'emprisonnement et d'une amende de 120.000 à 300.000 ouguiyas lorsqu'il en a résulté un préjudice pour celui-ci.''

La peine est portée à quatre ans d'emprisonnement et à une amende de 160.000 à 300.000 ouguiyas lorsque l'auteur de l'infraction relève du corps médical ou paramédical


 * Translation:


 * MAURITANIA. Ordinance No. 2005-015 on judicial child protection

Article 12 - The act of violating or attempting to violate the genitalia of a female child, by infibulation, desensitization or by any other means shall be punished by one to three years in prison and a fine of 120,000 to 300,000 UM if it has resulted in damage to it.

The penalty is increased to four years' imprisonment and a fine of 160,000 to 300,000 UM when the perpetrator of the offense is a medical or paramedical professional


 * According to this, if the girl is under 18, it can be punished even if not done by medical staff, if it's medicalized the penalty is increased.2A02:2F0A:507F:FFFF:0:0:BC19:1A0E (talk) 17:23, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * You're experiencing a taste of what I mean (and we can't use personal websites). Ideally we need one authoritative source that cites its sources and explains its terms, so that we're not engaged in potentially inconsistent original research based on sources that don't understand the complexity. I don't think such a source exists, but I will ask around. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:40, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I have found more on Mauritania: it's from a CEDAW Shadow Report (I agree on original research, I'm just pointing out this on the talk page).

At page 26 the report reads ''Les MGF sont depuis janvier 2006 interdites et condamnées par la loi mauritanienne. L’article 12 de l’ordonnance n° 2005-015 portant protection pénale de l’enfant statue sur la pratique de l’excision (...)


 * Translation:

"FGM is banned and punished since January 2006 under Mauritanian law. Section 12 of Ordinance No. 2005-015 on judicial child protection protects the child from the practice of female circumcision (...)"


 * I think personally that the article should stick to something like "FGM has been criminalized or restricted in most countries where it is concentrated" because most sources do support this. Perhaps detailed information on specific countries should be avoided altogether.2A02:2F0A:507F:FFFF:0:0:BC19:1A0E (talk) 18:04, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * According to UNICEF 2013, p. 8 (I believe), Mauritania prohibits government facilities or medical personnel from conducting it. That's very far short of a ban, but Mauritania is included in the lists. That's why I introduced the asterisks for countries where we could be reasonably sure of a ban. I'm tempted to remove them, as you suggest, but it would leave us giving the impression that there are bans when there aren't (not even close). And of course lack of enforcement is another issue. The only country I can find that's clearly enforcing the law is France. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:14, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is not clear what criteria is used by UNICEF for listing those countries. Talking about prohibition of government facilities or medical personnel from conducting FGM, apparently Mali also has this (at least according to this source which says about Mali: "A Ministerial Decree against medicalization of FGM forbids doctors and other health personnel from circumcising girls. Yet medical personnel have not stopped FGM). But Mali is apparently not listed by UNICEF. About enforcement, the CEDAW Shadow Report on Mauritania says that the law is not well known by the public or judges; and is not used. (the text of the law is cited in the CEDAW Shadow Report report - it's the same text I cited above; there is no need for it to be performed by medical staff, it is illegal anyway, medicalization of procedure is an aggravating factor in punishment - but this law applies only to girls, not adult women). - pp 26.


 * With regard to asterisks - it's indeed important that the impression should not be that all these countries have a complete ban; but also it shouldn't be implied that those countries without an asterisk are necessarily countries without a complete ban. Also, if there isn't a complete ban, then what is there instead - someone reading this article might ask. A "partial ban" ? - a ban only for girls under 18? a ban only by medical staff? a ban only on certain types of procedures? These are questions that one would ask reading this article. When one sees the word "restricted" used about laws on FGM, one might ask: what exactly is "a law which restricts FGM"? 2A02:2F0A:508F:FFFF:0:0:BC1B:459E (talk) 19:16, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's a mess, and I take your point about not implying there is no ban when there might be (I added to the footnote that the asterisk list might not be exhaustive).


 * Even countries with relatively clear legislation, such as the UK, have loopholes – e.g. when needed for physical or mental health, except that "in assessing a girl's mental health, no account is taken of any belief that the operation is needed as a matter of custom or ritual." (Odd and annoying that the law uses "girls" to refer to women too.) But it's hard to imagine why someone might need it for mental health, if her beliefs about her identity as a member of a certain group are not to be taken into account. It makes it a legal minefield for physicians, and indeed I think we will hear more about that when the physician who was recently charged in the UK stands trial. Basically, we need someone to write an offwiki article about how confusing all this is, so that we can use it as a secondary source. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:58, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Peulh, Fula, and UNICEF source
Under Prevalence there was reference to Peulh which I changed to Fula; User:Johnuniq changed that back, citing the original UNESCO report's usage. I would suggest that unless this is a direct quote, indicated as such, that the English term Fula should be used in this article. Peulh and Peuhl are spelling variations of the French Peul, all of which sometimes appear in English literature about the people who call themselves Fulɓe. There is no reason to use the French terms (unless one needs to quote verbatim a source that uses one of them), and indeed their inevitably inconsistent use in English arguably sets up a false division and confuses readers. The nomenclature for this transnational ethnicity in English is already complex enough, with "Fulani" also used, and the Fula endonym sometimes adapted as "Fulbe." I would suggest using Fula rather than Peulh in the text with either a footnote that the source used the latter or an inline (Peulh) following Fula.--A12n (talk) 11:56, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It's an unusual case—UNICEF 2013 (page numbered 33 which is page 41 of the pdf) says "Peulh" (in the text and in the table with the statistics used in the article). The next page includes "The Peulh (also called Poular, Fula, Fulani, Fulbe) are an ethnic group spread over many countries...", and other pages have mentions (p.101 of the pdf has "Fulani/Peulh"). What you say makes sense, but let's wait and see if SlimVirgin has a view. Johnuniq (talk) 12:19, 24 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I've noticed that UNICEF uses French terms, which has increased the confusion. I'm also never sure whether Wikipedia has them right, so linking may be causing further inaccuracy. I had intended to find time to fix the ones that I could, and remove the ones that I couldn't be sure of. A12n, if you're very familiar with these terms, by all means sort them out and make them consistent. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:41, 24 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you both. It's been my experience that expats in the Francophone states of the region often use the French term when speaking English. I've been there too, and early on (30+ years ago in Togo) wondered if there were a relationship between "Peul" and "Fulani." I was in communication recently with a longtime expat resident in West Africa who did not realize that "Peul language" and "Fulfulde" in Mali were the same thing. Part of the reason is that expat development experts often don't know clearly the transnational distribution of the "Fulɓe" and Fula speakers or the particularities of that group and its language (and usually they don't need that level of knowledge), and have as their point of reference the socio-cultural realities and nomenclature of the country they work in and perhaps one or two neighbor countries. So it's not surprising that some reports and publications in English also use the French term, or as we see with the UNICEF report, one of its variant spellings.


 * That said (though this could be a longer discussion, and has been on H-Net list H-Africa, for instance), I've already been making edits on WP to prioritize the English term "Fula" and provide notes about the French and Fula equivalent terms. The idea being to bring some consistency into the terms used while at the same time providing clarification about other terms. In addition to people using the French term, the trend towards endonyms in academia means the anglicization of the Fula term - "Fulbe" - is also seen. So a novice may legitimately wonder whether Fula, Peul, and Fulbe are indeed three different groups. Then there's "Fulani," which is more commonly heard in English in eastern West Africa (it's borrowed from Hausa). One scholar (David Arnott) once suggested to use it to refer to the people and "Fula" be used for the language, but that convention has never been widely adopted, and is not ideal in English where the ethnonym and language name tend to be the same. One problem with "Fulani" is that it also means "little Fula" in the Manding languages (widely spoken in western West Africa), with a derogatory sense. I've tended to leave references to Fulani where I find them in WP, though perhaps some guideline for use of the two (Fula & Fulani) should be adopted.


 * In the meantime, if it's okay, I'll change "Peulh" to Fula and add a footnote that the source used the French term. BTW, it is of interest that the same ethnic group in neighboring countries appear to show different behavior wrt FGM. There could be various reasons, including variant traditions between subgroups of Fula (there are several, but they are not defined on the basis of English vs. French terms used).--A12n (talk) 12:53, 25 August 2014 (UTC)


 * We have a reference to Fulani in the next sentence ("In Nigeria, which has a national rate of 27 percent, it is practised by the Yoruba, Hausa, Igbo, Ijaw and Kanuri ethnic groups, but not by the Fulani ..."). If Peulh, Fula and Fulani are the same ethnic group, it does raise the question of why it has a high rate in one country but doesn't practice it over the border in another. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:40, 25 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I noted this too, but of course the difference in English/French nomenclature does not define this evident difference in practice wrt FGM. Ethnic groups across countries may have differences even as they maintain a common identity on some level and common endonym. The Fula in Benin are primarily of the Borgu subgroup, whereas in Nigeria there are several subgroups (Borgu, Adamawa, Gombe, Sokoto, and Wodaabe; see table under Fula people), and this may account in part for the difference. In addition, I suspect that any or all of a range of issues like national policies, public education, movements within Islam, and influence of other neighboring ethnic cultures could be factors. Incidence of FGM of course doesn't define "Peulh" vs. "Fulani," nor the reverse, but understanding different practice across borders by the "Fula" (as an accepted English term for the Fulɓe), and among their subgroups (which also are not defined by Europhone nomenclature), may raise potentially interesting and useful questions.--A12n (talk) 15:13, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and made changes, with added explanation in the notes.--A12n (talk) 18:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for doing that, A12n. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:03, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 August 2014
This whole entry downplays the relationship between FGM and Islam. In section 4.1 Religion the sentence "FGM has also been practised by Christian groups, including the Copts in Egypt and Sudan" should be removed or documented. The next sentence acknowledges that Coptic Christians renounce FGM (in contrast to Mohammed, who praised it). Thanks for your attention to this timely matter.

Chinsofelvis (talk) 04:23, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * An edit request is for a precise proposal with specific text. This is a complex subject and it would be best to have a general discussion before an edit request, unless the request is for a simple change. I can't find it at the moment, but I have seen one of the sources in the article support the view that Coptic Christians perform FGM, although the Church has spoken against it. That can be clarified when others comment (probably Mackie 1996 covers it). I doubt there is any source suggesting that Mohammed praised FGM, and the religion section seems to cover the situation well. Johnuniq (talk) 04:48, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

The precise proposal is to remove the undocumented statement in Section 4.1 Religion: "FGM has also been practised by Christian groups, including the Copts in Egypt and Sudan;" If the decision is to leave it in, then such a hugely broad claim should be documented, especially since it is contradicted by the subsequent and documented statement that the Coptic Church opposes FGM. Chinsofelvis (talk) 20:24, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You are correct that the statement must be verified. That will happen in due course, although it is possible that it is already documented with the Mackie 1996 source—we just need a comment from someone who has read that. The Church would not have issued a statement opposing FGM without a reason—and the reason is that there are sources confirming the statement (as I mentioned, I've seen one, although I do not recall where). Thanks for raising this—all factual statements like that must be sourced. Johnuniq (talk) 01:37, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The Copts sentence was sourced to Mackie, but I've removed it because other Christian groups practise it too, and there's no sense in trying to list them all. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:20, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

John, just a note about the barber sentence. I changed it back to "too" to avoid having 2 x "also" in the sentence. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:28, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Fine—I have a niggling doubt about the sentence structure, but I haven't been able to think of an improvement. Johnuniq (talk) 00:14, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

The section is called "Religion" and you now make the undocumented claim that "FGM is also practised by animist groups, particularly in Guinea and Mali, and by Christians, though there is no mention of it in the Bible." Your footnote contradicts the sentence by pointing out that Christians condemn FGM and Christian teaching universally prohibits it, so in what sense does FGM pertain to Christian religion? There are Muslims who eat bacon, but does that really make it fair or honest to claim that eating bacon is a Muslim religious practice? Chinsofelvis (talk) 20:31, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The footnote includes "for Christians, p. 73", and page 73 of the UNICEF 2013 document verifies that FGM is practised by some Christians, as does the sentence concerning Christians in Niger in the sentence immediately following the above quoted text. It's a minor mention in the UNICEF document and in the article, and it is fully documented, so there is no problem. You may be reading too much into the text—people from all religions can generally be found practising all aspects of human behavior from good to bad, and the UNICEF source and this article are simply noting that some Christian groups in Africa perform FGM. Johnuniq (talk) 00:18, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, Johnuniq. Perhaps I have read too much into it as you say. If the point is merely that some who call themselves Christians practice FGM in contradiction of their religion, then I suppose it may be true; some who call themselves Christians also commit adultery and murder and tax fraud. However, if one commits FGM in opposition to Christianity, Christianity is certainly not the "reason" for the behavior. The relevant part of the article is under the heading "Reasons" and the subheading "Religion." In deference to your point, if the intent is merely as you say, that "people from all religions can generally be found practising all aspects of human behavior from good to bad," then it is indeed misleading to make such an irrelevant statement in a discussion of Religious Reasons for FGM. This was exactly my point when I asked "in what sense does FGM pertain to Christian religion?" It is at least ironic that the article begins by crediting Christian missionaries as the first people to condemn the misnomer of "female circumcision," and to rightly describe and renounce the "sexual mutilation of women" in 1929, some 62 years before the World Health Organization adopted the term. For these reasons I believe Marion Scott Stevenson would be shocked and disappointed to see Christianity listed as a "religious reason" for FGM. Clearly the opposite is true. Also, Niger is 99% Muslim, with a Christian population of less than one half of one percent, including expatriates, per WikipediaChinsofelvis (talk) 05:17, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You edited the above an hour ago, but it is not clear what your proposal is. The opening comment refers to Coptic Christians—are you aware that "Copt" no longer appears in the article? What text in the article is a problem? Why? What change is proposed? Johnuniq (talk) 05:32, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ". Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 12:25, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as you have not requested a specific change.

Thanks, I should have been more specific. Proposed edit: Strike the passage "FGM is also practised by animist groups, particularly in Guinea and Mali, and by Christians, though there is no mention of it in the Bible.[108] In Niger, for example, 55 percent of Christian women and girls have experienced FGM compared with two percent of their Muslim counterparts.[109]" Replace with:  "FGM is also practiced by animist groups, particularly in Guinea and Mali.  Christians are by far the world's largest religious group, with 2.18 billion Christians making up roughly one third of the entire population of the planet (Source: http://www.pewforum.org/2011/12/19/global-christianity-exec/).  While there may be some tiny anomalous practice of FGM among cultural groups that self-identify as Christian, there is no support for such practice in Christian Scripture or any generally accepted denomination of Christianity. (Source: Samuel Waje Kunhiyop, ‘’African Christian Ethics’’, Zondervan, 2008, p. 297: "Nowhere in all of Scripture or in any of recorded church history is there even a hint that women were to be circumcised.") Thus, while there may be rare examples of Christians practicing FGM, there is no Christian religious reason for FGM. On the contrary, and as described above, Christian missionaries in the early 20th century were the first to describe FGM as mutilation and to organize opposition against it." Chinsofelvis (talk) 23:50, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi, I've changed that paragraph to:

"FGM is also practised by animist groups, particularly in Guinea and Mali, and by small numbers of Christians. In Niger, for example, 55 percent of Christian women and girls have experienced FGM, compared with two percent of their Muslim counterparts. There is no mention of FGM in the Bible, and Christian missionaries in Africa were among the first to object to it. The only Jewish group known to have practised it are the Beta Israel of Ethiopia; Judaism requires male circumcision, but does not allow FGM."




 * SlimVirgin (talk) 00:19, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate the edit, SlimVirgin. The passage as edited, however, still makes no sense of how the small, bitterly impoverished, 99% Muslim nation of Niger, half of whose population is under age 16, and with a Christian population of less than half of one percent, as documented above, is an "example" of any Christian reason for FGM. If this tiny minority in Niger is not an anomalous and deliberately misleading description of the 2.18 billion Christians on this planet, then please explain its relevance in a paragraph discussing Christian reasons for FGM. If you cannot show its relevance, then please remove the reference. Thanks Chinsofelvis (talk) 07:58, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The most important point is that the UNICEF 2013 document is authoritative for this topic, and it records the information as shown in the article. If UNICEF think it's relevant, then it is relevant—our opinions on whether it is significant are not particularly important. Also, it is relevant that some people who are regarded as Christians for all other purposes perform FGM, despite it being comparatively a very small group. As mentioned above, "Christians also commit adultery and murder and tax fraud", so the fact that a small group of Christians perform FGM should not be regarded as an affront. Johnuniq (talk) 09:39, 4 September 2014 (UTC)


 * That sentence illustrates how FGM isn't a religious practice – and isn't exclusively tied to Islam – in that in Niger most Christian women have experienced FGM (55 percent), but almost no Muslims have (under two percent). It's also practised by Christians in Nigeria – the Igbo practise it and are largely Christian (I've removed "small numbers"). Add that Jews in Ethiopia practised it, but not other Jews, and it becomes clear that this is an issue of geography and traditional ethnic practices, not religion. Certain religions were adopted, and traditional practices continued in apparent harmony with, or despite, the local religious teachings. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:07, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, even your own last sentence seems to contradict the paragraph in question: if FGM is practiced "despite religious teaching" then the religious teaching is certainly not a religious "reason" for FGM. Also, I believe you are standing the data on its head. Christian missionaries have opposed FGM in Africa for at least the past century, and there is absolutely zero evidence that Christians have fostered or encouraged FGM in Niger or anywhere else. In fact the contrary is true. But Christianity is cast in a causal relationship with FGM when it is described as a religious reason for FGM. There are Christians in Niger primarily because the country has religious freedom and there is openness to the message of Christianity. "Though Niger is predominantly Muslim, surprising openness to the Gospel exists among some sectors of the population. Thanks to famine relief efforts, many Fulani have opened to the Gospel. There is also encouragement in the outreach to the Tamajaq with a vision to reach the Arab community as well." http://www.sim.org/index.php/country/NE How ironic that Christian work among these culture groups which traditionally practice FGM leads to the assertion that Christianity is somehow a reason for FGM. Does cottage cheese cause obesity since only fat people eat it?? :) Chinsofelvis (talk) 00:55, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't know what the local Christian and Muslim communities in Niger and Nigeria teach about FGM. The point is that these practices are absorbed into the local religious beliefs, or the beliefs into the practices. You began this thread by asking that the article focus more on Islam, but as you can see neither Islam nor Christianity require FGM, and leaders from both communities have spoken out against it. Because the issue is so complicated, this article doesn't say much about it. For anything more detailed, the place to develop it is Religious views on female genital mutilation. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:18, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

The article on Religious Views on Female Genital Mutilation is clear: "The Shafi'i school of Islamic jurisprudence considers female circumcision to be wajib (obligatory).[22] The Hanbali school of Islamic jurisprudence considers female circumcision to be makrumah (honorable) and strongly encouraged, to obligatory.[23] The Maliki school of Islamic jurisprudence considers female circumcision to be sunnah (optional) and preferred.[23] The Hanafi school of Islamic jurisprudence considers female circumcision to be sunnah (preferred).[23]"

On the contrary there is zero justification or support for FGM in Christian Scripture or teaching. But in this article, you made a heading called "Reasons" for FGM, and under that heading you made a sub-heading called "Religion," where you now say that "FGM is also practiced by... Christians." Your only example is Niger, which you fail to mention is 99% Muslim. So even there, at a population of 15.5 million, perhaps 300,000 Muslim women have received FGM compared to perhaps 10,000 women who have converted to Christianity. You also fail to point out that Christianity is practiced by a third of all people on Earth, 2.18 billion people. Thus your "example" is .000004% of the Christian population. And no showing of causality at all. Respectfully, why are you doing this?? Chinsofelvis (talk) 02:05, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


 * That other article could be wrong, so it can't be used in support of anything. It needs to be developed and improved. Niger is not the only example. We could add more about Nigeria, which has a large practising Christian population, but I'd prefer not to expand that section, because the more we say, the more posts like this we attract (from all sides) – we've had other people ask us to minimize the connection to Islam, because most Muslims don't practice FGM. The key point is that FGM is not required by any religion. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:28, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The UNICEF 2013 document is authoritative for this topic, and it records the information shown in the article. Omitting UNICEF's mention of Christianity based on talk-page opinions would not be desirable. Chinsofelvis' concerns should be addressed to UNICEF. Johnuniq (talk) 03:35, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok, Johnuniq, please direct us to where the UNICEF document describes Christianity as a reason for FGM. Thanks Chinsofelvis (talk) 03:58, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


 * ChinsofElvis, I think this is going to be my last response, because you're asking us to go against the key source. That section of our article says that religion is NOT a reason for FGM. In brief, UNICEF 2013, pp. 69, 72 (see article for link):




 * The report then gives more info about who believes what. See p. 73 for table 6.13. If you want more detail, check the original surveys; see footnote on p. 73. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:11, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Language codes
The article contains the following usages of lang. The effect of these is to wrap parameter 2 in a "span lang" tag with parameter 1 as the language code. My guess is that "grc-la" is Ancient Greek with latin1 text, but previewing the article shows Template:ISO 639 name grc-la as a redlink. Is "grc-la" correct? Is the redlink a problem? Johnuniq (talk) 11:16, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * (3 occurrences)
 * (3 occurrences)
 * (3 occurrences)
 * (3 occurrences)

"FGM"
I find the title incredibly insulting, especially compared to the male page on circumcision. Just as theres more than one male kind of circumcision theres more than one female, but to list all of one as something ok and all of one as "mutilation" is such incredible bias its ridiculous, this is some WHO tier propaganda. Why does Wikipedia have them written in such completely different ways? EEEEEE1 (talk) 18:17, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Articles are written to reflect what reliable sources say. If there is any text in the article that you believe is a problem, please explain the issue. What source suggests the title is a problem? See the November 2011 discussion. Johnuniq (talk) 00:09, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Language codes
The article contains the following usages of lang. The effect of these is to wrap parameter 2 in a "span lang" tag with parameter 1 as the language code. My guess is that "grc-la" is Ancient Greek with latin1 text, but previewing the article shows Template:ISO 639 name grc-la as a redlink. Is "grc-la" correct? Is the redlink a problem? Johnuniq (talk) 11:16, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * (3 occurrences)
 * (3 occurrences)
 * (3 occurrences)
 * (3 occurrences)


 * Hi, sorry to take so long to reply to this. I've removed the templates because they don't really add anything. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:50, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Health benefits
The article currently states that there are no known health benefits. How-ever, Fuambai Ahmadu in a review of Female Circumcision: Multicultural Perspectives by Rogaia Mustafa Abusharaf in Studies in Family Planning vol. 40 (2) [Published by: Population Council Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25593953 ] cites Schweder (2007)[ Schweder, Richard A. 2007. “’circumcision’ or ‘Mutilation’? and Other Questions about a Rite in Africa,” New York Times Tierneylab (online) 5 December. http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/05/ circumcision-or-mutilation-and-other-questions-about-a-rite-in-africa/?scp=1&sq=schweder%20tierneylab&st=cse]      and says that one type ("type 3") is associated with a lower perinatal death rate. The Gambian study to which it refers (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/enhanced/doi/10.1046/j.1365-3156.2001.00749.x/) is difficult to interpret statistically because, as the author says, there are problems with the variables that might or might not have causal relationships. In that study, the author seems to give examples of health benefits for cuttng in the text but not in the conclusion (unless I am misreading the article).Kdammers (talk) 09:27, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The article states "FGM has no known health benefits" with source WHO 2008 p. 1. The WHO source states exactly what the article states, so it's pretty hard to dispute. Like all complex issues there are people who have differing views, but my very quick look at the Gambian study you mention did not find anything contradicting "no known health benefits"; further, they say there was a very strong correlation between ethnic group and FGM type in their sample and acknowledged that they had no way to determine whether a health difference was due to the FGM type or the ethnicity. Schweder's statement seems to say that a 2006 study showed no statistically significant differences in health outcomes, although the raw figures for perinatal death rate for women with type 3 was lower than that for uncut women. We would have to examine the 2006 study to determine whether it also had the problem whereby FGM status was closely aligned with ethnicity. Ultimately, however, a Wikipedia article has to rely on secondary sources to interpret data, and the WHO 2008 source is authoritative. Johnuniq (talk) 11:43, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Why do you say the WHJO report is authoritative? A couple of the articles I looked at and cite say the WHO fudged the data.Kdammers (talk) 13:45, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Kdammers, there's a vast literature on FGM in which all kinds of claims are made. The article has to follow the WP:MEDRS guideline for sourcing medical claims. That means for the most part relying on review articles in medical journals and position statements from bodies like the WHO. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:15, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * thank you SlimVirgin. But that doesn't mean that WHO is authoritative; jus tthat it is a valid source.  Some of the stuff I mention and the sources in it also fit the criteria as far as I can tell.Kdammers (talk) 22:07, 27 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Kdammers, I didn't see anything in your post that would comply with MEDRS. I saw a primary source (the Gambia study), and articles by an anthropologist and a journalist. We do briefly address those issues here (final paragraph of "Tolerance versus human rights" section, and Mackie replies to some of it; footnote 186). But bear in mind that Morison is from 2001 and Obermeyer from 1999 and 2003. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:22, 27 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Slimvirgin: I think in an emotionally laden cross-cultural subject such as this that an article by a professional anthropologist (whose Wikipeida article highlights her controversial views on FMG and who has worked in this area) qualifies as "academic and professional" written by experts in the relevant field.  In this case, medicine is not the only relevant field.  In any case, here ("A case–control study on the association between female genital mutilation and sexually transmitted infections in Sudan," by S Elmusharaf, I Elkhidir, S Hoffmann and L Almroth, BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & GynaecologyVolume 113, Issue 4,  pages 469–474, April 2006 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2006.00896.x/full) is a citation of the Gambia study that clearly indicates that the Gambian study  found both adverse and positive health changes due to female genital cutting. Kdammers (talk) 00:23, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I quickly scanned the BJOG article and I think it is very generous to see "positive health changes due to female genital cutting". Is there anything more than "A similar study in Gambia has shown that being circumcised was associated with lower risks of having acquired recent syphilis or chlamydial infection and significantly higher risk of bacterial vaginosis and herpes simplex virus infection (HSV)."? That is saying there was less of one thing and more of another [and were the results due to ethnicity or FGM procedure, as we discussed earlier?]. The conclusion in the BJOG article does not support any claim of a health benefit. Our differing interpretations of this article is exactly why secondary sources are required. Johnuniq (talk) 10:26, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Immigrant communities
the word immigrants arround the world is wrong! How can u be a immigrant within your country! Remove that word! It sounds like a western person wrote this and everyone who is not a western person is a immigrant ?? That's what i understand from reading this.

195.241.241.11 (talk) 18:40, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Immigrant communities can exist with in countries all around the world. If you wish, the source says "immigrant communities in North America and Europe" specifically, so I don't mind changing it to that, but I don't understand your confusion Cannolis (talk) 19:07, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

immigrant communities is wrong. How can u be a immigrant in your own country? Dahay (talk) 18:43, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * see above Cannolis (talk) 19:06, 2 October 2014 (UTC)


 * The phrase "immigrant communities" is commonly used to refer to communities within a country that consist of immigrants. Try putting the phrase into Google. Johnuniq (talk) 22:25, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Ref style
Have reverted these edits that change the citation style. Typically one needs consensus for this first from the majority of those who wrote the article in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:36, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, some of the longer the citations were moved to the end of the article, which can make things easier to read, but the actual citation format was not changed. But, I can see how one could interpret this as a change to the citation style.  I re-did the fixed to the quote boxes and paragraph tags that were mixed in with rest.  Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ (talk)  21:49, 4 October 2014 (UTC)


 * It's worth noting that Frietjes removed the citation bundling, so that we could no longer see which ref referred to which point, added list-refined references, added quote boxes, reduced the font in the block quotes, and added other templates. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:28, 4 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi, I'd reverted these changes, and I'd appreciate it if extensive changes could be discussed first. The article is currently going through peer review and being prepared for FAC. Quite a bit of the formatting will change again (and the new font was too small), and I need the citations to stay as they are, so I can easily find and move them around. I'm also not going to add a template for every paragraph break in the citations. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:58, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * So your issue with the quote boxes is the font size? That can be easily fixed, and last time I checked this was one of only two articles using &lt;p&gt; tags.  How did other articles make it through peer review and FAC without them? Plastikspork ―Œ (talk)  22:00, 4 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Plastikspork, the article is being prepared for FAC, and is currently at peer review. The usual practice at peer review is that people suggest changes, rather than forcing them through, and citation styles aren't changed if the main authors object. Could you explain what the issues are, instead of restoring your changes? Also, why is the formatting in this article suddenly of such interest, and what is wrong with &lt;p&gt; tags? SlimVirgin (talk) 22:12, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't change the citation style, and I have/will outline the accessibility and markup issues in the next section. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ (talk)  22:20, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Accessibility and html markup issues
There are a couple problems Are there any objections to fixing this by (1) changing the lines starting with semicolons with bold markup, and (2) replacing the markup with quote box? An example can be seen [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Female_genital_mutilation&oldid=628261075 here]. Thank you! Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 22:18, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) A line starting with semicolon ';' generates a set of  and  tags which are only appropriate for association lists (e.g., when followed by a line starting with a colon ':').  Not sure why these were changed from the prior bold markup.
 * 2) The quotations not uniformly using quote box or an equivalent method for marking them as quotations with CSS classes.
 * The article is being prepared for FAC, and quite a bit of this will change over the next few days/weeks (e.g. block quotes and images will be moved/removed). So trying to format the current version perfectly is pointless.
 * These style issues are optional. I'd appreciate advice about which formatting works better is which circumstances, but not being forced to work with certain styles by editors who aren't otherwise involved in the article.
 * If you could explain what is wrong with semi-colons (I didn't understand your point 1, though it's a minor issue, so I don't mind), and why you prefer quote boxes, that would be helpful. Also, what is wrong with &lt;p&gt; tags? SlimVirgin (talk) 22:28, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You have to view the HTML source to see differences. For the dl/dt tags, there should be an obvious difference.  For the quote boxes search for 'class="quotebox"'.  The quotations using quote boxes have additional CSS classes.  The outward appearance to the sighted should be nearly identical, but the difference for screen readers (which parse the HTML) is greater.  Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ (talk)  22:34, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, sorry, I don't see what the issues are, Plastikspork. Can you say what the problem is with &lt;p&gt; tags? SlimVirgin (talk) 22:42, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't change any paragraph tags in my last edit. However, as far as paragraph tags go, you have an open tag, &lt;p&gt; and a close tag, &lt;/p&gt;.  These are used to mark the start and end of a paragraph (see HTML elements).  The problem is that frequently they are used instead to mark a wide line break, which is the role of a &lt;br&gt; tag.  The backend MediaWiki software adds these paragraph tags to paragraphs for you (view the HTML source for the page).  Most screen readers are able to jump from paragraph to paragraph with a keyboard shortcut.  The problem with adding them in places that aren't actually paragraphs is that it disrupts the natural ability for the screen reader to jump between paragraphs.  There is a similar problem when you add extra newlines between list items (i.e., lines that start with an asterisk or a colon).  I can dig up more stuff, or we can get more people from WT:ACCESSIBILITY to comment.  Thanks! 22:47, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this. I had always understand that &lt;p&gt; didn't have to be closed. I'll check with a couple of editors that use screenreaders and if it makes a difference to them, I'll start using the template instead. Otherwise I'd prefer to leave them because it's easier to add &lt;p&gt; than a template.
 * does not require an end tag under the right circumstances. --  Gadget850talk 23:21, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * True, but as far as I can tell none of those exceptions apply here :) Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 23:31, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sure we can make a short redirect for this one. Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 23:17, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this. I had always understand that &lt;p&gt; didn't have to be closed. I'll check with a couple of editors that use screenreaders and if it makes a difference to them, I'll start using the template instead. Otherwise I'd prefer to leave them because it's easier to add &lt;p&gt; than a template.
 * does not require an end tag under the right circumstances. --  Gadget850talk 23:21, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * True, but as far as I can tell none of those exceptions apply here :) Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 23:31, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sure we can make a short redirect for this one. Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 23:17, 4 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks, . I had seen an explanation of this somewhere, but couldn't find it. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:32, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * But looking at this, it looks like is at the end of statements, where it should be at the beginning. I would have to look at the CSS styling, but I expect this would cause screen reader issues. I think it creates a block element and it is going to be in the wrong place. --   Gadget850talk 23:37, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * As for quote boxes, sorry if this is a stupid question, but why do we need additional CSS classes here? I searched for class="quotebox", but I'm none the wiser (again, sorry). SlimVirgin (talk) 23:05, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Having the css class in the quote boxes allows editors to customise the appearance of the quotations using his/her own class file (i.e., your common.css). It also can enable quickly navigating between quotes, if the screen reader or browser is configured to do so.  And, it allows for a more uniform presentation of quotations between articles.  Thanks! Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk)  23:17, 4 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I can't see a need to change the appearance, but I'll ask a couple of editors who use screen readers whether it makes a difference to them. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:32, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I frequently use a screen reader and it makes a difference to me. Frietjes (talk) 16:47, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Definition markup
Do not use ; to simply bold a line without defining a value using :. The semicolon and colon are wikimarkup used to create a definition list; these render as <dl ><dt ></dt></dl> and <dd ></dd> respectively. Per the HTML5 specification if you have the definition list <dl ></dl> markup you must have the markup. Thus the semicolon markup should never be used to simply bold a line. This is in common use due to copying, but it is still incorrect. The issue is exacerbated when a editor includes a colon on the line but does not want a definition and ends up wrapping it in nowiki. --  Gadget850talk 23:19, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * agreed, but good luck stopping editors from doing so. Frietjes (talk) 16:47, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Reconstructive surgery
Could one of the regulars here who maintain the page add a section on the increasing use of reconstructive surgery to correct female circumcision procedures? The UN also covers it. Middayexpress (talk) 17:21, 17 October 2014 (UTC)